Remove this Banner Ad

MRP

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beetlebum
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

scon said:
That's it helmets don't afford the necessary protection.
Can still be concussed while wearing one etc etc.Concussion victims from several codes including AFL have worn them in the belief that they were protected from further trauma only to discover it was not the case.As our resident tulip muncher has said all the codes are packing their dacks over future liability.
There has been a lot of international sports research which I think rugby union has been at the forefront of;not too sure about the current state of play.
Click to expand...

Players know the risks when they set foot on the footy ground.....Footballers should have to sign a form that takes away any future litigation.
 
free at last said:
Players know the risks when they set foot on the footy ground.....Footballers should have to sign a form that takes away any future litigation.
Click to expand...
Employers have an obligation to provide a safe workplace. That responsibility can not be abrogated. The game has changed and it wont be changing back, any time soon.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

scon said:
Don't think that sort of paperwork means anything at all.
Click to expand...

Actually, it might. I remember a conversation with a lawyer friend talking to me about this sort of thing. There's a technical name for it which I forget, but basically it encapsulates this idea that, for example, a pro AFL player who goes out and plays the game then ends up with damages like CTE or 'on going knee injury' etc. might not have a defence if they want to litigate because it might be considered a reasonable possibility of the normal conditions of the sport. It's different to, say, if I picked up the same condition because I was asked to drive a particularly violent piece of machinery for my work which would be considered outside of reasonable and normal practice. According to law, there's an implied acceptance of 'reasonable risk' when a player takes up a sport like AFL professionally.

Lawyer experts might be able to fix that up, but that's what this fellow convinced me of.
 
Last edited:
PapaJ said:
Actually, in it might. I remember a conversation with a lawyer friend talking to me about this sort of thing. There's a technical name for it which I forget, but basically it encapsulates this idea that, for example, a pro AFL player who goes out and plays the game then ends up with damages like CTE or 'on going knee injury' etc. might not have a defence if they want to litigate because it might be considered a reasonable possibility of the normal conditions of the sport. It's different to, say, if I picked up the same condition because I was asked to drive a particularly violent piece of machinery for my work which would be considered outside of reasonable and normal practice. According to law, there's an implied acceptance of 'reasonable risk' when a player takes up a sport like AFL professionally.

Lawyer experts might be able to fix that up, but that's what this fellow convinced me of.
Click to expand...


So did this 'friend' get you off?


:D
 
scon said:
That's it helmets don't afford the necessary protection.
Can still be concussed while wearing one etc etc.Concussion victims from several codes including AFL have worn them in the belief that they were protected from further trauma only to discover it was not the case.As our resident tulip muncher has said all the codes are packing their dacks over future liability.
There has been a lot of international sports research which I think rugby union has been at the forefront of;not too sure about the current state of play.
Click to expand...
So Phil Narkle wore that bloody big thing for nothing?

Basil Campbell on the other hand... he can wear whatever he wants! I'm not telling him otherwise...
 
I think I've heard Phil interviewd saying he ended up giving the game away because of the danger of CTE and that he had further concussion subsequent to donning 'the bloody thing'.
Basil wore his so that if someone managed to hit him in the head he wouldn't feel it so much,get annoyed,and kill them.:p
Soccer has long recognised that accidental head clashes are unavoidable.The instantaneous red card awaits pretty much anyone who initiates deliberate and forceful contact with the head,and that brings with it an automatic 3 week suspension;but because they 'kick it with their heads' the accidental clash is an accepted risk.
I'm no lawyer papaj but I think it was the 'Duty of Care' legislation which changed the landscape and shifted the onus of responsibility.
 
Last edited:
I thought appeals were looked at really, really negatively. Almost as if they are insulted by them.

If Viney is still banned after this then at least the rule will get looked at, although I don't think those calling for a free for all will be happy.
 
Tayl0r said:
I thought appeals were looked at really, really negatively. Almost as if they are insulted by them.

If Viney is still banned after this then at least the rule will get looked at, although I don't think those calling for a free for all will be happy.
Click to expand...

well i hope the tribunal panel is changed for the appeal or else it might be awkward :)
 
UFO Tatsu said:
well i hope the tribunal panel is changed for the appeal or else it might be awkward :)
Click to expand...

On second thought that broken bone wouldn't have happened if not for the Viney bump, severe impact. 4 weeks now.

The media would go nuts.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

PapaJ said:
Actually, it might. I remember a conversation with a lawyer friend talking to me about this sort of thing. There's a technical name for it which I forget, but basically it encapsulates this idea that, for example, a pro AFL player who goes out and plays the game then ends up with damages like CTE or 'on going knee injury' etc. might not have a defence if they want to litigate because it might be considered a reasonable possibility of the normal conditions of the sport. It's different to, say, if I picked up the same condition because I was asked to drive a particularly violent piece of machinery for my work which would be considered outside of reasonable and normal practice. According to law, there's an implied acceptance of 'reasonable risk' when a player takes up a sport like AFL professionally.

Lawyer experts might be able to fix that up, but that's what this fellow convinced me of.
Click to expand...

I think he might be referring to 'Obvious Risk'. IMO I don't think it would get up with respect to harm suffered from concussion. Contributory Negligence would be more likely as that is what courts favour.
 
UFO Tatsu said:
well i hope the tribunal panel is changed for the appeal or else it might be awkward :)
Click to expand...

Basil Campbell, Mel Brown, Ron Boucher & Mad Dog Muir.

I heard that the Lonie brothers were back in training to resume their careers, ...........................backing out of contests is now ok.
 
Interesting similiarity between Viney and Fyfe's case.
I think I hear in that 1 week more praises for Fyfe (fair, clean player, outstanding, brownlow contender,....) than I did the entire last year from the media. Now everyone is praising Viney to the same effect :D

Viney's case seem to be gathering support and momentum.
I'm curious what you guys think.
Did we goofed up not contesting for Fyfe in the tribunal (and subsequently appeal)?
 
Last edited:
yoong said:
Interesting similiarity between Viney and Fyfe's case.
I think I hear in that 1 week more praises for Fyfe (fair, clean player, outstanding, brownlow contenter,....) that I did the entire last year from the media. Now everyone is praise Viney to the same effect :D

Viney's case seem to be gathering support and momentum.
I'm curious what you guys think.
Did we goofed up not contesting for Fyfe in the tribunal (and subsequently appeal)?
Click to expand...
If we had the audacity to send it to the tribunal, Fyfe would probably still be suspended :-|
 
With the benefit of perfect hindsight, as much as I hated the Fyfe verdict, I'd suggest we made the right call not to take it to the tribunal, let alone to appeal after that. We beat Essendon and wouldn't have beaten Hawthorn anyway, he got to rest his knee a couple of more weeks, the downside is the carryover points and the poor tribunal record (and the Brownlow).
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

If the AFL bows to the overwhelming and almost unprecedented public pressure and dismiss the penalty for Viney's knock - while in principle i'd agree with it - I would however, be absolutely fkning livid that it took Viney's case for the precedent to be made, all the while people were quite content to have one of the games best in Fyfe fall victim to the games bureaucracies because on that occasion the AFL world accepted it as the final say in the matter.

Either Viney takes his medicine and another ridiculous case fades quietly into obscurity, or... there really is no other option for the AFL to be able to save face.
 
tants said:
Employers have an obligation to provide a safe workplace. That responsibility can not be abrogated. The game has changed and it wont be changing back, any time soon.
Click to expand...

So pro surfers can demand a safe work site by having netting around the competition surf break to stop sharks entering the break.
 
Unlike the risks (and frequency) of concussion, most pro surfers understand the infinitesimally small risk of being attacked by a shark whilst surfing. Also, pro surfers tend to be self employed rather than through an employer. It is still encumbent event organisers to hold the event in a safe venue and to take steps to eliminate unnecessary risks.
 
tants said:
Unlike the risks (and frequency) of concussion, most pro surfers understand the infinitesimally small risk of being attacked by a shark whilst surfing. Also, pro surfers tend to be self employed rather than through an employer. It is still encumbent event organisers to hold the event in a safe venue and to take steps to eliminate unnecessary risks.
Click to expand...

Event insurance will feature a shark clause. Someone pays for it.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom