Head knocks

[jb03]

While i broadly agree with the simplification,

You could apply this logic to any negligence and legal breach;

If you want your lungs to work, dont work in a coal mine.

If you dont want to see civilians summarily executed, dont join the army

If you want your baby to have limbs, dont take morning sickness pills.

Of course. Personal choice. But equating whether to play sport with having to work in a coal mine ito earn a living s a bit of a stretch, especially considering that now the majority of draftees come from the APS Schoo, System.

And if you want to have more money, don't gamble (that is a note-to-self).

 

[BrisTiger24]

Insurance

Wonder to what extent the players/clubs/AFL will implicate the club doctors in this? After all, they were the ones who would have had to sign off that each player could play. Doctors would then push it to their PI insurers.

I think we need to be careful in this debate to not impose 2023 science/knowledge on to 2009 doctors. Yes, looking back it seems crazy to let a player who was knocked out to go back on the ground but clearly the science at the time didnt raise any concerns with that and it was commonplace in most contact sports

 

[graystar1]

If I heard correctly, have not had the 6.00 news on yet, another group is about to seek recompense for concussion.
It was only a short grab, so might be wrong.
Whatever.
If the current law suits are successful, it is possible that families of injured players dating right back to VFL AFL inception could come out of the woodwork.
Maybe tilting at windmills here, but nothing would surprise me.

 

[caesar]

They had one of the class action lawyers on SEN today saying that Richmond Football Club are going to be in a world of hurt when it all comes out.

 

[T-Shirt Tommy]

They had one of the class action lawyers on SEN today saying that Richmond Football Club are going to be in a world of hurt when it all comes out.

Why us? Because of the Shane Tuck situation?

 

[caesar]

Why us? Because of the Shane Tuck situation?

You've got Zantuck as well and he said he had multiple Richmond players saying the punishment for being late to training and other misdemeanours was to go 3 rounds of boxing without headgear to emphasise our lack of care

 

[Billy24]

You've got Zantuck as well and he said he had multiple Richmond players saying the punishment for being late to training and other misdemeanours was to go 3 rounds of boxing without headgear to emphasise our lack of care

I listened to the interview too @caesar . He said two clubs are in huge trouble and then proceeded to launch into us as you described. Said we had managed player safety badly during 80s 90s and early 00s. He expects to have up to 300 ex players joining the class action.

 

[shad]

Said we had managed player safety badly during 80s 90s and early 00s.

I'm not that surprised-we did everything else badly too.

 

[craig]

They had one of the class action lawyers on SEN today saying that Richmond Football Club are going to be in a world of hurt when it all comes out.

Why Not Us ..................................

 

[DavidSSS]

Still wondering where this leaves contact sports. How do you prevent concussions in a fast physical game like Australian Rules Football?

What the hell is the solution?

I don't reckon helmets are a solution because they don't stop the brain rattling around inside the skull, is there anything which can prevent concussion?

DS

 

[King Kong]

I listened to the interview too @caesar . He said two clubs are in huge trouble and then proceeded to launch into us as you described. Said we had managed player safety badly during 80s 90s and early 00s. He expects to have up to 300 ex players joining the class action.

Everyone just hopping on the bandwagon hoping for a lotto win payout. Wait until the players see what they have to go through to get 1c. It will take years to resolve, significant money (100s of thousands) and their health records will be public for all to see including their current and potential future employers.

Many will drop off.

Unless you've got a real impairment that can be proven to be the result of playing AFL then they are very little chance of getting anything. If any of these players played football before or after their AFL careers, then the conjecture as to when the impairment occurred will be such that it can't be proved. The onus of proof will be on the Plantiff (the players)

The AFL may settle and give them nominal payouts but if it goes to court, they've got bugger all chance. The lawyer on SEN is just trying to suck more players in to beef up his fee's and maybe pressure the AFL and Richmond via the media. If they had a good case and it was a decent lawyer, they wouldn't be saying anything publicly.

The AFL and clubs have deep pockets and are realistically not at risk, however, if it gains traction then community and amateur clubs will be gone. They won't be able to get or afford liability insurance and that will effectively be the end of the game as an amateur sport.

 

[Smoking Aces]

Everyone just hoping on the bandwagon hoping for a lotto win payout. Wait until the players see what they have to go through to get 1c. It will take years to resolve, significant money (100s of thousands) and their health records will be public for all to see including their current and potential future employers.

Many will drop off.

Unless you've got a real impairment that can be proven to be the result of playing AFL then they are very little chance of getting anything. If any of these players played football before or after their AFL careers, then the conjecture as to when the impairment occurred will be such that it can't be proved. The onus of proof will be on the Plantiff (the players)

The AFL may settle and give them nominal payouts but if it goes to court, they've got bugger all chance. The lawyer on SEN is just trying to suck more players in to beef up his fee's and maybe pressure the AFL and Richmond via the media. If they had a good case and it was a decent lawyer, they wouldn't be saying anything publicly.

The AFL and clubs have deep pockets and are realistically not at risk, however, if it gains traction then community and amateur clubs will be gone. They won't be able to get or afford liability insurance and that will effectively be the end of the game as an amateur sport.

Agree with all of this. The only winners will be the lawyers.

As you mentioned the said players will have to expect all their dirty laundry exposed to the public. Players have been drug tested for 20 odd years now. Those part of this class action would hope they were squeaky clean.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Reported on the news tonight that there's another class action with about 200 past players involved on top of the 60 n two individuals already lined up. Sounding like it's gunna be another big pay day for the ambulance chasers. Game's a 360 degree collision sport n always has been, unless they can somehow prove negligence by the medicos in the treatment n recovery after a head knock then I'm not to sure how far they can take things, unless of course the AFL n their insurers simply roll over. Some of the head knocks like the one shown involving Rooke were purely the players own over enthusiastic exuberance n stupidity.
Got me wondering how that Shaun Smith gets to line up for another slice of pie. Already copped a big payout for his concussion injuries yet he's been mentioned again in the compo claim.

 

[jb03]

Listened to the lawyers and now I'm even more convinced it is a cash grab for many.

 

[BrisTiger24]

They had one of the class action lawyers on SEN today saying that Richmond Football Club are going to be in a world of hurt when it all comes out.

Sounds like he's a bummer supporter

 

[tigertim]

What is a lawyers cut in a payout? 50%?

 

[AngryAnt]

Sure. But we are talking about 60 players in this class action, not isolated instances of negligence. If this gets up, watch the next class action. Watch NRL players get involved etc

If harm has been done, and the clubs have been negligent, then the number of people affected is irrelevant.

Legally you can't argue that because fewer people were harmed so we'll consider paying them out but lots of people were harmed so we won't pay anyone out.

 

[BrisTiger24]

If harm has been done, and the clubs have been negligent, then the number of people affected is irrelevant.

Legally you can't argue that because fewer people were harmed so we'll consider paying them out but lots of people were harmed so we won't pay anyone out.

Not saying that at all. I'm saying the numbers (60 followed by the floodgates) suggest a widespread failure of duty to take reasonable care. This is in the context of a professional sporting organisation with some of the best credentialed medical professionals in the country. If our best medical people are negligent, god help us all with our suburban GPs. People were harmed because they played a professional contact sport, aware of the risks of being harmed and, when harmed, were managed by elite medical professionals. What more could the clubs have done?

 

[AngryAnt]

Not saying that at all. I'm saying the numbers (60 followed by the floodgates) suggest a widespread failure of duty to take reasonable care. This is in the context of a professional sporting organisation with some of the best credentialed medical professionals in the country. If our best medical people are negligent, god help us all with our suburban GPs. People were harmed because they played a professional contact sport, aware of the risks of being harmed and, when harmed, were managed by elite medical professionals. What more could the clubs have done?

In the first part you say the numbers suggest a widespread failure, yet you go on to ask what more could the club's have done - I don't get the logical connection there.

Regardless, that's essentially the case they will have to argue - players were aware they could be be harmed, eg get concussed, but trusted clubs to ensure they were given the best care and not sent out again too early after potential or actual concussion.

Clubs will argue they acted appropriately based on the best medical advice and knowledge available at the time.

I don't know who has the better case, but suggesting the courts should "nip this in the bud" because of more potential class actions is just not how the law works, or should work.

 

[bairdy380]

As much as I’m not a fan, Eddie did mention that those litigating need to be prepared for serious scrutiny… pre afl sport, post afl sport, drug strikes during afl, etc…. Will be very interesting to see which direction it heads… docs countering with defamation of the plaintiffs are unsuccessful???….