Player Watch Nathan Murphy (Retired 2024)

Remove this Banner Ad

99.9% of Bigfooty opinions are made without the full information available, sorry to tell you.

When the current protocols allow guys like Paddy McCartin to continue playing, they're worth criticism, how do you not understand that?

Everyone knows in 10 years time the current concussion protocols will be seen as stupid and people will be wondering "how on earth did we allow this?"

So what protocols should we go with - not sure that the infallible Kappa vibe can be rolled it to act in real time at all AFL grounds.
 
Are you saying I can't have an opinion on medical issues because I'm not a doctor?

Or just that doctors are never wrong?

Just want to clear that up, clearly you have a strong logical argument.
I’m all for diversity of opinion, but farts in the wind hold more weight than this!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Anyway, I think with Murphy having just returned from holidays & having plenty of time to think about his future, a decision on his career would be imminent, perhaps this week..?

I'm sure he'd want the club to know before the draft period commences.
Think it is less about Murphy making the call and more about the AFL concussion panel coming up with a recommendation following an assessment? Haven't seen anything on whether or not an assessment has been made - but I guess that would be kept confidential until a recommendation surfaces.
 
The individual has rights in decisions like these. I can see a situation where players are stopped from playing when they are aware of the risks and are willing to take them. You only have to think back to the covid lockdown to realise that while some people were safer being locked away in their homes, they were negatively affected by that protection in other ways.

The fact is that the current testing regime can only do so much. Murphy's call on not being able to continue playing in the grand final is something that should be expected from a player. I read yesterday that Jonathon Brown got 20 concussions and returned to the field on many occasions. Obviously, there weren't tests in those days and he didnt know the risks, but players or their advocates need to make their own decisions and not leave it to an AFL body to make them for them.

Personally, I'd employ swipey to draw up a lock-tight contract that every player has to sign that gives them the ultimate responsibility for whether they play or not. It would stop them for suing the league in the future, and reassure other players that they're not playing with brittle goods. Everyone is trying to do the best for the players with the current information. If the League knows that it might be sued in the future, it might stop players like murphy playing simply because it doesnt want to wear the risk of future litigation.

While as a supporter I hope murphy continues, I also think that by retiring now, he might assist other players in the future in being given a choice to continue to play the game in marginal circumstances.
 
The individual has rights in decisions like these. I can see a situation where players are stopped from playing when they are aware of the risks and are willing to take them. You only have to think back to the covid lockdown to realise that while some people were safer being locked away in their homes, they were negatively affected by that protection in other ways.

The fact is that the current testing regime can only do so much. Murphy's call on not being able to continue playing in the grand final is something that should be expected from a player. I read yesterday that Jonathon Brown got 20 concussions and returned to the field on many occasions. Obviously, there weren't tests in those days and he didnt know the risks, but players or their advocates need to make their own decisions and not leave it to an AFL body to make them for them.

Personally, I'd employ swipey to draw up a lock-tight contract that every player has to sign that gives them the ultimate responsibility for whether they play or not. It would stop them for suing the league in the future, and reassure other players that they're not playing with brittle goods. Everyone is trying to do the best for the players with the current information. If the League knows that it might be sued in the future, it might stop players like murphy playing simply because it doesnt want to wear the risk of future litigation.

While as a supporter I hope murphy continues, I also think that by retiring now, he might assist other players in the future in being given a choice to continue to play the game in marginal circumstances.
Firstly, your choice of legal representation is flawed. Secondly, there is a bit of a principle that one cannot simply "contract away" one's duty of care. It's not that simple. Especially when, if I understand your thinking, the player can't participate without signing this magical contract.
 
Think it is less about Murphy making the call and more about the AFL concussion panel coming up with a recommendation following an assessment? Haven't seen anything on whether or not an assessment has been made - but I guess that would be kept confidential until a recommendation surfaces.
All true. But he could also just make the decision himself, regardless of any recommendation. He knows the concussion he suffered during the GF was the 10th time that he has been concussed in his footy career including from his junior days.
 
I'm not sure that I like the dump on a poster here, just because he has an opinion on a medical issue.
The old saying "people in glass houses." I would suggest most posters in this place would have had an opinion on some sort of medical situation, be it soft tissue, tears, strains, sprains, fractures, breaks etc.
An opinion is just that, an opinion only.
That's my opinion anyway.
 
Hope he retires

Regardless of the sport… someone with 10 plus concussions shouldn’t play any more contact sport 🤷‍♂️

Furthermore from a team player point of view… if I were him I wouldn’t want to put the team in situations where they are compromised due to being subbed out again

A key defender down… things could’ve gone especially bad on GF day
 
Firstly, your choice of legal representation is flawed. Secondly, there is a bit of a principle that one cannot simply "contract away" one's duty of care. It's not that simple. Especially when, if I understand your thinking, the player can't participate without signing this magical contract.

I trust you swipey to write the legislation.

I understand your point about not contracting away but it's a judge made principle. It can be modified by legislation. Also, signing a document in 2023 that recognises that everything has been done to provide a player with information to make a decision, should mitigate a court payout in 2040. The individual right to do what he or she wants to do isnt snuffed out by an organisation's duty of care. In fact, if I remember correctly, most OHS legislation is written with the duty of care requiring the owner/employer to do what is reasonable. I think getting a player to sign a document meets that requirement. Many firms require their employees to sign off on policies. I wouldnt be surprised if mining companies do this in the area of OHS.

In the end, I think we all dont want the woke world stop players taking decisions that might compromise their health ias long as they have the information to make that assessment - at least the best info possible. I have a feeling and I wouldnt be surprised if the AFL start going beyond making recommendations to players, to actually denying them a right to register as a player.
 
Hope he retires

Regardless of the sport… someone with 10 plus concussions shouldn’t play any more contact sport 🤷‍♂️

Furthermore from a team player point of view… if I were him I wouldn’t want to put the team in situations where they are compromised due to being subbed out again

A key defender down… things could’ve gone especially bad on GF day
I firmly hope he doesn't retire. If it ends up a 50/50 affair, I hope he takes the risk and continues to play. The team has only been compromised once or twice a year by him being subbed out, and that 'compromise' applies to a variety of injuries that require a player to leave the field early. You all want to make the decision for him before he has even been tested. Just wait for the verdict then for Murphy to make the choice himself if he is in a position to make one.
 
I trust you swipey to write the legislation.

I understand your point about not contracting away but it's a judge made principle. It can be modified by legislation. Also, signing a document in 2023 that recognises that everything has been done to provide a player with information to make a decision, should mitigate a court payout in 2040. The individual right to do what he or she wants to do isnt snuffed out by an organisation's duty of care. In fact, if I remember correctly, most OHS legislation is written with the duty of care requiring the owner/employer to do what is reasonable. I think getting a player to sign a document meets that requirement. Many firms require their employees to sign off on policies. I wouldnt be surprised if mining companies do this in the area of OHS.

In the end, I think we all dont want the woke world stop players taking decisions that might compromise their health ias long as they have the information to make that assessment - at least the best info possible. I have a feeling and I wouldnt be surprised if the AFL start going beyond making recommendations to players, to actually denying them a right to register as a player.
This is too big a topic to address on BF - suffice to say volenti non fit injuria is a thing on one side, but so is the other side that you can't contract away your duty of care. If it was simple, there wouldn't be court cases.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

This is too big a topic to address on BF - suffice to say volenti non fit injuria is a thing on one side, but so is the other side that you can't contract away your duty of care. If it was simple, there wouldn't be court cases.

You're so imperious when you use your latin...
 
I firmly hope he doesn't retire. If it ends up a 50/50 affair, I hope he takes the risk and continues to play. The team has only been compromised once or twice a year by him being subbed out, and that 'compromise' applies to a variety of injuries that require a player to leave the field early. You all want to make the decision for him before he has even been tested. Just wait for the verdict then for Murphy to make the choice himself if he is in a position to make one.

Fair points except to say… most soft tissue injuries had to a player can simply recover from and that’s it

Or if there is propensity for it… a player can modify training, focus especially on an area, get regular treatment etc to greatly reduce re-occurrence.., think Moore’s hamstrings

Concussion doesn’t afford those treatments or strategies

McCartin shows a concussion prone player might get a good run at it without a concussion… but eventually, inevitably at AFL level such players will cop one again

…especially the way Murphy plays

If he plays on, the clock is ticking before he gets another

So you can’t go crook at people putting his welfare first. Whether it’s the average punter, the club, his family or the AFL.

Losing Langdon, scharenberg, Dunn to injuries… the pies defence has copped a number of career ending injuries over the last several years but has rejuvenated in time

Pies will find a Murphy replacement. The show will go on
 
Last edited:
Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference here - some of our posting brethren flip between guessing and pontificating....
I am a pontificating pilot.
 
Not really. I am biding my time and leaving the decision to Murphy and the medics. But I would much prefer to watch a team play with Murphy than without him.

Ahh so when you hold a position on this that you want him to play on irrespective of the harm - it’s reasonable

When others hold a contrary position - it’s unreasonable

Got ya 😉
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top