- Joined
- Sep 10, 2004
- Posts
- 42,619
- Reaction score
- 79,470
- Location
- Adelaide
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Minnesota Vikings
Why is the AFL so hyper-focused on concussion lawsuits that it’s suspending players for accidental head injuries from basic tackles, while leagues like the NRL and NFL haven’t radically changed their rules despite facing similar legal pressures?
The AFL seems to be bending over backwards to show it’s “doing something about head injuries” even when an incident clearly wasn’t intentional. Players are getting suspended for split-second decisions in a contact sport - it’s not like they’re swinging punches. Meanwhile, the NRL is played largely the same, and the NFL, with its billion-dollar concussion settlements, has tweaked protocols but not the core rules of the game. Are those leagues just more confident in their legal defenses? Or are the AFL's finances not as good as everyone thinks that a lawsuit would bankrupt them?
The AFL’s overcorrection needs to be clarified beyond "Oh it's because of potential lawsuits". It’s starting to look less like a contact sport and more like a legal liability management exercise.
The AFL seems to be bending over backwards to show it’s “doing something about head injuries” even when an incident clearly wasn’t intentional. Players are getting suspended for split-second decisions in a contact sport - it’s not like they’re swinging punches. Meanwhile, the NRL is played largely the same, and the NFL, with its billion-dollar concussion settlements, has tweaked protocols but not the core rules of the game. Are those leagues just more confident in their legal defenses? Or are the AFL's finances not as good as everyone thinks that a lawsuit would bankrupt them?
The AFL’s overcorrection needs to be clarified beyond "Oh it's because of potential lawsuits". It’s starting to look less like a contact sport and more like a legal liability management exercise.
