As expected the Alex McKinnon debate has become quite intense, so I have decided to throw in my opinion as I believe this incident could see all concerned in the New South Wales Courts in the not so distant future. Nevertheless, Before going on let me firstly state that 'Bunnies' argument above has a lot of credibility.
I am not going to attest to being the world's greatest lawyer, however, and as alluded to above, it will not surprise me in the least if Alex McKinnon decides in the future to sue either (or altogether) the relevant players of the Melbourne storm, the Melbourne Storm, and NRL. I will explain.
In my honest opinion this unfortunate incident is one that has been waiting to happen! For example many of you would have now heard on TV and through various media outlets that the NRL is now going to rigidly enforce a ?concussion rule? because it has received stern legal advice that it could be potentially liable to past and present players who have sustained brain trauma as a result of unavoidable (and perhaps avoidable) collisions on the football field. In other words the NRL has received legal advice that it owes a greater ?duty of care? to the players.
Given this new position as far as the ?concussion rule? is concerned one only has to draw a simple analogy to the incident which has occurred to the poor and unfortunate Alex McKinnon. Ultimately the legality of the tackle will be a decision for other tribunals (and possibly Courts), and let me assure you the courts in this country have dealt with similar situations before and have come down with a firm hand when it was justified to do so. Maybe there are a few older members in this forum, who like me, remember the Rogers v. Bugden & Canterbury Football Club court decision back in 1986. This decision was later followed by another well-known NRL legal case of Jack v. Roberts.
For your benefit I will draw some ?Union v. League? comparisons as far as foul play is relevant; especially with respect to the rigidity of how union polices its game. The first example is the shoulder charge. In union it has been banned as far back as I can remember. At all levels of union such tackles result in ?yellow cards?, and in more serious instances a ?red cards? (which are usually followed by severe suspensions). In league it has only recently been outlawed but it generally only presently results in the player being put on report. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I have yet to see any player in the NRL ?sin binned? (the equivalent of union?s yellow card), or worse, being sent from the field! Admittedly there have been recent developments with respect to suspensions and I suspect they will continue.
The second example is the tackle above the shoulder. In union anything above the shoulder is treated in the same way as the shoulder charge as far as discipline is concerned. They actually stipulate the shoulder because it negates the, ?it bounced up and hit the head? excuse which is so often used as a defence to a ?high shot? in league. The last example I will use here is the tackle going over the horizontal, which is regrettably what happened to Alex McKinnon. From my understanding, it is outlawed in both codes however I believe it is more severely policed and punished in union. I have never seen a player stay on the field in union. No discretion applies once the tackle is over the horizontal; the player is off for either ten or for the match.
Perhaps the question to be asked is why is union so strict in regard to the examples I have provided above? The answer is obviously primarily geared toward the safety of the players. Accordingly, and on a secondary level, it satisfies an acceptable standard of a ?duty of care? which thereby negates the potential exposure to lawsuits which union's governing bodies could otherwise face. If one were to peruse the law reports on the subject of personal injury in sport they would soon find that it is very common for judges to look at and compare other similar and like sports when determining acceptable standards of a ?duty of care?. For mine I would not be surprised if a judge were to draw comparisons between union and league if the opportunity were to now arise with a high profile ?personal injury? league case. As I will suggest below, I believe one is now about to start simmering away.
I know there will be plenty of detractors out there ready to shout me down with comments like, ?it's a game of footy, not ballet?, and to be perfectly honest I would agree with such people. League is after all a contact sport and what is most loved is the ?biff?. In fact for most of us who have played the game and have sustained an injury it is akin to a badge of honour. To have copped a gash to the head which has left a scar, or in my case a broken nose (times three) have made for timeless and great ?B-S? stories down at the local club/pub, where very few now let the truth get in the way of a good story. No, I am merely coming at you from a legal perspective during a time, where from my legal experience, I am finding that most people seem to have better comprehension or understanding of their legal rights and obligations.
I am no expert in personal injury law and nor do I profess to be one, however I will state (from my limited knowledge of the area - and again I will stand corrected if anybody knows better) the following. As far as this area of law is concerned a club and/or the NRL could potentially be vicariously liable for the ?foul play? of a player(s) if it has not taken all the requisite steps deemed necessary, which are also within their organisational control, which deters and/or prevents such foul play. It doesn't necessarily just have to be about foul play, it is about the greater and general issue pertaining to a ?duty of care?. As noted above with the example of the introduction of the new ?concussion rule?, it was introduced because the NRL received legal advice that they owe this ?duty of care? to the players.
For me the Alex McKinnon incident is going to be one to watch for the future as far as a legal cases go. I will form no public opinion on the same ? I will leave that to the experts in this area of the law. Suffice to say we now have a young lad who is likely to see the premature ending of his career. The flow on from his ending will be a substantial loss of present and future income. If I were a betting man I would have one on Alex McKinnon's manager seeking legal advice on behalf of his client in the near future; if he/she is worth their salt they no doubt will!
Tuc.
