Injury Litigation

Remove this Banner Ad

maskmcgee said:
And yet you know the risks, but you claim the players don't?
Click to expand...

Where did I claim to know the risks? I sure as hell don't.

Odd deflection.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

JoondalupJ said:
"but it shouldn't evolve to the reality where every fundamental rule of the sport is changed"

What a great comment and exactly what is happening now and exactly what's made me whinge about umpiring and petty touching frees that change the game!
Well worse ??? Sometimes those frees change a win to a loss?
And those who know me on here, will know the length of time I have been a pain in the neck, whining about the umpiring and the rule fiddling and graying,
of rules.
Isn't it time that people started to realise, that our game is being turned from contact (therefore contest) into a whole different thing, and fear of legal action is what drives it.
Now surely a professional sport that pay $millions to set up a dilution of player pool, by an addition to the comp numbers, yet they haven't got the nous to get legally protected and give those pro footballers the right to play Aussie Rules as it is meant.

Some free kick reasons are fine even though confusing , but they always have been slightly that way
It is not those!
Those types of actions like the break a leg dive at the ball, or what I call a cowardly way tackle to hurt someone with a sling tackle arms held , no protection. That stuff is normal. Ifind that the petty stuff is a danger to contest, worse its a chance for inappropriate things going on.
I 've said that before, its not the average punter its another element in society and gaming, that pose a threat with gray rules

Already exposed last Brownlow Medal night.
Click to expand...
Watching Eagles v Freo exactly what we have been taliking about , the Eagle player in the forward line get scragged around the neck as plain as day not paid, and wirhout a doubt high the why? 3 umpires disgraceful decision but Freo kicked a sealer up the ground from a break away in the centre the Eagle player was crucified. I think its Ryan the blokes name, but freo have been helped by absolutely some terrible umpiring, this is what the game is all about now, free kicks, and I follow neither of these clubs, yet watching I see my point made so many times, where frees are paid sometimes and ignored on others, I am baffled and the game is nearly lost.
Yet we see the smarmy CEO sitting like he's some icon to our national sport which is slowly being destroyed because frees spoil the run and advantages of good play, and 50 to 60 % are able to be interpreted in a dozen ways, teams lose because we have no black and white rules and it is un fair, when umpires cause results , in an age where gray rules dominate, tiggy touchwood abounds its nearly dead for me! An I am no fan of eitherof these clubs! Just a fan pf the game. Or was. 1 out of 9 usually worth watching!
 
maskmcgee said:
When you posted in this thread in defence of the players.
Get hit in head = bad things could happen

Everyone on the planet knows this. There is zero excuse for any player who started playing in the last 10 years at least to claim they didn't know the risk.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you think I posted in defence of the players.

I said "if" the risks have been hidden from them, which is what the whole case is about. Nothing about that is incorrect, or even subjective.
 
Look let's not go over the top.

There are changes to all sports on the basis of medical science and research that represents progress as an entire society. We no longer drive drunk, smoke cigarettes or insulate our houses with asbestos. That represents real progress. Soccer for example, very soon, will likely no longer allow heading the ball due to the degenerative issues with brain injuries and dementia. This has already happened at junior levels overseas. Does it make it a better or worse game? I'm not sure, but it certainly means that people can enjoy sport for what it is: sport.

AFL will always be a contact sport with the potential to injure people in all sorts of ways. From an awkward landing to a bad collision, that potential is always going to be there. What the custodians of the game are trying to eliminate as best they can is the needless contact and damage that occurs, which in many cases is related to player behaviour.

If you're old enough to remember the days where it was basically a free for all, and the cost of taking a mark was usually a big clip to the back of your head, let alone the risk of being absolutely smashed in the head if you were around the contest for no other reason than you were in the wrong place when someone came off the line, we are already in a much better place as a game. Further changes will be required, but to characterise those as coming at the expense of 'physicality' simply mischaracterises bad behaviour as 'physical' behaviour.

Most of the litigation these days revolves around the standard of care that was afforded past players. Players being told to shake it off and get back on the ground by medical staff that were ultimately under so much pressure to do the right thing by the club that they may well have abrogated their duty of care to the player themselves on game day. In the worst circumstances that may have happened, and in other circumstances the quality of care may just not have kept up with the state of research particularly where head knocks and concussion were concerned.

Some of those that can't recognise that you sign up to play a game at the end of the day, and that doesn't authorise a bloke (or woman if you're playing AFLW) to have carte blanche to smack you in the head, need to think a bit more about the societal impact on the game as a whole. People won't let their children play a game that authorises such behaviour and footy is more at risk from that than it is from rule changes protecting the head.
 
Back One Out said:
If your health & well-being is your main priority then don't play rough games or any contact sport

Simple.

No boxing. No mixed martial arts
No gridiron, rugby, ice hockey or Aussie Rules.

Definitely no motor sports... No car racing, or motorbike racing, no motocross. No drag racing.

Don't get a job as a stunt man or a rodeo clown. Don't be a jockey. That can REALLY hurt when you have a fall.

Don't join the army, especially when there is a war. That can also be detrimental to your health.



There is an inherent risk of being concussed while playing footy which cannot be legislated against
Accidents happen. Collisions occur. There isn't anything anyone can do about it.
Everyone knows this before they step into the field. They play anyway.


We now know that repeated concussions can also have long-term detrimental effect on the brain.
Everyone knows this before they step into the field. They play anyway.

But if all of this is too much for you.. If it's too worrisome. Then take some god damn personal responsibility and don't step onto the footy field.
Choose another sport... Tennis... Golf... Triathlon... Volleyball... Social netball... Synchronised swimming... Ping Pong

There are many many options. Too many to list them all..

Nobody is forcing anyone to play football..

CHOOSE to play our great game, or choose not to...

It's all a personal choice.
Click to expand...
You miss the fact that clubs are responsible for the health of the players. It’s not about players demanding rules be changed so they can play without harm.
It is this fiscal issue which drives change, not players saying I dont want to be hurt.
 
maskmcgee said:
Which is impossible, as I said, everyone on earth knows them.
Click to expand...

That shows a naivety of other sports.

CTE is a relatively new discovery - the NFL had a report in the late 90s indicating an issue with long term brain injuries in players and they buried it. They're now paying through the arseh*le for it.

We don't know what the AFL new about CTE, when they knew it, and when they told players - again, that's what the lawsuits are about.

To say "everyone knew the risks" is idiotic and plainly bullshit.
 
evolved2 said:
The football field is a workplace, and Australian employers have a legal obligation to protect their employees from harm as much as is practicable. I presume you expect the same of your employer.

Nobody is stating every rule should be changed.
Click to expand...
At some point you need to accept the consequences of your own decisions.
Motor racing is dangerous as even most spectators are well aware. It was printed on the entry ticket in the 50s.

Aussie Rules players have chosen to wear helmets for decades - lets pretend we didnt know the risk ?

Do we really need someone else to blame?
 
Kwality said:
At some point you need to accept the consequences of your own decisions.
Motor racing is dangerous as even most spectators are well aware. It was printed on the entry ticket in the 50s.

Aussie Rules players have chosen to wear helmets for decades - lets pretend we didnt know the risk ?

Do we really need someone else to blame?
Click to expand...
No, every employer is responsible for OH and S . It is the employer who decides the terms of what occurs in the workplace and what the risks are, not the employees.
 
Slartibartfast said:
No, every employer is responsible for OH and S . It is the employer who decides the terms of what occurs in the workplace and what the risks are, not the employees.
Click to expand...

Some players choose to wear helmets.
Not denying OH&S law that has changed over the years, & players choose not to wear helmets.
 
Kwality said:
Some players choose to wear helmets.
Not denying OH&S law that has changed over the years, & players choose not to wear helmets.
Click to expand...
Helmets are not the total answer.
It is suggested helmets can be worse because it gives players a false security and they are more fearless , the brain still rattles in the skull when bumped and helmets do not offer complete protection . The US gridiron helmets are heavy duty with air filled bags inside and even these offer no guarantees Against concussion.

I reckon the day may come when Brayshaw style helmets become compulsory though. The litigation will see insurers wanting this to happen.
Player welfare still remains the clubs and AFL responsibility and this responsibility should not be put on the players, it never will be . It is for this reason they are the ones that need to decide that players must where them.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Slartibartfast said:
Helmets are not the total answer.
It is suggested helmets can be worse because it gives players a false security and they are more fearless , the brain still rattles in the skull when bumped and helmets do not offer complete protection . The US gridiron helmets are heavy duty with air filled bags inside and even these offer no guarantees Against concussion.

I reckon the day may come when Brayshaw style helmets become compulsory though. The litigation will see insurers wanting this to happen.
Player welfare still remains the clubs and AFL responsibility and this responsibility should not be put on the players, it never will be . It is for this reason they are the ones that need to decide that players must where them.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of the discussion around helmets in sport.
It is an example of the issues when dealing with historic cases.
 
Simche said:
Look let's not go over the top.

There are changes to all sports on the basis of medical science and research that represents progress as an entire society. We no longer drive drunk, smoke cigarettes or insulate our houses with asbestos. That represents real progress. Soccer for example, very soon, will likely no longer allow heading the ball due to the degenerative issues with brain injuries and dementia. This has already happened at junior levels overseas. Does it make it a better or worse game? I'm not sure, but it certainly means that people can enjoy sport for what it is: sport.

AFL will always be a contact sport with the potential to injure people in all sorts of ways. From an awkward landing to a bad collision, that potential is always going to be there. What the custodians of the game are trying to eliminate as best they can is the needless contact and damage that occurs, which in many cases is related to player behaviour.

If you're old enough to remember the days where it was basically a free for all, and the cost of taking a mark was usually a big clip to the back of your head, let alone the risk of being absolutely smashed in the head if you were around the contest for no other reason than you were in the wrong place when someone came off the line, we are already in a much better place as a game. Further changes will be required, but to characterise those as coming at the expense of 'physicality' simply mischaracterises bad behaviour as 'physical' behaviour.

Most of the litigation these days revolves around the standard of care that was afforded past players. Players being told to shake it off and get back on the ground by medical staff that were ultimately under so much pressure to do the right thing by the club that they may well have abrogated their duty of care to the player themselves on game day. In the worst circumstances that may have happened, and in other circumstances the quality of care may just not have kept up with the state of research particularly where head knocks and concussion were concerned.

Some of those that can't recognise that you sign up to play a game at the end of the day, and that doesn't authorise a bloke (or woman if you're playing AFLW) to have carte blanche to smack you in the head, need to think a bit more about the societal impact on the game as a whole. People won't let their children play a game that authorises such behaviour and footy is more at risk from that than it is from rule changes protecting the head.
Click to expand...
Your first paragraph bringing up drink driving, that is not a real point making comment, when talking about a contact sport. Football was and is supposed to be a contact sport.
This is about the 50 plus blokes running a class action of legal cases with ramifications against the AFL/VFL or any body of sport admin.

What I first meant to point out is the game has changed for the worst. Because lack of risk taking lack of forward attack on an opponent can more than likely have that tiny hesitation get someone hurt worse.
So I am saying do people think to save the game from restricted contact( and I am not talking about the biff, really when Mopsy knocked out three Twomey brothers one afternoon. Only real living in the past wants to see that thuggery.) , restricted allowed contact takes the contest to a lower level.
My example and I am serious Will Day got what I would call a brilliant shirt front, from a North Melbourne player, timed well took his Will out of the play and he got up, played on the North fellow I think gt a wee suspension. To me it is ridiculous. Heads have to be protected but in football any level there is never a guarantee of total non injury chances. Now whats the chance of this incident happening in that split second by the same blokes again.

Isn't it logical to have a contact sport not castrated into a hesitant' s game by over zealous rules , here is what is killing our game.
And I blame our rules changing non stop for around 15 to 20 years. Gil is eventually totally responsible.
Tell me what you reckon.
Free kick for minor high tackle which sometimes are the touch of a couple of finger above the line, "HIGH" that a desperate defender is trying to stop his opponent,which he is instructed to do. I call it Petty free kicks some of those frees in the past have created goals that win games , sometimes when they get that "help" they are not the best side. Al la umpire calls in other areas that are petty. Try the Conniglio (spelling) Giants player. where he caught Carlton player cold and got pinged for dissent and they got a goal. the umpire should be sanctioned for that he missed the FOOTBALL , and all he had on his mind was dissent!!!!
Its why my next complaint is dissent unless it is totally out of order, should be scrubbed these bloke adjudicate for professional players at the top level.
They do not need to be heward or to do anything but find free kicks call marks let the game run smoothly and bounce the ball if they can? Their job is hard dissent is rubbish in an emotional game. They have no right to place on a whole club a score against them and the fans and the members and the coach all the rest of the club that is what happens and they need if they have to take offence under those conditions to make the dissent an off the ground penalty a FINE, $2000 TO $5000.
Not GIVE OPPONENTS what could be a game winning goal. AND DO YOU BF FOLK KNOW WHY THAT GOAL WAS SO WRONG?
BECAUSE THE UMPIRE DID NOT CALL THE BLATANT DROPPING OR CAUGHT WITH THE BALLFREE, HE MADE A MONSTROUS ERROR ,
MISSED A FREE,the umpire made the mistake, not the player. Yet this nonsense goes on. The Umpires jobs would be better if they just umpired and let the rest take care of itself ,.
That was all a bit long,
BUT out of bounds on the full no more, ban it it is guess work and a terrible thing to watch two happen over 4 or 5 minutes then see the ump give anotherto the other side almost like its a pay back, oh yes you see it.
Why do rucks have to nominate, they're not Donald Trump, what is a push in the back, why do umpires have to rule gray rules why did the AFL need to complicate the sport beyond common sense, why is around the neck, just like its always been, a too high tackle,why is it all of a sudden a danger to the head. Its always been a danger, will they ban high marking because a bloke breaks his neck falling.
I want to see the AFL make insurance for life arrangements with all the clauses and also players who want to play sign up for the risk or don't play.
its footy not the bleeding Colosseum. Its contact, it is so over umpired that it is 50 / 50 chance to pick why a free went down. Sometimes its correct , some times TOO MANY TIMES its a mistake. Whats wrong with a shirt front. BUT 15 20 years contact will be gone players won't contest.

GAME DEAD. Nearly is now. Have fun with that one.
 
The 747 said:
Getting tired of reading hot takes by try-hard macho men on this subject. The LITIGATION is about what the AFL knew about the risks of head injuries and what they told the players.

Voluntary assumption of risk is what the macho mob are going on about in these threads. That is valid, but not if material information about those risks was withheld.
Click to expand...
EVERY BODY KNOWS THE RISKS This is a sport, its where the "EMPLOYER" as you call them, the greedy AFL change the game so badly and over complicate it that those who follow it know every dirty little mistake, the rule regarding umpires changing their mind,why not????
Scrub that rule , they never can be seen as mistaken, when they are they can't say no I think I was wrong there, but no, and then comes the DISSENT

Another umpire can call a free and overrule the other umps decision, what about boundary Umpires miles behind the ball. Saw one only one I think the ball called out of bounds the ump was miles behind but the camera showed it on the line or just in , it stopped a flow.

Same sort of stopping of the flow , as when some piddly umpire dissent call or bad call sends the opposition flying up the ground with the victim team having everyone looking to attack and the opposition side heads into the goal no opponent and goals.
just like the player Ryan from WCE last weekend got an absolute scragged around the neck not called , missed like our GWS Carlton fiasco, so Freo get a run back and scored a goal, it sort of set the rest in motion but it should have been a shot on goal for the Eagles.

Don't any of you people see some of this stuff. Its called unfairness or (maybe something else???) And the AFL under McClachlan have so poisoned the rules with complicated wild guessing at times, THREE UMPIRES!!!! WHAT? MISSING BLATANT FREES, OR IGNORING THEM.
And all people want to comment on, is Macho man bullsh*t as those people with eyes and common sense can see the mangling (AND IT GOES ON AND ON!)
It is too much and it is winning games and that's when the gambling argument comes in, you can't do a "dirty" , if everything is simple and black and white. but its not its a gray as you like, and any smart-alec could work towards making some dough.

Like we have just seen last award night. 2022. And sportsd is getting rotten I think its too late though!
 
JoondalupJ said:
EVERY BODY KNOWS THE RISKS This is a sport, its where the "EMPLOYER" as you call them, the greedy AFL change the game so badly and over complicate it that those who follow it know every dirty little mistake, the rule regarding umpires changing their mind,why not????
Scrub that rule , they never can be seen as mistaken, when they are they can't say no I think I was wrong there, but no, and then comes the DISSENT

Another umpire can call a free and overrule the other umps decision, what about boundary Umpires miles behind the ball. Saw one only one I think the ball called out of bounds the ump was miles behind but the camera showed it on the line or just in , it stopped a flow.

Same sort of stopping of the flow , as when some piddly umpire dissent call or bad call sends the opposition flying up the ground with the victim team having everyone looking to attack and the opposition side heads into the goal no opponent and goals.
just like the player Ryan from WCE last weekend got an absolute scragged around the neck not called , missed like our GWS Carlton fiasco, so Freo get a run back and scored a goal, it sort of set the rest in motion but it should have been a shot on goal for the Eagles.

Don't any of you people see some of this stuff. Its called unfairness or (maybe something else???) And the AFL under McClachlan have so poisoned the rules with complicated wild guessing at times, THREE UMPIRES!!!! WHAT? MISSING BLATANT FREES, OR IGNORING THEM.
And all people want to comment on, is Macho man bullsh*t as those people with eyes and common sense can see the mangling (AND IT GOES ON AND ON!)
It is too much and it is winning games and that's when the gambling argument comes in, you can't do a "dirty" , if everything is simple and black and white. but its not its a gray as you like, and any smart-alec could work towards making some dough.

Like we have just seen last award night. 2022. And sportsd is getting rotten I think its too late though!
Click to expand...
Geez, you really got out of the wrong side of bed today. Bet your cat copped a kicking.

The AFL/ clubs are still responsible for player welfare and the game WILL change because of this.I will Let the rest of your diatribe slip through to the keeper.
 
So, yo try and be a touch sensible, which is not really in my wheelhouse, you would imagine that a lot of this will come down to..

1. When did the AFL learn about the link between CTE and such and concussions/ heavy contact.

2. When did they act on it - rule changes, informing the players, welfare etc.

3. What do the players sign up for so to speak.

If the gap between 1 & 2 is significant, there will be trouble. 3 is only relevant if the AFL have done everything they reasonably could.
 
The 747 said:
THE PEOPLE SUING ARE SAYING THE AFL KNEW THE RISKS AND DIDNT TELL THEM.

WHEN I WAS A KID I GOT CONCUSSED DID I GET TESTED AND RESTED? NO.
Click to expand...

So what has changed ? We all know more now than we did when. WHEN is the question?

Cant see how the AFL is responsible for competitions are running modified rules but, its up to legal eagles with issues like where & when.
 
Ignoring all the legal arguments.

The coming generations just won't want to play a game which leaves you brain damaged, simple as that. The world is changing and not always in negative ways.

I do personally enjoy watching more contact, but we now know there's a cost to that. So what's the only real outcome here?
 
Last edited:
Simche said:
Look let's not go over the top.

There are changes to all sports on the basis of medical science and research that represents progress as an entire society. We no longer drive drunk, smoke cigarettes or insulate our houses with asbestos. That represents real progress. Soccer for example, very soon, will likely no longer allow heading the ball due to the degenerative issues with brain injuries and dementia. This has already happened at junior levels overseas. Does it make it a better or worse game? I'm not sure, but it certainly means that people can enjoy sport for what it is: sport.

AFL will always be a contact sport with the potential to injure people in all sorts of ways. From an awkward landing to a bad collision, that potential is always going to be there. What the custodians of the game are trying to eliminate as best they can is the needless contact and damage that occurs, which in many cases is related to player behaviour.

If you're old enough to remember the days where it was basically a free for all, and the cost of taking a mark was usually a big clip to the back of your head, let alone the risk of being absolutely smashed in the head if you were around the contest for no other reason than you were in the wrong place when someone came off the line, we are already in a much better place as a game. Further changes will be required, but to characterise those as coming at the expense of 'physicality' simply mischaracterises bad behaviour as 'physical' behaviour.

Most of the litigation these days revolves around the standard of care that was afforded past players. Players being told to shake it off and get back on the ground by medical staff that were ultimately under so much pressure to do the right thing by the club that they may well have abrogated their duty of care to the player themselves on game day. In the worst circumstances that may have happened, and in other circumstances the quality of care may just not have kept up with the state of research particularly where head knocks and concussion were concerned.

Some of those that can't recognise that you sign up to play a game at the end of the day, and that doesn't authorise a bloke (or woman if you're playing AFLW) to have carte blanche to smack you in the head, need to think a bit more about the societal impact on the game as a whole. People won't let their children play a game that authorises such behaviour and footy is more at risk from that than it is from rule changes protecting the head.
Click to expand...
The cost of a mark was a clip over the back of the head ,or when a player marked the ball he was manhandled every time, I remember those days, the fans loved it didn't make it right or did it make it something wanted back in the game now.
But we have a contact sport , and it is being pulled up as such, shirt front why ban it when every one knows they might get one, same as Will Day last week got flattened jumped up played on his opponent got a week.
People won't let their children play you say, rubbish, that has always been around kids play and at the top level a risk 1000 times higher for being hurt comes into play, it comes into play because the play is contact, and for heaven sake I am not talking about the Biff how many times do I try to say it is about taking the essence out of the game. The loss of contact the hesitancy of bump or tackle take the "contest" away as well. if those bumps or tackles are incorrect then a free, if a player is trying to restrict his opponent then so be it, without going over the top about things that are unpreventable or an accidental hit, that puts the people you go to watch on the sidelines for something that happens a thousand times a game. But gets seen once. Some poor bugger is off for a week.
Now Bumps tackles, tell me your interpretation of dropping , caught with, I saw two things that I was confused about in the few minutes I spent in and out ofwatching the North Carlton game,One was the killing the murder of endeavour, a North player put his heart and soul and athleticism to catch an opponent who was taking off down themiddle of the ground towards his goal. The North fellow caught his opponent but as the opponent went down the North players hands fan low and he was pinged for (WHAT I DON'T KNOW EITHER TRIPPING OR IN THE BACK WHO COJLD TELL.)
But his effort and endeavour was given no credence at all , the fellow who couldn't get away freely who got caught gets a free? Now umpires and AFL may have a million reasons why that in this time I mean becomes a free kick, the Carlton bloke was caught, but in the endeavour to pull him up because the North fellow had caught him, some rule for trip or in the back or whatever, had silly little me thinking well that North fellow ran his guts out and caught him but gets nothing.
Rules and calls like that make me think that sooner or later the chaser won't chase, that is what I mean by this game losing it contact to pettyness.
Also another player from North I think in the first quarter, he gets a Carlton bloke caught , the Carlton boy throws his arms up Kevin Bartlett style as he used to do to gain frees, to me the Carlton fellow had also been caught with the ball and had enough control over it to DROP IT!! You know who got the free , the Carlton fellow. Gray area yes gray rules yes mixed and missed and bad interpretations an absolute game killer in my book and why??? Have a guess the reason is umpires have a split second to decide and because of that quickness and inability to say sorry wrong way, they interpret on the run in split seconds and make multiple mistakes , not all but too many!
If you follow Australian rules football to a high level if you don't understand where I am coming from then you really don't appreciate the tiny little instances that happen in our sport and you therefore don't see the aggravation and confusion it causes. Of course we don't want bloody biff and bash where players used to reallyhurt each other. We DO HAVE TO look after the heads, but we also need to temper back the split second decisions that are wrong and lose games on occasion because one or two misinterpretations can create the killing of momentum and loss of confidence.

That's all Iam saying and have ever said . maybe I have had an angry moment in some of my comments but this is how I see the modern game heading, and I know lots of people that do not bother with TV footy or going. I watch biits and pieces of everything.

Lots of people see the game as castrated , well those collisions perhaps show courage more than we give credit for, but frustrating people who follow and are members of clubs and PAY and then have a competition here every week after a round there is umpiring complaints and rule confusion and the dissent , the umpire last week may as well have kicked the goal for the Blues himself, that is not football. If the rules committee have to stop bursts from emotional players who have just been crucified by an umpire , then FINE THEM don't score for them!

Its funny how people get brainwashed into what is the "new" thing , you see it in politics but when it poisons your entertainment you know something is wrong!
If you don't you are not really a person who has followed for decades and is able to see the difference and the (this is the main point) fairness disappear

I am not talking old fellas like me I am talking of people I know in the 30 to 50 bracket that do not watch or follow the game anymore.
The game looks spectacular sometimes although the lower teams get boring and defending is the game now forwards are notlike they were. Thats game change too, Its subtle but the ruin is well there if you look at 10 to 20 years down the track, it'll be politically correct to opologise to your opponennt if you "catch him eith the ball"
Fancy having to write and explain over and over about insurance and player risk and being aware of the dangers and play, at the top level, a contact sport without nonsense. And we aren't Rugby we don't call the umpires mr so and so, they are damned adjudicators they should do their job.
And there are besides gray rulings killing the game other ways to punish THE POCKET!!! not the whole following of one club and fans and members.
That is what happens with the stupid dissent.

So I've repeated about every thing I did before and still the uninformed say it fine, the ones who really follow and have seen they understand what I am talking about.
If the AFL has to have bleeding petty free kick rules then at least change the penalties for nonsense to a fine. Not a game loser /winner, depending whose on the end of an over zealous umpire, hope that umpire from last week has a rest in the bush. I bet he doesn't?
 
Fire said:
Ignoring all the legal arguments.

The coming generations just won't want to play a game which leaves you brain damaged, simple as that. The world is changing and not always in negative ways.

I do personally enjoy watching more contact, but we now know there's a cost to that. So what's the only real outcome here?
Click to expand...
Over a hundred and fifty years there are 60 to 100 men complaining about head injuries now, that later in life they get sick and need to litigate to get help,
I don't think Neil Roberts from the Saints has head problems Saw him at a Saints game recently 80 plus years old.

I see Jason Dunstall with his forehead half caved in , many years ago, he appears healthy .

I am not saying anything but sign up to the risk or don't play.

Now 150 years or more we have had a small number of deaths of course one iss too many . How many deaths in work places. Over 150 Years . What I am saying is, it is miniscule, the risk!
How many players now are going for legal help? Why wouldn't or haven't they been covered by AFL insurance for life, its common sense ????
No common sense in the AFL is there?
After getting to the stage of being able to play at that elite level. That is what I am saying again , there is no argument it is a game with reward and risk, and it always should have had life long insurance for money and protection whether you played 300 games or one , or even one in the reserves at that elite level.

The AFL have spent millions on diluting our sport, with two new clubs, with a tiny population 25, Million people.
And a game that is so hard to adapt to, to play at the top level, ( its why Mason Cox amazes me , talk about persistence to learn!!)
If they can't afford premiums for players life times for injuries received in AFL footy, then they shouldn't be running football.

This is a no brainer1

And I am a firm believer in this, if we had a real National game with twelve to 14 teams, mixed across the country, I believe that the numbers that play now maybe 25 percent wouldn't get a game in the firsts that is because of dilution of the player pool. For the game we watch now.

Yet this AFL which should have put a team in Tasmania 10 or 15 years ago , had the money for GWS and GC17? But nothing for a football an actual football state Tasmania?

North and Footscray would not go to Western Sydney or Gold Coast, no , so they, you know, Mr Demetriou and Mr McGlachlan built, with millions two new clubs .
The dilution set in, and 18 clubs is too many, and the standard is down we have no more dead eyed kickers no champion full forwards, never are we guaranteed a big goal scorer Dunstall or Lockett would kick 5 goals 2 points today it is mainly 2 goals 5 points , the players don't handball legally , they have no precision, they play this boundary line game that it appears the centre line attacks are few and far between only displayed by the top clubs.

The game looks specky and supersonic but at the cost of what it really is, and by the people who stole it and changed it, the AFL .

I say insure take the risk or don't play. Where is a Kerry Packer when you need one??????????????????????????????
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Injury Litigation

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top