No Oppo Supporters Non Bulldog Footy Talk - Bulldogs only - Part 4

[GetDimmaBack]

Disgusting by the Gold Coast today. Tomorrow’s Herald Sun, “Can Essendon still win the flag?”

More like, "WHY Essendon will win the flag."

 

[MYOB]

Last 5 games

Swans - Crows, GWS. North, Pies, Stk
Blues - GWS, Crows, Lions, Dees, Pies
Tigers - Freo, Lions, Port, Hawks, Ess
Dogs - Dees, Cats, Freo, GWS. Hawks
Stk - Eagles, Hawks, Cats, Lions, Swans
Port - Cats, Pies, Tigers, Ess, Crows
Suns - Lions, Eagles, Hawks, Cats, North

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Last 5 games

Swans - Crows, GWS. North, Pies, Stk
Blues - GWS, Crows, Lions, Dees, Pies
Tigers - Freo, Lions, Port, Hawks, Ess
Dogs - Dees, Cats, Freo, GWS. Hawks
Stk - Eagles, Hawks, Cats, Lions, Swans
Port - Cats, Pies, Tigers, Ess, Crows
Suns - Lions, Eagles, Hawks, Cats, North

Armchair ride for the Swannies. All they need is to get the umpires onside

 

[X_box_X]

Forget about Swans. They will finish top four. You're better off including Collingwood who I reckon will finish 7th or 8th.

 

[MYOB]

Forget about Swans. They will finish top four. You're better off including Collingwood who I reckon will finish 7th or 8th.

Pies - Ess, Port, Dees, Swans, Blues

 

[X_box_X]

Pies - Ess, Port, Dees, Swans, Blues

That's the biggest run home of any team.

Essendon, Carlton and Melbourne are historically the Pies' greatest rivals.

The Port rivalry is a legit thing due to the prison bars / Magpies link.

Pies v Swans not so much a rivalry, although they played a few finals against each other in the Malthouse era.

Importantly all five matches are against teams who have played some great footy this year. Essendon are in terrific form and will probably consider themselves a big chance of ending the Pies' win streak. Then the curtains will fall off and they'll lose their remaining five matches.

 

[MYOB]

Martin and Lynch not playing for Richmond this week.

Ryder out for about 4 weeks

 

[Doggy]

Martin and Lynch not playing for Richmond this week.

Ryder out for about 4 weeks

Be nice if Melbourne lost a few

 

[dogwatch]

None of us want footy to end up this way for player or club. There are no winners. Player welfare always has to come first.

Former Richmond player able to pursue damages claim against AFL club, despite time limit passing

Former AFL player Ty Zantuck will be able to pursue his claim for damages against the Richmond Football Club after a Supreme Court justice grants his application for an extension of time.

www.abc.net.au

There are no easy answers. The reasons for the current concussion protocols are clear and they are an important advance over what was going on 20 years ago. Naturally it's as much about covering the AFL/club's backside as it is about player safety but that doesn't diminish the measures in any way. Both club and player are important.

Today it's Richmond being pursued. Tomorrow it could be us or any other club.

There also has to be an understanding on the players' part that they are playing a risky sport so they accept some of the risk, provided the AFL and club are doing what they can to minimise that risk.

 

[Sentinel]

None of us want footy to end up this way for player or club. There are no winners. Player welfare always has to come first.

Former Richmond player able to pursue damages claim against AFL club, despite time limit passing

Former AFL player Ty Zantuck will be able to pursue his claim for damages against the Richmond Football Club after a Supreme Court justice grants his application for an extension of time.

www.abc.net.au

There are no easy answers. The reasons for the current concussion protocols are clear and they are an important advance over what was going on 20 years ago. Naturally it's as much about covering the AFL/club's backside as it is about player safety but that doesn't diminish the measures in any way. Both club and player are important.

Today it's Richmond being pursued. Tomorrow it could be us or any other club.

There also has to be an understanding on the players' part that they are playing a risky sport so they accept some of the risk, provided the AFL and club are doing what they can to minimise that risk.

Horrible for Zantuck but unfortunately not at all uncommon. Here's hoping the change in approach to concussion over the past 5 or so years will have a significant impact in reducing this in current players.

Question is, how far does the league need to go to truly minimise the risk? There are plenty of reactive measures now in place, but will they hold up as enough moving forward? Or could we end up with a sport where 'tackling' looks like what they do in Gaelic football? Physical contact is a fundamental part of the sport but it butts heads (pun intended) with the idea of a full duty of care for the AFL.

 

[doggies ftw]

I mean how much further can you go than hitting the head being against the rules? It’s not within the rules of the game to hit the head, so why is there anymore onus on the AFL to do anything else?

I feel for the players who have suffered long term effects and especially the guys who played without knowing of the long term effects at the time but going forward everyone knows the risks of playing a contact sport it’s up to you whether you want to put your body on the line (and take the 100s of 1000s of dollars that come with it)

Whose to say someone’s long term damage even came from football? Maybe they liked to drink 30 beers and go skateboarding or some bullshit in their spare time - how can we possibly put any liability on the sport?

People can play a sport which involves punching each other in the head repeatedly (ie UFC) which I’m guessing all competitors have signed away their rights to play? I mean what more can the AFL do than just outlaw head high contact from the rules of the game?

Take some responsibility for your own actions, if you don’t want to take your risks that’s well within your rights - go work in an office?

 

[dogwatch]

I mean how much further can you go than hitting the head being against the rules? It’s not within the rules of the game to hit the head, so why is there anymore onus on the AFL to do anything else?

I feel for the players who have suffered long term effects and especially the guys who played without knowing of the long term effects at the time but going forward everyone knows the risks of playing a contact sport it’s up to you whether you want to put your body on the line (and take the 100s of 1000s of dollars that come with it)

Whose to say someone’s long term damage even came from football? Maybe they liked to drink 30 beers and go skateboarding or some bullshit in their spare time - how can we possibly put any liability on the sport?

People can play a sport which involves punching each other in the head repeatedly (ie UFC) which I’m guessing all competitors have signed away their rights to play? I mean what more can the AFL do than just outlaw head high contact from the rules of the game?

Take some responsibility for your own actions, if you don’t want to take your risks that’s well within your rights - go work in an office?

That's a bit simplistic dftw. It goes well beyond just having a rule that says a player mustn't attack the head.

A really good example that has only come in this last year or two has been the introduction of concussion protocols and they have several layers - perhaps more than we know about. Players who suffer a head knock must come off the ground and undergo a concussion test. There's a minimum set time that they must be off even if they pass the test. If they fail the test they must take no further part in the game. To facilitate this and encourage clubs to comply honestly the AFL has re-introduced the sub rule (aka "medi-sub"). A player who fails the test is not allowed to play again for 10 days (or is it 12?) No doubt there are rest and treatment provisions and probably limited training participation provisions too. We supporters are annoyed by these interruptions to the season when our favourite players are sidelined but if they result in a safer return to play then I'm all for them.

Another example is the reportability of dangerous sling tackles. In most cases the tackler doesn't intend to knock the player out, they just want to make sure he's wrapped up and brought to ground. That technique has caused some serious concussion incidents in the past so they have upped the ante by suspending players for it. The result? Not so many sling tackles any more. That's a win.

These are just examples of the AFL taking responsibility and making changes in the last few years to reduce the risk. None of it existed when Zantuck was playing. Or Danny Frawley. Mostly true for Liam Picken too.

As for "oh it could be he was drinking 30 beers a day" - give me a break. Any competent neurologist would be able to make a pretty sound judgement on that (even if the two co-existed and compounded each other). You make it sound like you are trying to rationalise away the proper responsibility that the AFL, the clubs and the footy industry have to work collaboratively with players to eliminate or minimise the risk of these terrible long-term outcomes. How much they get paid is immaterial. The same things can happen in the ammos. Shrugging our shoulders and looking away won't fix it. Primarily we want to avoid post-career medical repercussions. But also we want to avoid players suing the club or the AFL. We also want mums and dads to continue putting their 7yos into junior footy clubs. All parties have an investment in finding a way forward.

Like I said there are no easy answers. I agree with you that players must accept some of the responsibility for the risk as they know it is a contact sport with potentially heavy head contact. We just need the whole thing taken on in an open and constructive way by all parties, including the AFLPA. They seem to be making some ground but no doubt there will be more changes to come. And no, it doesn't have to mean AFL becomes a non-contact sport.

 

[doggies ftw]

That's a bit simplistic dftw. It goes well beyond just having a rule that says a player mustn't attack the head.

A really good example that has only come in this last year or two has been the introduction of concussion protocols and they have several layers - perhaps more than we know about. Players who suffer a head knock must come off the ground and undergo a concussion test. There's a minimum set time that they must be off even if they pass the test. If they fail the test they must take no further part in the game. To facilitate this and encourage clubs to comply honestly the AFL has re-introduced the sub rule (aka "medi-sub"). A player who fails the test is not allowed to play again for 10 days (or is it 12?) No doubt there are rest and treatment provisions and probably limited training participation provisions too. We supporters are annoyed by these interruptions to the season when our favourite players are sidelined but if they result in a safer return to play then I'm all for them.

Another example is the reportability of dangerous sling tackles. In most cases the tackler doesn't intend to knock the player out, they just want to make sure he's wrapped up and brought to ground. That technique has caused some serious concussion incidents in the past so they have upped the ante by suspending players for it. The result? Not so many sling tackles any more. That's a win.

These are just examples of the AFL taking responsibility and making changes in the last few years to reduce the risk. None of it existed when Zantuck was playing. Or Danny Frawley. Mostly true for Liam Picken too.

As for "oh it could be he was drinking 30 beers a day" - give me a break. Any competent neurologist would be able to make a pretty sound judgement on that (even if the two co-existed and compounded each other). You make it sound like you are trying to rationalise away the proper responsibility that the AFL, the clubs and the footy industry have to work collaboratively with players to eliminate or minimise the risk of these terrible long-term outcomes. How much they get paid is immaterial. The same things can happen in the ammos. Shrugging our shoulders and looking away won't fix it. Primarily we want to avoid post-career medical repercussions. But also we want to avoid players suing the club or the AFL. We also want mums and dads to continue putting their 7yos into junior footy clubs. All parties have an investment in finding a way forward.

Like I said there are no easy answers. I agree with you that players must accept some of the responsibility for the risk as they know it is a contact sport with potentially heavy head contact. We just need the whole thing taken on in an open and constructive way by all parties, including the AFLPA. They seem to be making some ground but no doubt there will be more changes to come. And no, it doesn't have to mean AFL becomes a non-contact sport.

I meant he might like to drink 30 beers and go skateboarding in his spare time, as in they might have had head knocks elsewhere in their life too - most of us have whether it’s other sports, hobbies like skateboarding, snowboarding or maybe even part time boxing. I just fail to see how you could prove that one sport/part of someone’s life is to be held completely accountable for something like head knocks that can happen anywhere.

More than happy with the current interpretations of things like the concussion protocol and suspensions for high hits to reduce the likelihood of occurrences. And as more research goes into the field I’m more than happy for these things to evolve further but I just fail to see how much further we can go at this point in time, it seems to me we’re at the point where with all the precautions in place it’s now on the player to make the decision on whether they want to accept the risks or not - as we all have to do with our life choices whether it’s being a sparky or playing footy etc

I also think rules can only be in place according to our current knowledge - meaning I don’t think it would be fair for players to sue the afl in the future if future research suggests we should have been doing things differently 20 years ago.

 

[dogwatch]

I meant he might like to drink 30 beers and go skateboarding in his spare time, as in they might have had head knocks elsewhere in their life too - most of us have whether it’s other sports, hobbies like skateboarding, snowboarding or maybe even part time boxing. I just fail to see how you could prove that one sport/part of someone’s life is to be held completely accountable for something like head knocks that can happen anywhere.

More than happy with the current interpretations of things like the concussion protocol and suspensions for high hits to reduce the likelihood of occurrences. And as more research goes into the field I’m more than happy for these things to evolve further but I just fail to see how much further we can go at this point in time, it seems to me we’re at the point where with all the precautions in place it’s now on the player to make the decision on whether they want to accept the risks or not - as we all have to do with our life choices whether it’s being a sparky or playing footy etc

I also think rules can only be in place according to our current knowledge - meaning I don’t think it would be fair for players to sue the afl in the future if future research suggests we should have been doing things differently 20 years ago.

Your last point is a good one.

I'm not a lawyer but my guess is that if we (the industry, the medical profession, the public) genuinely had no knowledge of the risks and consequences then there is no case to answer. If on the other hand they knew at least a little about it but didn't do enough, or if they had rules but didn't enforce them rigorously and that resulted in serious impacts on the player's health then the AFL or club may be at least partly liable.

It's never simple. Similar arguments come up with things like smoking (especially second-hand smoke in the workplace). Or asbestos in the workplace. I have first hand experience of companies poo-poohing the risk of those things. And the government doing nothing to force changes to be made. Probably at a time when those same companies were either owned by the government (eg Australia Post) or were heavy contributors to the LNP and Labor party coffers.

Eventually it catches up with them. History doesn't judge those people well. Unfortunately that's little comfort for those who suffer and die from emphysema, mesothelioma ... or CTE.

 

[ScragCity]

I also think rules can only be in place according to our current knowledge - meaning I don’t think it would be fair for players to sue the afl in the future if future research suggests we should have been doing things differently 20 years ago.

What you're getting at here is an element of negligence called "foreseeability," and it is definitely something that is assessed and weighed.

 

[doggies ftw]

Your last point is a good one.

I'm not a lawyer but my guess is that if we (the industry, the medical profession, the public) genuinely had no knowledge of the risks and consequences then there is no case to answer. If on the other hand they knew at least a little about it but didn't do enough, or if they had rules but didn't enforce them rigorously and that resulted in serious impacts on the player's health then the AFL or club may be at least partly liable.

It's never simple. Similar arguments come up with things like smoking (especially second-hand smoke in the workplace). Or asbestos in the workplace. I have first hand experience of companies poo-poohing the risk of those things. And the government doing nothing to force changes to be made. Probably at a time when those same companies were either owned by the government (eg Australia Post) or were heavy contributors to the LNP and Labor party coffers.

Eventually it catches up with them. History doesn't judge those people well. Unfortunately that's little comfort for those who suffer and die from emphysema, mesothelioma ... or CTE.

I’d thought about asbestos as a comparable situation but I think it’s also very different in the way that people aren’t choosing to work in an environment where they could reasonably expect those sorts of hazards, whereas choosing to play a contact sport where you have a high chance of a head knock is a bit different - and you now know these risks going in.

I’m genuinely interested to find out how this is handled in UFC or Boxing as a professional career, where the aim of the game is literally to knock your opponent unconscious? Why does this keep coming up in a contact sport where head knocks are illegal but you rarely see it spoken about in regards to combat sports?

I get there’s no simple answer but my point I was trying to get at is just with our current knowledge on the subject, and our current methods around protecting the head to a reasonable extent that we’re currently at the tipping point that the onus should now be back on the player to make the call on whether they accept the risks, and the consequences. More than happy for the afl to put a huge amount of money into further research and even some sort of disability pension fund (if that’s not already a thing?)

 

[ScragCity]

I meant he might like to drink 30 beers and go skateboarding in his spare time, as in they might have had head knocks elsewhere in their life too - most of us have whether it’s other sports, hobbies like skateboarding, snowboarding or maybe even part time boxing. I just fail to see how you could prove that one sport/part of someone’s life is to be held completely accountable for something like head knocks that can happen anywhere.

One element of a negligence claim is causation, so the plaintiff (player) will have to prove that the defendant's (club's) negligent actions directly lead to the damages. However, the standard of proof in civil litigation is called the "balance of probabilities," which is a lower standard than in a criminal proceeding which is "beyond reasonable doubt." Which is to say that the plaintiff only needs to prove that it was more likely than not. You could present statistical evidence to prove that other activities outside of footy were very unlikely to have been primary contributors to your CTE. Remoteness of damage is another concept that ties into causation, but without going into it too much I don't think it would be hard at all to prove that the AFL injuries were both causal and in close proximity to the resulting brain injuries.

 

[ScragCity]

There's no doubt that the AFL will end up paying a lot in damages. The only questions are how much exactly and can the sport financially sustain it? The actions they are currently taking will obviously limit their liability in the future, but did they act soon enough? The first cases to be litigated will be from before the implementation of concussion protocols were put in place. The following questions will be asked in court:

How much did the AFL know about concussion-related brain injuries?

How much should they have reasonably known? (What knowledge was available and accessible)

From what date did they or should they have known about this stuff?

Did they act on this knowledge in a reasonable time frame and to a reasonable degree?

 

[ScragCity]

I’m genuinely interested to find out how this is handled in UFC or Boxing as a professional career, where the aim of the game is literally to knock your opponent unconscious? Why does this keep coming up in a contact sport where head knocks are illegal but you rarely see it spoken about in regards to combat sports?

Good question. I think this comes down to voluntary assumption of risk.

If you're a UFC fighter, you know that getting knocked out or having your legs broken is fairly likely to happen. So a fighter trying to sue the UFC for injuries typically sustained in a fight isn't going to have much luck. I'd imagine they sign all kinds of waivers to limit the UFC's liability.

Obviously in footy there's some of that too. A player isn't going to have much luck suing the AFL for injuries typically sustained playing footy.

However, with something like CTE from repeated concussions, my intuition is that it wouldn't fall under that voluntary assumption of risk. I think we could spend a very long time debating it and it's a fairly nuanced topic.

 

[Sharpiesadog]

More like, "WHY Essendon will win the flag."

Herald Sun currently has an article ‘How Essendon can make the finals’. It lists how the results have to go over the last 5 rounds for the injectors to get in.

 

[ScragCity]

Three "likes" from Dogwatch in one night...

It's a very similar feeling to when your Dad says, "I'm proud of you, son."

 

[Libbaaaa]

Herald Sun currently has an article ‘How Essendon can make the finals’. It lists how the results have to go over the last 5 rounds for the injectors to get in.

Can’t wait for round 9 next year when they are 2-7 again.

 

[dogwatch]

Three "likes" from Dogwatch in one night...

It's a very similar feeling to when your Dad says, "I'm proud of you, son."

Pivot tables are devilishly handy.

 

[Mantis Toboggan]

Pivot tables are devilishly handy.

Is that some kind of sexual apparatus?

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Herald Sun currently has an article ‘How Essendon can make the finals’. It lists how the results have to go over the last 5 rounds for the injectors to get in.

To be fair, the HUN only does articles like this because, deep down, everyone's an Essington supporter.

Let's be honest - we all want what's best for them, surely.

Robbo knows it's true...