Concussion. One word that could change our game forever?

[EOL now nesting on the GC]

Just posted over here in the UK on Sky news. What are your thoughts on this?

People choose to play and chose to play the game knowing the dangers. In the litigious society we now live in it was always going to happen. I guarantee it will only take 1 favorable result against a sport to open the floodgates on the NRL.

'Test group' of rugby players launch law suits over concussion

Eight players, one of whom was concussed 30 times, will file claims saying the sport's authorities failed to protect them.

news.sky.com

 

[Shoe1]

Over here the players get "head knocks" not concussion, according to Gus and the Origin coaching group. So all good.

 

[Loobs]

Just posted over here in the UK on Sky news. What are your thoughts on this?

People choose to play and chose to play the game knowing the dangers. In the litigious society we now live in it was always going to happen. I guarantee it will only take 1 favorable result against a sport to open the floodgates on the NRL.

'Test group' of rugby players launch law suits over concussion

Eight players, one of whom was concussed 30 times, will file claims saying the sport's authorities failed to protect them.

news.sky.com

Lawsuits have been going for a while now...

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Agree , if they win I don’t know where the game goes from there.

Touch footy I guess

 

[manlyfan76]

This has been going to happen for a while now.

Once insurance companies drop off it will get worse/ better.

 

[Woodsie]

It all hinges on duty of care ... are the risks being minimised in accordance with best practice and are the injuries being managed properly ..

These people are saying that they weren't ...

Remember, that car racing and horse racing continue even though death is a possible outcome ... and boxing continues where the actual intention is to give your opponent a severe concussion ...

More head injuries are caused by cheerleading than high school football. In Cheerleading some of the athletes are getting tossed 30 feet in the air. If their teammates miss the catch on the way down, there’s nothing to protect their head. It is also considered one of the most dangerous high school sports in America.

 

[The Who]

Whoa! Whenever we read about law suits relating to concussion it is always in professional sports where clubs/the organisation are probably financially capable of surviving even if they have a hefty payout. But what about all the 'dangerous' amateur sports? How is the local rugby or cricket club going to handle the situation, and there is probably more chance of a player suffering serious concussion in an amateur competition than one professionally administered.
This could be a minefield, not dissimilar to the "consent" you need to obtain these days before undertaking an amorous pursuit. All people playing sport will need to sign a waiver agreeing not to pursue legal action potentially arising from an on-field incident.
Gee, the good old days really were "good", weren't they?

 

[manly al]

Law suits [ or some ] in N F L were successful when it was proven that the head [ pardon the pun ] organization intentionally overlooked or ignored medical advice at the time that some players had serious concussion issues and kept the same playing and safety protocols in place without reviewing them . Pretty much a joint or collective responsibility with all parties accepting the risk factors but agreeing and accepting the more contemporary advised or recommended safety and welfare provisions and to be adhered to .

 

[Woodsie]

Whoa! Whenever we read about law suits relating to concussion it is always in professional sports where clubs/the organisation are probably financially capable of surviving even if they have a hefty payout. But what about all the 'dangerous' amateur sports? How is the local rugby or cricket club going to handle the situation, and there is probably more chance of a player suffering serious concussion in an amateur competition than one professionally administered.
This could be a minefield, not dissimilar to the "consent" you need to obtain these days before undertaking an amorous pursuit. All people playing sport will need to sign a waiver agreeing not to pursue legal action potentially arising from an on-field incident.
Gee, the good old days really were "good", weren't they?

Not a lawyer ... but believe until one of our sharp legal minds says otherwise ..

A person can sign a waiver, stating that they are undertaking a pursuit in which there is a known and inherent danger ... and that they accept the risks .. and that goes a fair way ..

However, this does not negate a sports ruling body from their duty of care, or from negligence ... and that appears to be what any lawsuit will contend ..

As long as a sport can show that the risks were well known, explained, and that best industry practice was observed in the prevention and treatment of injuries .. all should be good .. (I hope ..)

My concern is .. how can an 8 year old sign a waiver ..can parents waive on behalf of minors ???

 

[Tragic Eagle]

This is a difficult issue because often players want to play on or come back and will say that they are okay when they are not. It is inevitable that under the current system that litigation against a club and or the NRL will in the future be brought by player with a brain injury. They can't ignore this problem they need to be working on it right now. IMO once a player suffers what appears to be a concussion injury they should not be permitted to continue or to return to the field and the only question should be whether or not they play again and if so when will it be safe for them to do so. The rules around interchange needs to be restructured around this. Firstly clubs should be permitted to replace a player in the 17 during the game of they loose a player to a head knock and the player who suffered the head knock should mandatory be unable to play for at least one week and otherwise not before receiving a medical clearance from an independent doctor not a doctor employed by the club or the NRL.

 

[Budgie]

It’s the Christians vs the Lions. Players have to understand they’re the Christians. And many are.

 

[Ranga]

I reckon a potential exposure for the NRL is around the in-game consequences of high tackles. I don't like how in rugby a tackler unintentionally tackles high by a fraction and they are given a red or yellow card, but the rules are clear that the tackler has a duty of care to the attacker. Mistakes happen but there are serious consequences when they get it wrong - both in-game and hefty suspensions... Generally, I think the strict rules and significant consequences demonstrate a commitment to player welfare.

Contrast this to the NRL. The fact that Hetherington wasn't sent for his tackle on Marty suggests that the NRL doesn't really think the issue is that big a deal.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

This could be a minefield,

Now that would be dangerous!

A person can sign a waiver, stating that they are undertaking a pursuit in which there is a known and inherent danger ... and that they accept the risks .. and that goes a fair way ..

OK for grown ups but I doubt any waiver signed by a child would be worth much!

 

[mave]

Agree , if they win I don’t know where the game goes from there.

Touch footy I guess

So the 2020 all over again ?

 

[StuBoot]

More head injuries are caused by cheerleading than high school football. In Cheerleading some of the athletes are getting tossed 30 feet in the air. If their teammates miss the catch on the way down, there’s nothing to protect their head. It is also considered one of the most dangerous high school sports in America.

Ahh, so that’s gives new meaning to the title of the movie “Bring it On”.

 

[Woodsie]

Ahh, so that’s gives new meaning to the title of the movie “Bring it On”.

I had to google the movie to get your reference ... the fact you knew about the movie is a worry ... hahahaa

 

[Shoe1]

I reckon a potential exposure for the NRL is around the in-game consequences of high tackles. I don't like how in rugby a tackler unintentionally tackles high by a fraction and they are given a red or yellow card, but the rules are clear that the tackler has a duty of care to the attacker. Mistakes happen but there are serious consequences when they get it wrong - both in-game and hefty suspensions... Generally, I think the strict rules and significant consequences demonstrate a commitment to player welfare.

Contrast this to the NRL. The fact that Hetherington wasn't sent for his tackle on Marty suggests that the NRL doesn't really think the issue is that big a deal.

The herherington tackle was appalling. Hartley would have sent him off for that in the 70s, yet the ref and video ref wimped it.

 

[EOL now nesting on the GC]

The herherington tackle was appalling. Hartley would have sent him off for that in the 70s, yet the ref and video ref wimped it.

Very true. It was a shocker considering what others in contact sport get marched for.

 

[niccipops]

Over here the players get "head knocks" not concussion, according to Gus and the Origin coaching group. So all good.

Gus..lol..
Too many "head knocks'
No, no, no!
Wow. Just wow!

 

[The better Robbo]

Whoa! Whenever we read about law suits relating to concussion it is always in professional sports where clubs/the organisation are probably financially capable of surviving even if they have a hefty payout. But what about all the 'dangerous' amateur sports? How is the local rugby or cricket club going to handle the situation, and there is probably more chance of a player suffering serious concussion in an amateur competition than one professionally administered.
This could be a minefield, not dissimilar to the "consent" you need to obtain these days before undertaking an amorous pursuit. All people playing sport will need to sign a waiver agreeing not to pursue legal action potentially arising from an on-field incident.
Gee, the good old days really were "good", weren't they?

Don't these "waivers" already exist in sports? That was my understanding. Something I just found...
If the defence can establish that the injured player was engaged in a sporting activity with an obvious risk the court will most probably determine that the injured player consented to the risk and thus cannot hold anyone liable for their injury.

What is of significance is that even though the risk of an injury occurring had a low probability or was not considered conspicuous, the risk can still be determined as being an obvious risk.

Furthermore, Section 16 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 states that if a court finds that there was an inherent risk, meaning the risk of the injury occurring could not be avoided, then they can avoid liability.