Hypothetical blame.

[woodyk2]

Just a hypothetical question for discussion and debate regarding Darren Lockyer. If he plays against Manly and gets smashed....even head highed...then can take no further part in the game or heaven(or whoever) forbid he loses his eyesight through one eye as many medical specialists have warned against...then who gets the blame? The Manly player? His courage?Broncos medical staff? The NRL for allowing him to play? His very possible stupidety for letting 100kg plus blokes belt him? Who?
Dont get me wrong this isnt an anti broncos thread in any way shape or form and is only hypothetical but who would most likely get the blame ?

 

[carlosthedwarf]

The people who let him play, be it medical staff, the team or the league who refused to be the bad guy here and put a players safety first.

Once he steps foot on the field I don't think you can hold someone responsible for it unless it's a grub act.

 

[Perth Red]

Broncos medical staff. As his employer Brisbane have a duty of care to ensure he is fit for duty.

Culpability would probably be shared though if a Manly player deliberatly goes for his head with the intent of causing significant damage.

 

[Spud]

I'm a Broncos supporter, but Lockyer knows the risk. If he gets smashed legally then there really isn't anyone to blame.

 

[butchmcdick]

Broncos medical staff. As his employer Brisbane have a duty of care to ensure he is fit for duty.

Culpability would probably be shared though if a Manly player deliberatly goes for his head with the intent of causing significant damage.[/QUOTE]

How would you prove that unless the player stated beforehand that he was out to cause significant damage ?

If lockyer plays and gets injured and was warned about it previously I don't see how it is anyway elses fault

 

[Patorick]

Brian Smith.

 

[Perth Red]

Well if a player came in first tackle and stiff arms him across that side of his face with a clenched fist then it wouldn't be hard to lay claim to a deliberate malicious act with intent to cause injury!

Whilst I agree that Lockyer needs to take some responsibility the workplace laws are quite clear that it is the employers responsibility to ensure an employee is fit for work.

 

[firechild]

If it's a legal play that sees him get injured he has noone to blame but himself. If it is a high tackle or similar that is unintentional, the Manly player should be punished no more than if the recipient were a fully healthy player. If it was a deliberate act then they should have the book thrown at them. I don't think there should be any extra protection for Lockyer by referees or judiciary than is given to any other player in the game. If Lockyer declares himself fit to play then he should be treated the same as any of the other 35 fit players walking onto the SFS.

 

[ceagle]

Jason Ryles.

 

[Parra Pride]

Jason Ryles.

Obvious answer is obvious.

 

[Loudstrat]

Heathers. His surgeon advised against it. The Broncos doctors would have to defer to the surgeon to gain advice re the operation and his state as a result.

To me this all stems from a "Locky goes out a winner" mentality that is suddenly an obsession - an industry if you like - that is devoid of all common sense. Apparently he cannot fly to Sydney - they are going to drive him to the game or something f*cking stupid like that.

The club has a duty of care to ensure the player doesnt play injured. The same as a guy with concussion who thinks he can play on but doesnt know what f**king day it is, who gets more concussed because someone didnt stop him.

 

[firechild]

There were suggestions before Johns played in the 1997 grand final with a punctured lung that if he was tackled and the result was death (as unlikely as that may be) the Manly player(s) involved in the tackle could be charged with manslaughter. I think that would remove all responsibility from the doctors, club officials and the NRL (or ARL as it were at the time) and to me that is completely wrong.

Manly players can't be held accountable for doing exactly what they would do if there were 13 uninjured opponents on the field.

 

[woodyk2]

Do you guys think the refs will ''over'' protect him?

 

[firechild]

Do you guys think the refs will ''over'' protect him?

Yes, without question.

 

[madunit]

First of all, say what you will about Manly players in jest, but I doubt any of them will be focussing on committing anything close to an illegal act on the field against any player at a risk of costing their team a GF spot, or themselves a place in the GF. I think Hasler also knows well enough to target one players injury is short sighted and leaves the rest of your game plan vulnerable to attack.

 

[Usain Bolt]

If Robert Lui beats up his mrs who gets the blame?

 

[Mr Saab]

Broncos should make Lockyer sign a waiver form that puts all responsibility on Lockyer and Lockyer only if something were to go wrong.

 

[ceagle]

His eye looks pretty f**ked up right here

http://www.broncos.com.au/default.aspx?s=article-display&id=43757&title=darren-lockyer-speaks

Or maybe it is just the quality. What the f**k were they filming him with? A f**ken potato? Interesting he said it is usually a 6 week injury.

 

[perverse]

if i were the Broncos, i'd be getting him to sign some sort of waiver. i hope for his sake that he doesn't get more hurt than he is this weekend.

if something happens, it's Lockys fault and his alone, imo (without knowing what sort of pressures are going on behind the scenes, that is). if it's his call and no-one elses, what happens out on the field is his own responsibility and no-one elses.

 

[Bobby DIGital]

Some people say cucumbers taste better pickled...