Injury Worksafe investigating AFL on concussion

Remove this Banner Ad

1970crow

Hall of Famer
Jun 7, 2011
39,138
40,275
Port MacDonnell yay!!!
AFL Club
Adelaide
There are consensus positions on what are appropriate treatments and exclusion times for players suffering concussions. That these change as more research is done just means that the AFL needs to change its policies as we learn more, not that it gets put in the too hard basket. It is definitely reasonable for the AFL to have policies in place which reflect the current medical consensus, it has a duty of care to the players.
As do the players to themselves and to each other.
 

1970crow

Hall of Famer
Jun 7, 2011
39,138
40,275
Port MacDonnell yay!!!
AFL Club
Adelaide
I'm sure changes will happen to continue to better protect players from head injuries, but I don't think we are going to lose contact sports, just sporting organisations being forced in to providing more funding for the long term health care of their participants.
The end result is that it's the sport that drives the revenues and the players are key drivers and beneficiaries. Diverting money to future health costs comes out of their current $. It's really a decision for the players themselves.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
23,715
25,255
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Are they going to investigate boxing? What about MMA or any other sport that involves constant blows to the head with the aim of k/o’ing your opposition?

The AFL have put plenty of measures in to reduce the effect or likeliness of serious concussions occurring. It is a contact sport and players need to take personal responsibility for engaging in the sport and acknowledge the possibility of injuries resulting from genuine in game play. It would be different if a goal post fell on a players head or sprinkler in the ground, but concussion due to two players colliding is reasonably expected to occur during a contact sport.

Perhaps in order for the afl to protect itself, it will need to become a part of player contracts that they accept the possibility that a concussion will occur as part of playing.
Personal liability would already be there. The argument is over what the AFL should have known in so far as ensuring the players have a safe environment.

For at least the last decade they have taken it incredibly seriously.

Will players agree to sit out for a month if concussed? My guess is no. And there will be cases of players hiding how bad their head injury was.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Bunk Moreland

Hall of Famer
Sep 22, 2011
35,049
70,902
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
Personal liability would already be there. The argument is over what the AFL should have known in so far as ensuring the players have a safe environment.

For at least the last decade they have taken it incredibly seriously.

Will players agree to sit out for a month if concussed? My guess is no. And there will be cases of players hiding how bad their head injury was.
Eventually they won’t have a choice. If concussion is diagnosed they’ll be sat out for the required period. Same as boxing.
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Oct 15, 2004
68,615
58,343
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I'm sure changes will happen to continue to better protect players from head injuries, but I don't think we are going to lose contact sports, just sporting organisations being forced in to providing more funding for the long term health care of their participants.
Insurance costs vs business revenue will determine outcomes unless criminal negligence is successfully prosecuted.

Who would run the AFL if you’re locked up for 5-10 years? And face a stressful 2-5 year legal battle that bankrupts you as an individual? Note the league nor insurance can pay for your legal defence!
 

Kappa

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 7, 2014
20,507
25,259
AFL Club
Collingwood
Insurance costs vs business revenue will determine outcomes unless criminal negligence is successfully prosecuted.

Who would run the AFL if you’re locked up for 5-10 years? And face a stressful 2-5 year legal battle that bankrupts you as an individual? Note the league nor insurance can pay for your legal defence!
Do you think the CEO of the AFL is going to go to jail for 5 years over a concussion issue?
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Oct 15, 2004
68,615
58,343
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Do you think the CEO of the AFL is going to go to jail for 5 years over a concussion issue?
the laws are already in place for criminal negligence. it would be hard to argue in the case someone dies from brain injury (even after decades), that the AFL had a system and processes in place to prevent head injuries, the system and processes in place were monitored and the systems and processes worked.............if someone dies of brain injuries relating to playing AFL.

We already have serious examples including diesel, spud, platten, john barnes, shaun smith

My punt is the US will successfully prosecute a case and Australia will be not that far behind
 

quotemokc

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 19, 2008
15,480
16,835
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Atlanta Falcons/Winnipeg Jets
the laws are already in place for criminal negligence. it would be hard to argue in the case someone dies from brain injury (even after decades), that the AFL had a system and processes in place to prevent head injuries, the system and processes in place were monitored and the systems and processes worked.............if someone dies of brain injuries relating to playing AFL.

We already have serious examples including diesel, spud, platten, john barnes, shaun smith

My punt is the US will successfully prosecute a case and Australia will be not that far behind
They would have to prove that it only occurred when played AFL, not when they were playing other sports as a kid, not randomly bumping their head when not playing sport.
 

Kappa

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 7, 2014
20,507
25,259
AFL Club
Collingwood
the laws are already in place for criminal negligence. it would be hard to argue in the case someone dies from brain injury (even after decades), that the AFL had a system and processes in place to prevent head injuries, the system and processes in place were monitored and the systems and processes worked.............if someone dies of brain injuries relating to playing AFL.

We already have serious examples including diesel, spud, platten, john barnes, shaun smith

My punt is the US will successfully prosecute a case and Australia will be not that far behind
The AFL doesn't need systems and processes in place to prevent head injuries, otherwise every retired boxer or fighter could sue every single organization who let them fight for "not stopping them from getting hit in the head".

The AFL has a basic duty of care which means they need to take steps to reduce the risks of head injuries to a reasonable level that players sign up for when they join the AFL. They have actively tried to provide this duty of care through several steps like banning sling tackles, increasing suspensions for players who hit others in the head, reducing the interchange to slow the game down ect ect.

I think allowing Paddy McCartin to ever play football again would be a breach of that duty of care.
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Oct 15, 2004
68,615
58,343
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
The AFL doesn't need systems and processes in place to prevent head injuries, otherwise every retired boxer or fighter could sue every single organization who let them fight for "not stopping them from getting hit in the head".

The AFL has a basic duty of care which means they need to take steps to reduce the risks of head injuries to a reasonable level that players sign up for when they join the AFL. They have actively tried to provide this duty of care through several steps like banning sling tackles, increasing suspensions for players who hit others in the head, reducing the interchange to slow the game down ect ect.

I think allowing Paddy McCartin to ever play football again would be a breach of that duty of care.
nope

the duty of employers to provide and maintain a working environment for employees that is safe and without risks to health

as opposed to


the duty of employers to provide and maintain a working environment for employees that is safe and without risks to health other than those risks that players sign up for
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kappa

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 7, 2014
20,507
25,259
AFL Club
Collingwood
nope

the duty of employers to provide and maintain a working environment for employees that is safe and without risks to health

as opposed to


the duty of employers to provide and maintain a working environment for employees that is safe and without risks to health other than those risks that players sign up for
You conveniently left out the next part "so far as is reasonably practicable".

Clearly when someone signs up to play a contact sport professionally it is not reasonably practicable to protect them from every single head knock... Which is incidentally why boxers don't sue every boxing organization into death, because it's not reasonably practicable for those organizations to stop boxers from getting hit in the head.
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Oct 15, 2004
68,615
58,343
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
You conveniently left out the next part "so far as is reasonably practicable".

Clearly when someone signs up to play a contact sport professionally it is not reasonably practicable to protect them from every single head knock... Which is incidentally why boxers don't sue every boxing organization into death, because it's not reasonably practicable for those organizations to stop boxers from getting hit in the head.
Let’s wait and see if punching in the head is reasonably practical or a completely unnecessary act. So to with football.
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Oct 15, 2004
68,615
58,343
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
You conveniently left out the next part "so far as is reasonably practicable".

Clearly when someone signs up to play a contact sport professionally it is not reasonably practicable to protect them from every single head knock... Which is incidentally why boxers don't sue every boxing organization into death, because it's not reasonably practicable for those organizations to stop boxers from getting hit in the head.
And why do you keep referring to civil cases when the legislation is criminal and would be prosecuted by the crown
 

Obeanie1

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 26, 2007
22,929
18,021
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
I wonder if Worksafe will look into the rules on head high contact?

In mainstream work places an employer / employee conduct Job Safety Envirnomental Assessments on every activity. To identify high risk, high occurance situations that could lead to serious injuries.

Wel the AFL has been very proactive in removing high risk situations by changing rules. Ducking, dropping the knees to win a high contact free, above the shoulder contact, concussion protocols etc.

But the AFL still allows and rewards players to run, jump and plant a knee to the back of the head. It is the 'elephant in the room'.

Studds up in a marking contest is now outlawed.

So how can a 200cm, 110kg ruck run, jump and knee someone in the back of the head and concuss them.........and it be allowed in the rules?

Its one of the greatest parts of our game.................but in the modern workplace it doesnt pass the 'sniff test'.
 

Obeanie1

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 26, 2007
22,929
18,021
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
The AFL doesn't need systems and processes in place to prevent head injuries, otherwise every retired boxer or fighter could sue every single organization who let them fight for "not stopping them from getting hit in the head".

The AFL has a basic duty of care which means they need to take steps to reduce the risks of head injuries to a reasonable level that players sign up for when they join the AFL. They have actively tried to provide this duty of care through several steps like banning sling tackles, increasing suspensions for players who hit others in the head, reducing the interchange to slow the game down ect ect.
You just contridicted yourself.

The AFL doesnt need systems or processes to protect the head.....???

But has them and is constantly changing policies, guidelines, sytems and processes to do exactly that. To protect the head.
 

Kappa

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 7, 2014
20,507
25,259
AFL Club
Collingwood
You just contridicted yourself.

The AFL doesnt need systems or processes to protect the head.....???

But has them and is constantly changing policies, guidelines, sytems and processes to do exactly that. To protect the head.
They don't need to completely remove all head injuries from the game, as it's not practicable. I didn't realise that was hard to understand in context.
 

Rimmer

Club Legend
May 7, 2008
1,577
1,999
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
It's a contact sport. Concussions are unavoidable. Nobody forces sportspeople to play any sport. AFL is safer than it once was when players were lauded for big hits. Club doctors now take players off and if in doubt they keep them off. In another era Nick Vlaustin would have been back on the ground in 5 minutes rather than sitting out the entire grand final.

Short of trying to make AFL an esport Worksafe will only be able to wave a finger and demand the AFL do better.
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2004
32,751
31,370
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
I wonder if Worksafe will look into the rules on head high contact?

In mainstream work places an employer / employee conduct Job Safety Envirnomental Assessments on every activity. To identify high risk, high occurance situations that could lead to serious injuries.

Wel the AFL has been very proactive in removing high risk situations by changing rules. Ducking, dropping the knees to win a high contact free, above the shoulder contact, concussion protocols etc.

But the AFL still allows and rewards players to run, jump and plant a knee to the back of the head. It is the 'elephant in the room'.

Studds up in a marking contest is now outlawed.

So how can a 200cm, 110kg ruck run, jump and knee someone in the back of the head and concuss them.........and it be allowed in the rules?

Its one of the greatest parts of our game.................but in the modern workplace it doesnt pass the 'sniff test'.
It's definitely an issue, but at the same time, sports (businesses generally) are usually allowed to continue with activities that are required to function.

Boxing is allowed, and it literally involved punching people in the head as hard as you can trying to knock them out.

I can see them getting more serious about combating ducking, etc to try and draw frees(saving players from themselves), and encouraging the use of helmets.
 

Obeanie1

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 26, 2007
22,929
18,021
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
They don't need to completely remove all head injuries from the game, as it's not practicable. I didn't realise that was hard to understand in context.
Who said anything about completely removing all head injuries?

It is such a lame comeback.

Accidents will always occur however the AFL has a duty of care to not allow or encourage forceful and dangerous head high contact.

You disagree?

Why did they change the rules to stop stuffs up marking contests?

So they apply rules that penalise players from brushing a shoulder with a hand with no impact however allow and do not penalise a player driving their knee into the back of another players head?

Please stop and think before responding.
 

Obeanie1

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 26, 2007
22,929
18,021
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
It's a contact sport. Concussions are unavoidable. Nobody forces sportspeople to play any sport. AFL is safer than it once was when players were lauded for big hits. Club doctors now take players off and if in doubt they keep them off. In another era Nick Vlaustin would have been back on the ground in 5 minutes rather than sitting out the entire grand final.

Short of trying to make AFL an esport Worksafe will only be able to wave a finger and demand the AFL do better.
Risk management.

If you cannot eliminate a risk you do your best to mitigate the risk.

That's why the AFL changed rules on sling tackles, lifting and driving tackles, studs up marking attempts, ducking and dropping the knees to avoid a tackle.

However players are still allowed and encouraged to contest knees up in a marking contest. A finger on the shoulder is penalised. A knee to the head is called legal and play on.

That doesn't add up.
 

Remove this Banner Ad