Eddie's comments about big contracts to mid-20s players. Jordy, Darcy maybe does not augur well?

[Markfs]

They got private backers too.

Also being disenfrachised with AFL was happening with a lot of men prior to covid due to the constant watering down of the physical side of the sport to appease soccer mums and unkown links to cte on some ex players.

The issue for mine is most of these players like willisms played in an era where off the ball hits or deliberate elbows were common. AFL has gone too far and over sanitised it now like incidental head contact if you choose to bump etc.

the soccer moms wont be the ones suing the AFL when ex players are suffering long term effects from concussion. If the league knows the effects and doesnt take action, the lawyers will be at the AFL's door in the not too distant future.

 

[loki04]

the soccer moms wont be the ones suing the AFL when ex players are suffering long term effects from concussion. If the league knows the effects and doesnt take action, the lawyers will be at the AFL's door in the not too distant future.

Not if all reasonable attempts are made to keep it in "fair play" and medically looked after if the do get concussed.
The sport is a contact sport, "bumping" was in the game for over 100 years incidental high contact is just that.. incidental.

Your argument is like saying Boxers and kick boxers could sue their federations... its ridiculous concept.

If you play Aussie rules you know there are risks of being physically hurt.
You play it at your own risk within the rules of the sport.

The NFL was sued for willfully misleading players on effects of repeated head injuries.

AFL only needs to state the possible effects, have quality injury management and rules which stop DELIBERATE head high contact. After that it is play at your own risk and on the player.

There was no need to go overboard snd all but kill the bump, now they are killing the tackle with various forms of a dangerous tackle and next will be marking with knee or foot ( already seen a few of these paid like Howes last year).

 

[Markfs]

Not if all reasonable attempts are made to keep it in "fair play" and medically looked after if the do get concussed.
The sport is a contact sport, "bumping" was in the game for over 100 years incidental high contact is just that.. incidental.

Your argument is like saying Boxers and kick boxers could sue their federations... its ridiculous concept.

If you play Aussie rules you know there are risks of being physically hurt.
You play it at your own risk within the rules of the sport.

The NFL was sued for willfully misleading players on effects of repeated head injuries.

AFL only needs to state the possible effects, have quality injury management and rules which stop DELIBERATE head high contact. After that it is play at your own risk and on the player.

There was no need to go overboard snd all but kill the bump, now they are killing the tackle with various forms of a dangerous tackle and next will be marking with knee or foot ( already seen a few of these paid like Howes last year).

i saw a boxing match over the weekend - undercard of the shawn porter - and it might have been fixed because the younger guy beat an old stager. Anyway, the fight was stopped because the old guy wasnt putting up enough of a fight. He wasn't hurt. It would have been laughed at years ago but the commentators actually agreed with it. Times change.

At any rate, the AFL is the employer - indirectly - of the players. Boxers are independent contractors. Boxers probably also sign waivers. There's a lot of stuff that make the two sports different.

The concept of wilfully misleading has always been a way to sue someone. More recently, knowing something and sitting back and doing nothing is now no longer acceptable. The players might know the risks but they dont have access to the medical data of longterm injuries. You could say buyer beware but I dont think it holds true in a modern court.

I had a mate of mine who had a medical issue which made him fall asleep at work. The HR area wanted a doctor's certificate certifying that his health is being addressed or they wouldnt let him work there. To me, its his life he is risking. Not in the modern world.

 

[loki04]

i saw a boxing match over the weekend - undercard of the shawn porter - and it might have been fixed because the younger guy beat an old stager. Anyway, the fight was stopped because the old guy wasnt putting up enough of a fight. He wasn't hurt. It would have been laughed at years ago but the commentators actually agreed with it. Times change.

At any rate, the AFL is the employer - indirectly - of the players. Boxers are independent contractors. Boxers probably also sign waivers. There's a lot of stuff that make the two sports different.

The concept of wilfully misleading has always been a way to sue someone. More recently, knowing something and sitting back and doing nothing is now no longer acceptable. The players might know the risks but they dont have access to the medical data of longterm injuries. You could say buyer beware but I dont think it holds true in a modern court.

I had a mate of mine who had a medical issue which made him fall asleep at work. The HR area wanted a doctor's certificate certifying that his health is being addressed or they wouldnt let him work there. To me, its his life he is risking. Not in the modern world.

A. The point is a physically contact sport has knowns for injury potential. You do play it at your own risk just like fighter fight at their own risk. The AFL didnt have to go as far as they have gone.

B. Using an office worker thats fatigued as an example of not standing up in court or work place for own risk is laughable.

C. Courts in Australia have often stayed out of sports rulings vs workplace/society. Much like the draft is a restraint of trade yet here we are. Also on field assault etc.

D. So boxers can sign waivers but AFL players can't? Given i suggested it and then you agreed that other contact sports use it. So why the need for over tuning of physical rules?

E. Its been a bloody long time (talking decades) since 1 sided fights werent stopped if the reciepient wasnt fighting back or showing the ability to defend himself. Not sure of relevance other then for you to use it to say "times change".

The AFL did enough with regards to deliberate head high contact, medical changes around concussion and educating players of *potential* risks with out the need to go as far as they have.

 

[Markfs]

A. The point is a physically contact sport has knowns for injury potential. You do play it at your own risk just like fighter fight at their own risk. The AFL didnt have to go as far as they have gone.

B. Using an office worker thats fatigued as an example of not standing up in court or work place for own risk is laughable.

C. Courts in Australia have often stayed out of sports rulings vs workplace/society. Much like the draft is a restraint of trade yet here we are. Also on field assault etc.

D. So boxers can sign waivers but AFL players can't? Given i suggested it and then you agreed that other contact sports use it. So why the need for over tuning of physical rules?

E. Its been a bloody long time (talking decades) since 1 sided fights werent stopped if the reciepient wasnt fighting back or showing the ability to defend himself. Not sure of relevance other then for you to use it to say "times change".

The AFL did enough with regards to deliberate head high contact, medical changes around concussion and educating players of *potential* risks with out the need to go as far as they have.

comparing the legal situation relating to the draft with head injuries is laughable. Using your assessment of the what "is enough" is laughable. Saying that courts have often stayed out of sports as the basis that it wouldnt rule on a claim of brain damage resulting from sport, is laughable. I think i've made a compelling case but I can think of other things that are laughable too.

 

[TradeDraft]

I don't listen to Eddie's Crap

 

[loki04]

comparing the legal situation relating to the draft with head injuries is laughable. Using your assessment of the what "is enough" is laughable. Saying that courts have often stayed out of sports as the basis that it wouldnt rule on a claim of brain damage resulting from sport, is laughable. I think i've made a compelling case but I can think of other things that are laughable too.

In other words you got nothing...

Incidental head contact vs Deliberate contact to head.

AFL would not be held liable for incidental contact especially when its gone about changing deliberate contact laws, medical handling of concussed players and education of potential causes.
If players are also signing waivers this doubles down on it all.
The courts would not intervene here when the AFL has done due diligence.
Both the draft and assaults in sports is comparable because look at what happened to John Greening, if that happened on the street the saints flog would of got years jail. Get it?

The NFL is an entirely different kettle of fish for starters usa has culture of sueing and they are getting done for with holding findings around cte.
Ie they knew the studies but lied about it to players taking away their choice in whether they were willing to proceed with a career or not.

 

[Markfs]

In other words you got nothing...

Incidental head contact vs Deliberate contact to head.

AFL would not be held liable for incidental contact especially when its gone about changing deliberate contact laws, medical handling of concussed players and education of potential causes.
If players are also signing waivers this doubles down on it all.
The courts would not intervene here when the AFL has done due diligence.
Both the draft and assaults in sports is comparable because look at what happened to John Greening, if that happened on the street the saints flog would of got years jail. Get it?

The NFL is an entirely different kettle of fish for starters usa has culture of sueing and they are getting done for with holding findings around cte.
Ie they knew the studies but lied about it to players taking away their choice in whether they were willing to proceed with a career or not.

Here's a view from the 21st century by someone with a medical background. It's not your opinion so it isnt valid in a court of law, but others might find it as an indication that public opinion is changing.

Football violence is a crime | The Spectator Australia

It's time to stop pretending in Australia in the twenty-first century that an assault on the football field is anything other than a criminal act. No, I'm not speaking about a bone-crunching tackle in…

www.spectator.com.au

We can end it there. I dont want to say anymore. I'm a bit bored with it. Nice staunch support of a bygone era. Well done.

 

[loki04]

Here's a view from the 21st century by someone with a medical background. It's not your opinion so it isnt valid in a court of law, but others might find it as an indication that public opinion is changing.

Football violence is a crime | The Spectator Australia

It's time to stop pretending in Australia in the twenty-first century that an assault on the football field is anything other than a criminal act. No, I'm not speaking about a bone-crunching tackle in…

www.spectator.com.au

We can end it there. I dont want to say anymore. I'm a bit bored with it. Nice staunch support of a bygone era. Well done.

You cant comprehend whats being discussed obviously. Well done.

I never said i want to see on field violence rather the courts allow the governing sporting bodies deal with it.
But I can understand how this concept confuses you...

 

[sideswipe]

In other words you got nothing...

Incidental head contact vs Deliberate contact to head.

AFL would not be held liable for incidental contact especially when its gone about changing deliberate contact laws, medical handling of concussed players and education of potential causes.
If players are also signing waivers this doubles down on it all.
The courts would not intervene here when the AFL has done due diligence.
Both the draft and assaults in sports is comparable because look at what happened to John Greening, if that happened on the street the saints flog would of got years jail. Get it?

The NFL is an entirely different kettle of fish for starters usa has culture of sueing and they are getting done for with holding findings around cte.
Ie they knew the studies but lied about it to players taking away their choice in whether they were willing to proceed with a career or not.

Hmmmm, a little learning is a dangerous thing. Your certainty on the above is a little misplaced. Tis very difficult for a party, especially one in the stronger negotiating position, to “contract out” a duty of care. So you can forget your “waivers”. They don’t really work that well.

As for your Greening/O’Dea jail example, you are confusing criminal and civil matters.

With the way research on CTE is developing, don’t be surprised if contact sports keep on being “diluted” down.

Codes can’t simply say, “we told you it was dangerous, you knew the risks, tough”. It is a developing area.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[The Dawes]

just wanted to say kudos to the OP for using the phrase augur well.

 

[loki04]

Hmmmm, a little learning is a dangerous thing. Your certainty on the above is a little misplaced. Tis very difficult for a party, especially one in the stronger negotiating position, to “contract out” a duty of care. So you can forget your “waivers”. They don’t really work that well.

As for your Greening/O’Dea jail example, you are confusing criminal and civil matters.

With the way research on CTE is developing, don’t be surprised if contact sports keep on being “diluted” down.

Codes can’t simply say, “we told you it was dangerous, you knew the risks, tough”. It is a developing area.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Thanks for the reply given your working background.

A few genuine questions if i may :

So where does MMA, Kickboxing and Boxing stand?

How do they get away with it yet throw a ball in there and only 1/100 amount of head traumas (if ya lucky) in AFL?
Even NFL has repeated head trauma 1200 ish vs AFL a player may get hit a few times a game with the rare big hit once a year or less.

If the AFL has put in place better medical practrices, rule changes around deliberate contact (as opposed to incidental contact that we have now) and have educated players around cte and head trauma how could they possibly be liable?
Surely this covers them for duty of care given the rules in the sport?
They have made reasonable attempts outside accidental contact to stop high hits.


My greening example is used to show courts dont get involved in australia for these types of things. You can argue its civil vs criminal but really its a joke because both are assault and not part of the laws of either society or the sport.

I believe there has been an over reaction and that includes legal eagles, you cant have laws for some contact sports and not others. And you cant compare NFL much more unique case to our sports and the cases are around not the damage but the hiding of medical studies around cte iirc.

 

[sideswipe]

Thanks for the reply given your working background.

A few genuine questions if i may :

So where does MMA, Kickboxing and Boxing stand?

How do they get away with it yet throw a ball in there and only 1/100 amount of head traumas (if ya lucky) in AFL?
Even NFL has repeated head trauma 1200 ish vs AFL a player may get hit a few times a game with the rare big hit once a year or less.

If the AFL has put in place better medical practrices, rule changes around deliberate contact (as opposed to incidental contact that we have now) and have educated players around cte and head trauma how could they possibly be liable?
Surely this covers them for duty of care given the rules in the sport?
They have made reasonable attempts outside accidental contact to stop high hits.


My greening example is used to show courts dont get involved in australia for these types of things. You can argue its civil vs criminal but really its a joke because both are assault and not part of the laws of either society or the sport.

I believe there has been an over reaction and that includes legal eagles, you cant have laws for some contact sports and not others. And you cant compare NFL much more unique case to our sports.

But courts have gotten involved in sports injuries, esp. where the action was "outside" the rules - Leigh Matthews/Neville Bruns is the most notorious example.

If you want to go deep on the voluntary assumption of risk in sport, try this on. It is a deep area.

https://foleys.com.au/resources/Voluntary%20Assumption%20of%20Risk_15Oct2015.pdf

 

[loki04]

But courts have gotten involved in sports injuries, esp. where the action was "outside" the rules - Leigh Matthews/Neville Bruns is the most notorious example.

If you want to go deep on the voluntary assumption of risk in sport, try this on. It is a deep area.

https://foleys.com.au/resources/Voluntary%20Assumption%20of%20Risk_15Oct2015.pdf

It is very rare and usually player driven when it happens.
Those same judges and police sit st home watch it on tv 99% of the time do nothing.

Anyway what my overall point is the AFL imo fuffills its duty of care by removing and outlawing head high contact, changing medical practices around concussion and have educated players on the risks.
Outside that the individual chooses to play the sport.

The way the AFL have headed whereby incidental head contact gets you suspened is uneccessary. Any decent lawyer would quash it and most sane judges would be hard pressed to find fault and culpability.

The NFL themselves are getting sued for misleading players around cte causes not the actual physical injury. They hid the findings and did nothing to try prevent or educate on it.

The AFL arent comparable.