What is a "Duty of Care"?

[Dean3]

Bullshit. You're making it an issue but its not an issue. Nobody with a brain has any problems with a bump being applied in that situation.

The only problem is with the execution of the bump and whether the high contact is actually illegal under the current rules.

No, you are demonstrably wrong.

If Maxwell and McGinnity had met whilst contesting the ball, and there had been an accidental head clash in which McGinnity had broken his jaw, then nobody would have had a problem.

Maxwell made a choice to by-pass the ball in dispute and lay a bump that resulted in a broken jaw.

So the issue is: focus on the ball AND the execution of the bump.

 

[PowerForGood]

The bump was applied so that Maxwell's teammate (Corrie) could get the ball. Getting the ball was the objective - its a team sport, you know.
The only problem is with the execution of the bump and whether the high contact is actually illegal under the current rules.

Good post - this is a good way of looking at it and thanks for bringing it up.

Going past the ball to shepherd/bump should not be stated to the detriment of the person shepherding - he was assisting his teammate to get the ball and the rules expressly allow this action within 5 metres of the ball.

So the question of contact being illegal for this incident should be the same as high contact contesting the ball
- the action is the same (block the opposing player from the ball),
- the intent is the same (aid his team in gaining posession of the ball),
- the opposing player should recognise that entering a zone within 5 metres of the ball means that someone will look to block his path to the ball (as permitted by the rules).

Now, the person blocking has two options
1) to shepherd passively (ie position his body and arms to block the opposing player) or
2) to shepherd actively (ie initiate contact that is intended not just to block the opposing player but to knock him off balance, thus gaining futher advantage for his team).

If you take option 1), then IMO a fair shepherd (elbows in, not jumping off the ground) that results in head high contact could be considered foreseeable but part of the game. The shepherder is showing a "duty of care".

If you take option 2), this leaves the shepherder open to arguments that the head high contact has far greater potential consequences as a result of the extra force applied. The shepherder is not showing a "duty of care".

All of this, of course, is coloured by whether the "bumped" player took reasonable care of themselves entering the contest (ie not going in head down unless over the ball), and any extraneous actions (players slipping, tackled, dragged, tripped, etc).

 

[Pie eyed]

Spot on, it was a legal time to do a bump, the issue is whether he executed it legally. All these commentators who say he did don't seem to understand the rules around head high contact.

The old "everyone is wrong but me" argument hey!

All this will be put to rest tomorrow morning.

 

[Pie eyed]

Cut and paste from the best post that I have seen on this subject, from the Robert Murphy incident last year.

A very good cut and paste and so relevant.

The AFL if it is to be taken on it's rhetoric must now ban all contact.
In fact no going over the white line. Games will now be played via video conference.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

No, you are demonstrably wrong.

If Maxwell and McGinnity had met whilst contesting the ball, and there had been an accidental head clash in which McGinnity had broken his jaw, then nobody would have had a problem.

Maxwell made a choice to by-pass the ball in dispute and lay a bump that resulted in a broken jaw.

So the issue is: focus on the ball AND the execution of the bump.

Its not illegal to bypass the ball and lay a bump (as long as the ball is in the vicinity). Never has been, and I hope it never is.

As I said, its a team sport. Maxwell laid a bump so that his teammate could gather the ball. Its a perfectly valid objective.

The only issue is the execution of the bump and whether or not the clash of heads is Maxwell's fault or an accident.

Making up fake scenarios about what might have happened is just nonsense

 

[greennick]

The old "everyone is wrong but me" argument hey!

All this will be put to rest tomorrow morning.

I am not the only person here arguing my position, there are plenty here with it. I was just pointing out that he is the only Collingwood supporter with both eyes.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

The frustration really is the constant changes to compensate for previous changes.

The head high bump became an issue because of the AFL's over-zealous attempts to have the game free flowing. Once if two players were running from opposite directions towards the ball it was a contest to see who could get lower. A test of courage. The only players that got hurt were those with poor technique. Once umpires saw it as 'diving on the ball' when had blokes running into these contests head first while keeping their feet. 20 years ago that would have been seen as suicide.

Same thing now with the rushed behind. In their never ending quest to make the game like basketball on grass, we changed the kick in rule. A couple of years later we are introducing more rules to compensate for the consequences of the previous decisions.

I very much agree. It's so frustrating to watch. Now we'll have to wait and see what happens as a result of the rushed behind rule, and what rules they bring in to combat that.

Not to get overly technical, but this analogy is seriously flawed.

1) If it is reasonably foreseeable that injury to a person would result from a lack of care to that person, a duty of care is owed.

• For example a road user owes a clear duty of care to other road users, pedestrians, proximate businesses, parked cars, passengers etc.

2) Once a duty is established you need to work out what the appropriate standard of care is. You can have a duty of care, but provided that you have acted as a reasonable person would have in the situation and met the standard owed to the other person, you have committed no breach, regardless of the damage caused. Thus your injury = duty of care not applied is false.

• Eg: A supermarket has a duty to it's customers. In terms of wet, slippery floors the supermarket is held to a standard roughly that a) they appropriately supervise and routinely check for spills and clean them, and b) place signs warning of recently cleaned floors.
• To generalise: a supermarket who's customer who falls on a spill with no signs, no checks, and no system in place has breached their duty of care and not met the standard of care owed, but:
• A person who slips having ignored multiple signs, in a supermarket with good procedures, signs etc will have no recourse as the duty of care has been met, despite any injury!

Also: voluntary assumption of risk, contributory negligence and other fun topics will also modify your incorrect rule that injury = not meeting a duty of care.

A person in a crowd at a cricket game who is injured by a flying ball may will break their skull, but will have no action against a) the batsmen b) bowler c) ground owner d) club e) etc, because of the principle of voluntary assumption of risk.

I know this is a discussion about Football 'duty of care' which may well be a different concept - but your example about real world traffic/police duty of care needed correcting.

Go pies.

I think that's a great explanation of "duty of care" in the real world. I don't know how the AFL choose to apply the term though, as I said, it seems to be a "catch-all" term that they feel they can apply when it suits their purposes.

 

[RustyHawk]

Main Board thread moved to Umpires Board.

 

[Dylz48]

Doesn't apply to umpires however.

yes I know the AFL seem's to think the umpires have diplomatic immunity I'm just saying if lets say collingwood decided to take the maxwell incident to court that is how it would be interpreted

 

[yeah-nah]

I don't want to see picky because I think this is an important point. The act isn't being singled out when it causes injury to the head, its being singled out when contact to the head and even then only when it can be avoided! I guess the arguement is if you play the ball (as long as your not really reackless in doing it) your okay. When you choose to play the man, you have to protect your fellow player and do it safely.

Thats not right according to Anderson. Quote taken from this article:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25074948-5012432,00.html

"Anderson reiterated the AFL's stance on head contact in the act of bumping. "If you've got an opportunity to go for the ball or to tackle, and you elect to bump, that's fine, not a problem. But if in bumping, you get someone in the head and do some damage, then you're held responsible if you had another option."

So in other words if the head clash hadnt done damage, all would have been fine for Maxwell. And I think we both know that if their heads had clashed in a marginally different way, and McGinnity had just got up and dusted himself off with a bit of a lump on the back of his scone, there'd have been no report.

Most bizarre rule in sport that a legal act (a fair bump) which is 'fine, not a problem' according to Anderson, magically becomes illegal if by happenstance someones head gets hurt. Its 2 bob each way. Dont offend the hardcore fan, but placate mum too.

 

[mollyfud]

Thats not right according to Anderson. Quote taken from this article:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25074948-5012432,00.html

"Anderson reiterated the AFL's stance on head contact in the act of bumping. "If you've got an opportunity to go for the ball or to tackle, and you elect to bump, that's fine, not a problem. But if in bumping, you get someone in the head and do some damage, then you're held responsible if you had another option."

So in other words if the head clash hadnt done damage, all would have been fine for Maxwell. And I think we both know that if their heads had clashed in a marginally different way, and McGinnity had just got up and dusted himself off with a bit of a lump on the back of his scone, there'd have been no report.

Most bizarre rule in sport that a legal act (a fair bump) which is 'fine, not a problem' according to Anderson, magically becomes illegal if by happenstance someones head gets hurt. Its 2 bob each way. Dont offend the hardcore fan, but placate mum too.

Last time I looked, AA isn't on the MRP or the tribunal and the rule is in place so his words don't count. Read the rule, there is no mention of injury only of contact.

Last year Buddy bumped a crows play in the head. No damage, got a week reduced due to early plea. So as I have said all along. You are report/cited due to head contact. How badly a player is injured only goes to the serverity factor of the report/charge and therefor is a factor in how many weeks you are offered/given!

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Thanks for your earlier post in which you quoted the rule they're going by, Molly.

Having read that in every which way, I couldn't see a case for Maxwell getting off, to be honest! I guess it depends on how abstractly they apply some of the rules, for instance Maxwell didn't have a realistic alternative to tackle, because McGinnity didn't have the ball. That much was admitted in the Tribunal hearing. They also stated that the shepherd was delivered with good technique etc., so really, the shepherd was delivered in a reasonable fashion.

However the Pies are apparently going to attempt to argue that Maxwell couldn't have realistically attempted to contest the ball either, because he'd be putting his head in front of the knees of Corrie and McGinnity while they were running full-pelt.

It really hinges on whether they can accept arguments based upon the realities of modern football, when they specify a "realistic alternative". I suspect they won't, they'll point out that Maxwell could have pulled up and talked to fans on the fence about the Pies' chances this season, and Maxwell's appeal will be thrown out.

 

[yeah-nah]

Last time I looked, AA isn't on the MRP or the tribunal and the rule is in place so his words don't count. Read the rule, there is no mention of injury only of contact. !

Youre having a bad trot Moll.

From the 2009 AFL Tribunal Booklet which is basically an addendum to the current rules. Under "INJURY" on p13:

Injury
The Match Review Panel and the Tribunal can inquire and receive information as to the nature and extent of any injury suffered by a player in relation to a reportable offence. The nature and extent of injury may be a relevant factor in determining the level of impact, point of contact and in some instances, the nature of the conduct.

So basically, in some instances (say a broken jaw from a clash of heads in an otherwise fair bump or any other, otherwise fair but accidental incident, where the resultant injury is upsetting the soccer mums) the nature and extent of an injury may be a relevent factor in determing ........ "the nature of the conduct"

Determining the nature of the conduct, by definition, means deciding whether to report the bloke. ie by the rules, that decision is directly linked to how bad the other bloke is injured. And that is an ass of a rule.

 

[Pie eyed]

I am not the only person here arguing my position, there are plenty here with it. I was just pointing out that he is the only Collingwood supporter with both eyes.

That is not how you put it.

 

[mollyfud]

Youre having a bad trot Moll.

From the 2009 AFL Tribunal Booklet which is basically an addendum to the current rules. Under "INJURY" on p13:

Injury
The Match Review Panel and the Tribunal can inquire and receive information as to the nature and extent of any injury suffered by a player in relation to a reportable offence. The nature and extent of injury may be a relevant factor in determining the level of impact, point of contact and in some instances, the nature of the conduct.

So basically, in some instances (say a broken jaw from a clash of heads in an otherwise fair bump or any other, otherwise fair but accidental incident, where the resultant injury is upsetting the soccer mums) the nature and extent of an injury may be a relevent factor in determing ........ "the nature of the conduct"

Determining the nature of the conduct, by definition, means deciding whether to report the bloke. ie by the rules, that decision is directly linked to how bad the other bloke is injured. And that is an ass of a rule.

Yeah......nah!
Okay, you got me. I thought after 50 odd pages we established that there has to be a level of contact (i.e. if in the bump the bumpers hair brushes the guy high, there going to over look that contact (yes, its silly example but I want make sure of no comments like the above)) but it isn't much.

There is no mention of injury only that there has to be forceful contact:

It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally, recklessly or negligently engage in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable.
Without limiting the ordinary meaning of the above words, a player shall engage in rough conduct, which in the circumstances is unreasonable, where in bumping an opponent he causes forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head or neck. Unless intentional or reckless, such conduct shall be deemed to be negligent unless the player did not have a realistic alternative to

No one is denying that there was forceful contact, Maxwell's defense said he got a head injury as well but there can be a report without injury (example: Franklin from last year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4PiXoh1h7Q was rightfully reported and found guilty for this bump, no injury). So as the passage that you point to mentions "injury may be a relevant factor in determining .... in some instances, the nature of the conduct" but for this rule, its the force that matters (as spelled out in the rule itself).

 

[Dean3]

The only issue is the execution of the bump and whether or not the clash of heads is Maxwell's fault or an accident.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that Maxwell's decision to run past the ball and go the man is not an issue in this case?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Are you seriously trying to suggest that Maxwell's decision to run past the ball and go the man is not an issue in this case?

Yes.

And guess what, moron, I was right.

The only decision was about whether the high contact was legal due to it being an accident. As it turns out, they decided that it was.

Not once was running past the ball raised as an issue. And you know why? Because its legal. The ball was within 5 metres at all times.

 

[mollyfud]

Yes.

And guess what, moron, I was right.

The only decision was about whether the high contact was legal due to it being an accident. As it turns out, they decided that it was.

Not once was running past the ball raised as an issue. And you know why? Because its legal. The ball was within 5 metres at all times.

Actually, wait for the Appeal boards findings before commenting on the appeal boards feelings on the bump. If they do say what you just said, then gloat away. My gut feeling is that this will just be about the tribunal process not the actual law (although there maybe some stuff in it about the law) or even this bump.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Actually, wait for the Appeal boards findings before commenting on the appeal boards feelings on the bump. If they do say what you just said, then gloat away. My gut feeling is that this will just be about the tribunal process not the actual law (although there maybe some stuff in it about the law) or even this bump.

It is not illegal to apply legal bumps, irrespective of whether or not you are going for the ball, as long as its within 5 metres.

 

[mollyfud]

It is not illegal to apply legal
bumps,

I totally agree with this statement! The question that we have to wait on the Appeal Boards ruling for is did they uphold the appeal because they felt the bump was legal or because they felt the tribunal hearing had flaws in its process.

irrespective of whether or not you are going for the ball, as long as its within 5 metres.

I am reading this part and I guess I agree with it. A legal bump is a legal bump no matter when, where, or how it is delivered. But on the flip side of that, an illegal bump is an illegal bump no matter when, where or how it is delivered.

 

[mick]

Not to get overly technical, but this analogy is seriously flawed.

1) If it is reasonably foreseeable that injury to a person would result from a lack of care to that person, a duty of care is owed.

.....

I know this is a discussion about Football 'duty of care' which may well be a different concept - but your example about real world traffic/police duty of care needed correcting.

Go pies.

In the analogy I presented, it is assumed that a reasonably cautious and prudent person is aware that driving over the speed limit carries an inherent risk of injury to a person.

I was presenting the analogy from a criminal charge POV not as a tort action as you have described.

Maxwell was facing suspension not punitive/compensatory damages, so I don't see why civil action procedures would apply.

Never the less, justice seems to have been served, I think the end result is good for football. Accidents are bound to happen and as long as Maxwell took all "reasonable" care then I have no problem with him being found not guilty.

Now if only the O'hAilpin verdict can be overturned.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I totally agree with this statement! The question that we have to wait on the Appeal Boards ruling for is did they uphold the appeal because they felt the bump was legal or because they felt the tribunal hearing had flaws in its process.



I am reading this part and I guess I agree with it. A legal bump is a legal bump no matter when, where, or how it is delivered. But on the flip side of that, an illegal bump is an illegal bump no matter when, where or how it is delivered.

Yeah, hilarous. I made a typo. Good on ya.

 

[mollyfud]

Yeah, hilarous. I made a typo. Good on ya.

No worries mate, happens to everyone! Glad you could see the funny side of it!

 

[Pie eyed]

In the analogy I presented, it is assumed that a reasonably cautious and prudent person is aware that driving over the speed limit carries an inherent risk of injury to a person.

I was presenting the analogy from a criminal charge POV not as a tort action as you have described.

Maxwell was facing suspension not punitive/compensatory damages, so I don't see why civil action procedures would apply.

Never the less, justice seems to have been served, I think the end result is good for football. Accidents are bound to happen and as long as Maxwell took all "reasonable" care then I have no problem with him being found not guilty.

Now if only the O'hAilpin verdict can be overturned.

The pause followed by the televised kick in the butt crack is a problem there I think...lol

 

[Spade]

I really think that if you injure someone and they are out for two weeks you remain out for two weeks if they are out for 12 weeks , so are you