James McManus Concussion Case

[Chimp]

Haven’t seen this discussed elsewhere, if it is, apologies and delete….

Great news for the game that his legal case against the Knights has been thrown out. Hopefully this is the start point to end the pandering to doctors and lawyers.

Sad for him if his alleged symptoms are all true, but we all start and continue playing the game knowing there are inherent risks to our short term and long term health. Players should never be able to sue the game for injuries!

 

[Perth Red]

If the NRL knew about the long term impacts of concussion and tried to hide it from the players ala NFL then fine, but they haven't and they have done as much as they can to reduce the impact. Time for the players to accept they get highly paid to take those risks, and if they don't want to nobody is forcing them to and they can get an everyday job for a fraction of the salary. Good on the judge for throwing it out!

Significant ruling for NRL as ex-Knights James McManus’ $1m concussion lawsuit dismissed

Significant ruling for NRL as ex-Knights star’s $1m concussion lawsuit dismissed

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Munky]

While I'm not a lawyer which level of court was this?

I'll be surprised if a concussion case on sport doesn't make it to the High Court eventually.

 

[Smug Panther]

Shit player and shit bloke looking to cash in. f**k him

 

[Last Week]

While I'm not a lawyer which level of court was this?

I'll be surprised if a concussion case on sport doesn't make it to the High Court eventually.

The Supreme Court. So it doesn't get much higher. The decision is binding. But there was no legal precedent set in this case, so it's unlikely that this will set a trend for any future similar cases.

The defence brought forward by the Knights and the NRL was in the Civil Liability Act. What their defence was though I have no idea.

 

[Ghostface Killah]

What's the difference between an "inherent risk" and a "risk"?

And is it a risk or a probability?

 

[Chimp]

What's the difference between an "inherent risk" and a "risk"?

And is it a risk or a probability?

Inherent is essentially the risk of playing without any control measures, you’ve then got the residual risk, which is the risk the remaining risk after controls have been put in place. So, if we focus on residual risk, the players know there’s a risk of injury, even death on the field, they know the level of control that is in place (rules to outlaw head contact, HIA protocols etc), they choose to play anyway - contracts should be written that leaves the player no way of holding the game to account for injuries - they know the risks and choose to play.

 

[Perth Red]

Interview with James who has been diagnosed with CTE now

 

[Tony Seibs]

Interview with James who has been diagnosed with CTE now

Must be a pretty 1 sided interview. I thought CTE could only be confirmed by autopsy?

 

[Perth Red]

Must be a pretty 1 sided interview. I thought CTE could only be confirmed by autopsy?

confirmed 100% yes, but like all dementias they give a best guess based on progression, risk factors, cognitive testing results and MRI/CAT/PET scans over time.

 

[Frailty]

Haven’t seen this discussed elsewhere, if it is, apologies and delete….

Great news for the game that his legal case against the Knights has been thrown out. Hopefully this is the start point to end the pandering to doctors and lawyers.

Sad for him if his alleged symptoms are all true, but we all start and continue playing the game knowing there are inherent risks to our short term and long term health. Players should never be able to sue the game for injuries!

Yeah! How dare the game actually look after the welfare of players and make moves to minimise the risk of permanent brain injuries!

 

[snickers007]

Sad for him if his alleged symptoms are all true, but we all start and continue playing the game knowing there are inherent risks to our short term and long term health. Players should never be able to sue the game for injuries!

Not sure too many 7 year old kids have a good grasp on what causes brain injuries.

 

[Tony Seibs]

Not sure too many 7 year old kids have a good grasp on what causes brain injuries.

Good thing no 7yr olds play NRL.

 

[snickers007]

Good thing no 7yr olds play NRL.

Great comprehension of what I responded to...

 

[Tony Seibs]

Great comprehension of what I responded to...

Thanks!

 

[Chimp]

Yeah! How dare the game actually look after the welfare of players and make moves to minimise the risk of permanent brain injuries!

There’s a balance though isn’t there… contact sport comes with risk, contact with the head should only be punished if it is deliberate or reckless - accidents happen, as an example, when players slip at the last minute and then get clipped on the head on their way down - that shouldn’t be a penalty or a ban (unless it’s a reckless challenge such as a swinging arm, clenched fist etc), or halfbacks running the ball right to the line, and being hit by a committed defender, a millisecond after they’ve released the ball - if the tackler has already launched his tackle before the ball is passed, that shouldn’t be a penalty or a ban…. Yes we have to protect players, from both high/late contact and from themselves, but there’s a balance, and we can’t have rules that are created to protect players then being easily abused (as head injury interchanges have been).
For what it’s worth, I don’t think that balance is too far off with the changes made this year - we’re we’re probably being slightly over cautious on HIAs from the bunker in round 1, round 2 seemed better, but we have to accept, there’ll be big hits/head knocks/bust noses etc that are not concussions, not everything needs to be treat as a concussion.

 

[Frailty]

There’s a balance though isn’t there… contact sport comes with risk, contact with the head should only be punished if it is deliberate or reckless - accidents happen, as an example, when players slip at the last minute and then get clipped on the head on their way down - that shouldn’t be a penalty or a ban (unless it’s a reckless challenge such as a swinging arm, clenched fist etc), or halfbacks running the ball right to the line, and being hit by a committed defender, a millisecond after they’ve released the ball - if the tackler has already launched his tackle before the ball is passed, that shouldn’t be a penalty or a ban…. Yes we have to protect players, from both high/late contact and from themselves, but there’s a balance, and we can’t have rules that are created to protect players then being easily abused (as head injury interchanges have been).
For what it’s worth, I don’t think that balance is too far off with the changes made this year - we’re we’re probably being slightly over cautious on HIAs from the bunker in round 1, round 2 seemed better, but we have to accept, there’ll be big hits/head knocks/bust noses etc that are not concussions, not everything needs to be treat as a concussion.

But what has made you think they aren't accepting there'll be bit hits/head knocks, etc.? They aren't every going to eliminate it and I don't think they are under that assumption. Rather it's about trying to minimise the risk as much as they can, and ensuring processes are there to ensure players' well being is kept at the forefront.

I don't have a real issue with the HIA process. It is annoying but if it protects player's brains from excess damage I'm ok with it. For example, Ronaldo Mulitano was ruled out after a failed HIA in the game against Parramatta after receiving a stray elbow whilst stopping a try. He didn't stay down, and seemed fine - he got pulled into the HIA process. He ended up failing the HIA so whilst it sucks, ultimately it was the right decision. Personally, if players stay down for penalties - I definitely don't have an issue for them to get pulled.

In regards to only being punished for deliberate or reckless - I think you need to add careless there. For example, in the Sharks-Dragons game last night, I have no issues with the two sin bins. Ramien's was more egregious, but I can understand the justification for Su'a. It was a forceful shoulder directly to the head where Finucane didn't really dip a significant amount. As Cameron Smith broke down after the game (and I hate that I have to agree with him), Su'a takes his eyes off Finucane before making contact meaning he is just hitting without knowing where he is doing so. That is careless. It was probably borderline sin bin IMO.

The "late hits" are definitely an area that needs to be cleaned up. Definitely agree with that. Su'a's sin bin last week was bad. It wasn't late, it wasn't high, and there wasn't even significant "whiplash". I think cracking down on this area has generally resulted in less late hits from what we were seeing. You will get those bad calls, just like any but overall the intention is good and has been effective.