Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVI

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
He’s already their best ball user.

He will pose the same dilemma Nic Martin does for us, they’ll need him to be the bloke kicking it inside 50 and the bloke marking it on the other end at the same time.
The prospect of cheesel and martin got me through 2022.
Stupid draft.

North build is going well. Backline is still rubbish. And no identified ruck heir for goldy yet.
Ldu, powell, simpkin, sheezel, wardlaw, curtis, larkey, phillips all looking very good
 
For the pre-2001 player I'd look into the state of knowledge of combat sports, boxing in particular.

The AFL will invariably have stacks of material wildy overstating the quality of its medical care, in line with its duty of care.

It's very hard to argue that you have discharged your duty of care if you haven't considered the consequences of a common occurrence (which is concussion, players getting KO'd).

If the combat sports have had protocols for fights, I'd focus on that. It's not like the clubs and the AFL haven't looked overseas and to other sports for training methods and tactics.

It's hardly an unreasonable imposition or burden to have expected the governing body of a billion dollar industry to keep across global development relating to player health. The AFL wants to be the control freak of the competition.

It's a much more difficult case against the clubs.

The standard of knowledge expected of employers in the 60s and 70s, not involved in asbstos manufacturing, who had workers exposed to asbestos was essentially for them to be across the risks.

I would say that is a much more significant burden and unrealistic expectation than would be imposed on the AFL here.
Boxing has quite clear guidelines re concussion. AFL will be forced to adopt strict guidelines if it is to avoid a future full if litigation IMO. Doctors & lawyers have the players back here.

Any concussion will end up being a month out of the game and subsequent concussions will incur long stints on the sidelines IMO.
 
For the pre-2001 player I'd look into the state of knowledge of combat sports, boxing in particular.

The AFL will invariably have stacks of material wildy overstating the quality of its medical care, in line with its duty of care.

It's very hard to argue that you have discharged your duty of care if you haven't considered the consequences of a common occurrence (which is concussion, players getting KO'd).

If the combat sports have had protocols for fights, I'd focus on that. It's not like the clubs and the AFL haven't looked overseas and to other sports for training methods and tactics.

It's hardly an unreasonable imposition or burden to have expected the governing body of a billion dollar industry to keep across global development relating to player health. The AFL wants to be the control freak of the competition.

It's a much more difficult case against the clubs.

The standard of knowledge expected of employers in the 60s and 70s, not involved in asbstos manufacturing, who had workers exposed to asbestos was essentially for them to be across the risks.

I would say that is a much more significant burden and unrealistic expectation than would be imposed on the AFL here.
Combat sports is a totally different kettle of fish. And still there was no evidence of cte before the early 2000s, no place in the world had any evidence of it. The afl wasn’t a billion dollar industry in the 80s and 90s, in the 80s the league and most of the clubs were broke. The class action won’t get anywhere if they start comparing to combat sports, who actually have less protocols than regular contact sport, add on to that constant head knocks even without concussions will also league to cte. So many different variables, even by case by case lifestyle etc, post vfl/afl - head knocks in local footy state leagues, for example Shane tuck boxed for a few years and had a really bad knockout in one fight.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

For the pre-2001 player I'd look into the state of knowledge of combat sports, boxing in particular.

The AFL will invariably have stacks of material wildy overstating the quality of its medical care, in line with its duty of care.

It's very hard to argue that you have discharged your duty of care if you haven't considered the consequences of a common occurrence (which is concussion, players getting KO'd).

If the combat sports have had protocols for fights, I'd focus on that. It's not like the clubs and the AFL haven't looked overseas and to other sports for training methods and tactics.

It's hardly an unreasonable imposition or burden to have expected the governing body of a billion dollar industry to keep across global development relating to player health. The AFL wants to be the control freak of the competition.

It's a much more difficult case against the clubs.

The standard of knowledge expected of employers in the 60s and 70s, not involved in asbstos manufacturing, who had workers exposed to asbestos was essentially for them to be across the risks.

I would say that is a much more significant burden and unrealistic expectation than would be imposed on the AFL here.
I’m not really up on the whole situation but surely it is addressed within the CBA?

Like the CBA ensures that the players are covered under private health insurance, there’s a mandatory exit medical, and there’s an entire injury fund for retired players that has a mandatory contribution through the AFLPA. None of those things say “except brain injuries”.

CBA 2012-2016, 19b.
(x) an AFL Club shall be liable/responsible for reimbursing a Player the Gap and any other costs, not covered by private health insurance, upon production of relevant receipts or other proof of payment, reasonably incurred by the Player within 12 months of delisting from his AFL Club or such longer period as is reasonable and necessary to properly treat the injury, in the treatment of injuries that are identified in that Player’s exit medical as injuries incurred whilst playing football, whilst training for football or whilst engaged in activities authorised by the AFL Club.

The only get out clause is “identified in that Player’s exit medical”… all head knocks would be recorded in their medical history but ongoing injury might not if the doctor didn’t know?

Otherwise, how is liability for a permanent brain injury not covered under the same framework as e.g. osteoarthritis?

Separately, I would suggest that the AFL tribunal has had a harsher penalty for head contact than for other types of illegal contact for decades. Wouldn’t that count as acceptance that actions that impact the head are more dangerous?
 
16.5 Death or Permanent disability
If a Player dies or becomes permanently disabled (as that term is defined in the AFL Insurance Policy) as a result of an injury which occurs in the course of the Player’s employment as an AFL footballer, including travelling to and from training, Matches or other activities authorised by the AFL Club, the Player shall be entitled to claim up to $1 million in accordance with the AFL’s Insurance Policy, a copy of which will be provided to the AFLPA annually.
After that it’d go through as a work cover claim, I guess?
 
Combat sports is a totally different kettle of fish. And still there was no evidence of cte before the early 2000s, no place in the world had any evidence of it. The afl wasn’t a billion dollar industry in the 80s and 90s, in the 80s the league and most of the clubs were broke. The class action won’t get anywhere if they start comparing to combat sports, who actually have less protocols than regular contact sport, add on to that constant head knocks even without concussions will also league to cte. So many different variables, even by case by case lifestyle etc, post vfl/afl - head knocks in local footy state leagues, for example Shane tuck boxed for a few years and had a really bad knockout in one fight.

I thought combat sports have rules relating to the length of time between fights.

You don't have to have know about CTE specifically for it to have been important to have a protocol for concussions.

As for the AFL, I'd say it all times it is much better placed than non-asbestos manufacturing employers and their knowledge of asbestos (at a time it was still legal to produce).

But I haven't looked into this is any depth.
 
I thought combat sports have rules relating to the length of time between fights.

You don't have to have know about CTE specifically for it to have been important to have a protocol for concussions.

As for the AFL, I'd say it all times it is much better placed than non-asbestos manufacturing employers and their knowledge of asbestos (at a time it was still legal to produce).

But I haven't looked into this is any depth.
In the 80s and 90s?

And again there was no research for it. A lot of players who wake up the next day or the day after are fine after a concussion. You’re looking through a current lense to any issue 30-40 years ago.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Boxing protocols. IMO footy will end up close to this for confirmed concussions. Huge amount of research happening. NFL will have massive lawsuits in the coming years.

AFL need to get on the front foot with mitigation protocols or the lawsuits will increase

1679114678100.png
 
Boxing protocols. IMO footy will end up close to this for confirmed concussions. Huge amount of research happening. NFL will have massive lawsuits in the coming years.

AFL need to get on the front foot with mitigation protocols or the lawsuits will increase

View attachment 1632744
Or the afl can also put assumption of risk into contracts. Along with whatever protocols they end up at.
 
Or the afl can also put assumption of risk into contracts. Along with whatever protocols they end up at.
Agree, might end up there but I am not sure how that stands up legally?

Like ski lift tickets state that skiing is inherently dangerous and resort will not be liable for injuries. Though can be challenged if the resort is negligent eg marking of known hazard.

Lots of grey areas but certain to be tougher protocols at some point IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top