McCracken wins court case

[Misty Bee]

I'm just asking stating a fact that Rugby League CANNOT come under normal business law.

Rediculous statement. It HAS to.

The game is not bigger, nor outside the law. Otherwise, the Dogs rape case, the Knights romp in Bathurst etc etc would allbe kosher.

Crackers did what I'd do, and thousands of us, if we had a career threatening injury. Problem?

A few points to consider -

1)Wests lost out because of the injury big time as well.

2) Didn't Marcus Bai sue the Storm after injuring himself on signage at Olympic Park?

3) Didn't the legal process come up with the same conclusion as our judiciary?

BTW, stop whinging at his financial sucess. When the day comes that someone can't get legal redress because of their bank account is the day equity and fairness dies.

 

[NZ Warrior]

I'm just asking stating a fact that Rugby League CANNOT come under normal business law.

Rediculous statement. It HAS to.

The game is not bigger, nor outside the law. Otherwise, the Dogs rape case, the Knights romp in Bathurst etc etc would allbe kosher.

Crackers did what I'd do, and thousands of us, if we had a career threatening injury. Problem?

A few points to consider -

1)Wests lost out because of the injury big time as well.

2) Didn't Marcus Bai sue the Storm after injuring himself on signage at Olympic Park?

3) Didn't the legal process come up with the same conclusion as our judiciary?

BTW, stop whinging at his financial sucess. When the day comes that someone can't get legal redress because of their bank account is the day equity and fairness dies.

Such an asinine interpretation of my argument. How dare you!!! And you spelt ridiculous wrong too!!!!

I said business law, not bloody law itself. Although, you would be forgiven to think that they were the way some players have been acting.

On the Tigers, I couldn't care less, they weren't exactly accomodating to Mr McCracken either.

On Marcus Bai, I'm not certain. But I'm pretty sure he sued Olympic Park trust for providing an unsafe work environment. So why should I consider this again. Are you saying McCracken should have sued Olympic Park too because the ground was hard???

I actually find the judiciary to be incompetent, so I would hope the same can't be said of the Legal system.

I would hope the last statement wasn't directed at me, I didn't even mention the size of McCracken's bank account.


NEXT!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Misty Bee]

Business law is somehow differnt to normal law???? I thought the Rugby Legal cases of the late 90's sorted that one out.

Re Bai, it's clear that he sued because of an injury sustained during a match, due to someone's negligence. I guess you couldn't make that connection - you were too worried about spelling accuracies!

Last statement directed not at you.

 

[Mighty Tiger]

Sure I would. But it shouldn't have been handled like this. Don't forget, Mr McCracken had to kick and scream to get some money out of your club too. I think that was pretty shitty really, not paying out a player's contract when he has been injured and forced to retire playing for your club.

Actually he didn't because a payout was always on the cards - he was unhappy with the delay of the payout which is what caused all the fuss (he wanted it straight away not and in 1 installment not over the years remaining out of his contract which the Wests Tigers wanted to do because that counted towards the Salary Cap as a player payment!)

Now, I did say not to come back saying the Storm were their employers.

But the simple fact is they are the players employers and were paid at the time whilst doing that tackle. If the Storm had not of been paying those players would the tackle of occured? Bai and kearney wouldn't of been playing for them otherwise hence why they are involved.

It tends to happen in the WWE quite a lot. But let's not even go there.

Yes and Wrestlers also sign and agree to holding themselves as repsonsible for all that takes place whilst wrestling removing their employers liability to the actions that take place

See, you've just said that the clubs are removed of liability. But when the rules are broken, it's the players who are punished. So why isn't that the case with this court case???

I never said they are - If you for instance surf the net at work and do a criminal act whilst at work your employer not only gets shut down from internet activity but they also are deemed partly responsible they face heavy fines because they could of contained the incident, now with a player who does an illegal act in a game of NRL they still get paid if suspended (unless they are on match payments which Bai and Kearney where not!) and as at the time they were representing the Storm when the incident occured liability remains on the club - you can try and say remove the employer fact but plain and simply this is a fact.

Did the Storm produce evidence to state that the training they used was used in a manor to prevent Spear Tackles?

I strongly disagree that these work place incidents are similar to the spear tackle incident.

I was being sarcastic in case you didn't notice, you stated

I challenge everyone to run up to a work colleague and tackle them, let's see what happens.

Hence why the comments - we all know what would happen if you tackled someone out of the blue in the workplace (provided the workplace didn't involve tackling in the 1st place and this includes sex)

A spear tackle or Rugby League in general is the standard workplace hence the comments!

But I'll play along anyway. The case involving the Electrician, you'll find that the prankster himself will be in a lot of trouble here. Action won't only be taken on behalf of the injured party but also by his employers too.

Why would the employers be responsible I wonder?

 

[NZ Warrior]

Clubs to meet NRL on liability concerns

23 February 2005


The rugby league players association and the National Rugby League will meet on Thursday for urgent talks on player liability after a judge ruled that footballers could be sued for injuries caused in illegal tackles.

The NRL insisted that the Supreme Court ruling in favour of former West Tigers and New Zealand captain Jarrod McCracken, who says his career was ended by a spear tackle, would not change how the game was conducted.

"Our advice is that there are no significant implications for either the NRL judicial system, or the manner in which our competition is conducted," NRL chief operating officer Graham Annesley said in a statement.

"Players are already covered under existing insurance for on-field personal liability in respect of these issues.

"This includes claims that are made against a player for his actions."

A hearing in August will decide the amount of damages awarded to McCracken, who is seeking more than $750,000.

The NRL believes Melbourne Storm players Stephen Kearney and Marcus Bai, who performed the tackle on McCracken in May 2000, will be covered by existing insurance.

However Tony Butterfield, chief executive of the Rugby League Professionals Association, said he was not satisfied with the NRL's assurances that players were not personally liable.

"Unless the players have an arrangement with the club whereby they are indemnified, I would suspect the player(s) would be exposed to payment on these issues," he told Radio 2KY.

"Whilst I note Graham Annesley's comments that he doesn't see a great deal will change, we probably take a different view and we'll be discussing that on Thursday."

The players are concerned that if they enter early guilty pleas in the NRL judiciary in cases where an opposing player is injured, it could be regarded as an admission that they'd deliberately set out to cause injury.

The McCracken case could also have a flow-on effect with the AFL, which this season is adopting the rugby league model of lesser penalties for players who plead guilty without need for a tribunal hearing.

"The Supreme Court justice in this case certainly relied on the pleas made by the players at the NRL judiciary, so clearly there is some bearing on what is said at the judiciary," Butterfield said.

"Therefore players will have to really seriously consider taking these early pleas which, as we all know, were designed to clear a bit of a backlog.

"That's a cause for concern because players who ... should be taking early guilty pleas in order to get things out of the way will eventually be wearing much longer suspensions and certainly clubs won't be comfortable with that, nor will players."

Butterfield said that a new collective bargaining agreement between the players and the NRL contained no provisions on player indemnity.

"That agreement has been negotiated and was voted on Monday and basically 100 per cent of the players supported it.

"It's a new eventuality and obviously something that the NRL will need to consider, and there may well be the need to amend the rules to ensure that the players are better supported in this situation."


Brought to you by AAP



Finally, some "official" information!!!!!

 

[Mighty Tiger]

That is the most f***ing ridiculous thing I have ever heard. That scenario would be deemed a one on one assault between the attendant & the customer and the service station would have nothing to do with it.

Depending on the circumstances - I believe in the US that this actually was the case and someone won winning $100,000 from the gas station not to mention the worker who performed the act

People have still failed to inform us all on how the Storm were held accountable of intent to cause injury in this case. Like I basically said, if you aren't in the know, then don't bother commenting.

What evidence did the Storm present to their case to attempt to remove liability from themselves?

Did they present tackle training techniques to assist them?

Did they present information to show that they had worked with Kearney who actually had a history of spear and reckless tackles (he has been charged 4 times before for spear tackles and once since the McCraken tackle) to say that they activley worked on a strategy to remove those mistakes out of his game whilst he was employed by them?

After all it is their repsonibility whilst he is at the club to train and prevent illegal tackles isn't it?

 

[NZ Warrior]

Business law is somehow differnt to normal law???? I thought the Rugby Legal cases of the late 90's sorted that one out.

OK, what are you talking about. If you need the difference between Business Law and Actual Law explained to you, then your education system has failed you.

Re Bai, it's clear that he sued because of an injury sustained during a match, due to someone's negligence. I guess you couldn't make that connection - you were too worried about spelling accuracies!

I wasn't debating IF he sued, I was debating WHO he sued. I guess if your reading comprehension skills match your spelling skills, that would explain this f**k up.

I'm getting sick of this. Have you people not got anything better to do???

 

[nqboy]

I'm a bit concerned about this verdict. Given it's a civil trial, I'm not sure but I think the standard of proof in this instance would have been on the balance of probablilities - in numerical terms, 51%. And to my mind, that is far too low a standard on which to base a finding of intent to injure on the part of the tackler.

Don't get me wrong, it's a bad tackle, right up there with the worst examples of spear tackles we see. But the judge's decision, if I'm reading it right, is that the two defendants deliberately set out to injure McCracken and end his career and, if so, I would require a far higher standard of proof to be satisfied.

I'd welcome correction if I've erred in my reading of the decision.

 

[NZ Warrior]

Sure I would. But it shouldn't have been handled like this. Don't forget, Mr McCracken had to kick and scream to get some money out of your club too. I think that was pretty shitty really, not paying out a player's contract when he has been injured and forced to retire playing for your club.

Actually he didn't because a payout was always on the cards - he was unhappy with the delay of the payout which is what caused all the fuss (he wanted it straight away not and in 1 installment not over the years remaining out of his contract which the Wests Tigers wanted to do because that counted towards the Salary Cap as a player payment!)

I'm still disappointed in the Wests Tigers.

Now, I did say not to come back saying the Storm were their employers.

But the simple fact is they are the players employers and were paid at the time whilst doing that tackle. If the Storm had not of been paying those players would the tackle of occured? Bai and kearney wouldn't of been playing for them otherwise hence why they are involved.

I think you need to look over Employer Liability before you keep going over your head.

It tends to happen in the WWE quite a lot. But let's not even go there.

Yes and Wrestlers also sign and agree to holding themselves as repsonsible for all that takes place whilst wrestling removing their employers liability to the actions that take place

I did say let's not go there, the comment was made in jest.

See, you've just said that the clubs are removed of liability. But when the rules are broken, it's the players who are punished. So why isn't that the case with this court case???

I never said they are -Oh but you did say that If you for instance surf the net at work and do a criminal act whilst at work your employer not only gets shut down from internet activity but they also are deemed partly responsible they face heavy fines because they could of contained the incident, What's with you and workplace scenarios that have absolutely f**k all to do with Rugby League now with a player who does an illegal act in a game of NRL they still get paid if suspended (unless they are on match payments which Bai and Kearney where not!) and as at the time they were representing the Storm when the incident occured liability remains on the club - you can try and say remove the employer fact but plain and simply this is a fact.

Did the Storm produce evidence to state that the training they used was used in a manor to prevent Spear Tackles?

WHY IS THE f**kING CLUB LIABLE. JUST BECAUSE THEY PAY THE PLAYERS, DOESN'T MEAN THEY f**kING PAY THEM TO TAKE OTHER PLAYERS OUT OF THE GAME!!!!

I strongly disagree that these work place incidents are similar to the spear tackle incident.

I was being sarcastic in case you didn't notice, you stated Ah, but mine was clearly in jest, yours was very much less clear. After all, you do have knack of bringing up stupid workplace scenarios.

I challenge everyone to run up to a work colleague and tackle them, let's see what happens.

Hence why the comments - we all know what would happen if you tackled someone out of the blue in the workplace (provided the workplace didn't involve tackling in the 1st place and this includes sex) What the hell???
A spear tackle or Rugby League in general is the standard workplace hence the comments!

But I'll play along anyway. The case involving the Electrician, you'll find that the prankster himself will be in a lot of trouble here. Action won't only be taken on behalf of the injured party but also by his employers too.

Why would the employers be responsible I wonder? Read it again, Nimrod. I said action would be taken BY the Employer as well

 

[NZ Warrior]

That is the most f***ing ridiculous thing I have ever heard. That scenario would be deemed a one on one assault between the attendant & the customer and the service station would have nothing to do with it.

Depending on the circumstances - I believe in the US that this actually was the case and someone won winning $100,000 from the gas station not to mention the worker who performed the act

That's the USofA for ya.

People have still failed to inform us all on how the Storm were held accountable of intent to cause injury in this case. Like I basically said, if you aren't in the know, then don't bother commenting.

Hhmmm, If I read what I wrote again, it really seems you shouldn't have bothered commenting. What, with you asking me all these questions, it means that you "aren't in the know"

What evidence did the Storm present to their case to attempt to remove liability from themselves? Gee, with the media being so biased on this one, no news really came out about the Storm's defense.

Did they present tackle training techniques to assist them?

Did they present information to show that they had worked with Kearney who actually had a history of spear and reckless tackles (he has been charged 4 times before for spear tackles and once since the McCraken tackle) to say that they activley worked on a strategy to remove those mistakes out of his game whilst he was employed by them? If Kearney doesn't know how to tackle by now, then there is something seriously wrong
After all it is their repsonibility whilst he is at the club to train and prevent illegal tackles isn't it? If players don't know that they are not allowed to spear tackle by now, there is something seriously wrong with them

 

[Mighty Tiger]

People have still failed to inform us all on how the Storm were held accountable of intent to cause injury in this case. Like I basically said, if you aren't in the know, then don't bother commenting

What, with you asking me all these questions, it means that you "aren't in the know".

So why don't you take your own advice?

I guess by your own words your a plain and simple hypocryte now, after all you did jump to conclusions about McCracken and the Wests Tigers now didn't you!

But as you said "if you aren't in the know, then don't bother commenting" good to see you take your own advice there :lol: :lol: :lol:

Gee, with the media being so biased on this one, no news really came out about the Storm's defense.

If the Storm had a good case to remove themseleves from being charged wouldn't it have been in the best interest of News Limited since they own them anyway to produce that evidence after the trial to make out how hard done by they are?

If Kearney doesn't know how to tackle by now, then there is something seriously wrong

Its still the responsibility of the club to correct his technique if it is a weakness and one which would be viewed as a liability is it not?

If players don't know that they are not allowed to spear tackle by now, there is something seriously wrong with them

Isn't it the clubs responsibility to correct tackle techniques? I mean after all the Storm did happen to change the majority of players techniques to use the "Graple Tackle" so why couldn't they have made a minor adjustement to 1 players technique?

 

[NZ Warrior]

People have still failed to inform us all on how the Storm were held accountable of intent to cause injury in this case. Like I basically said, if you aren't in the know, then don't bother commenting

What, with you asking me all these questions, it means that you "aren't in the know".

So why don't you take your own advice?

I guess by your own words your a plain and simple hypocryte now, after all you did jump to conclusions about McCracken and the Wests Tigers now didn't you!

But as you said "if you aren't in the know, then don't bother commenting" good to see you take your own advice there :lol: :lol: :lol: That's so f**king funny. I think it's best that you stop calling me a hypocrite. After all I did know it took the Wests Tigers a while to pay McCracken. Even in the end, they didn't pay out the full amount. Something you failed to bring up. So no conclusions were jumped to there.

Gee, with the media being so biased on this one, no news really came out about the Storm's defense.

If the Storm had a good case to remove themseleves from being charged wouldn't it have been in the best interest of News Limited since they own them anyway to produce that evidence after the trial to make out how hard done by they are?

We are just going around in circles aren't we??? Don't keep on bringing this up until you have answers. I don't know what the Storm presented in court and it's apparent you don't either. So why bring it up???

If Kearney doesn't know how to tackle by now, then there is something seriously wrong

Its still the responsibility of the club to correct his technique if it is a weakness and one which would be viewed as a liability is it not?

The spear tackle was a heat of the moment thing. You don't see him continually going between the legs in every tackle. Your point is taken on his repeated offences, but come on, how many times can the club say "don't do that".

If players don't know that they are not allowed to spear tackle by now, there is something seriously wrong with them

Isn't it the clubs responsibility to correct tackle techniques? I mean after all the Storm did happen to change the majority of players techniques to use the "Graple Tackle" so why couldn't they have made a minor adjustement to 1 players technique?

What a bullshit comment that was, talk about hearsay. Look, Kearney is a very experienced player. It was not his tackling technique in question here, it was a tackle that went wrong. Nothing to do with his technique.

I don't think I can take much more of this. Please, is any of this getting through to you?????

 

[chemicalbrother]

Business law is somehow differnt to normal law???? I thought the Rugby Legal cases of the late 90's sorted that one out.

Re Bai, it's clear that he sued because of an injury sustained during a match, due to someone's negligence. I guess you couldn't make that connection - you were too worried about spelling accuracies!

Last statement directed not at you.

I Don't think the Marcus bai incident did not get to court. the Melbourne and Olympic Trust had the signage right next to the grass. but move it back.

but if it went to Court, MOPT would have to pay. But they were guilty and liable to pay but comparing to McCracken Case, i belive Marcus Bai had a stronger case.

 

[Razor]

That is the most f***ing ridiculous thing I have ever heard. That scenario would be deemed a one on one assault between the attendant & the customer and the service station would have nothing to do with it.

Sorry to tell you, but you're wrong. Yes the attendant would also be charged with assault, but the gas station would also be sued.

 

[NZ Warrior]

That is the most f***ing ridiculous thing I have ever heard. That scenario would be deemed a one on one assault between the attendant & the customer and the service station would have nothing to do with it.

Sorry to tell you, but you're wrong. Yes the attendant would also be charged with assault, but the gas station would also be sued.

Don't be sorry, just tell me how the service station is involved and how it has come to be sued??? That's all I f**king want to know!!!! It's still the most f**king ridiculous thing that I've ever heard whether I am right or wrong.

 

[Mighty Tiger]

That's so f***ing funny. I think it's best that you stop calling me a hypocrite. After all I did know it took the Wests Tigers a while to pay McCracken. Even in the end, they didn't pay out the full amount. Something you failed to bring up. So no conclusions were jumped to there.

Maybe you should read the thread again

Actually he didn't because a payout was always on the cards - he was unhappy with the delay of the payout which is what caused all the fuss (he wanted it straight away not and in 1 installment not over the years remaining out of his contract which the Wests Tigers wanted to do because that counted towards the Salary Cap as a player payment!)

So what again was that I failed to bring up?

It appears that not only are you a Hypocryte but you also should take your advice on those remedial clases as well ;-)

The spear tackle was a heat of the moment thing

Yeah funny thats the same excuse that Tilse used does that mean the Knights shouldn't be liable for his off field antics?

You don't see him continually going between the legs in every tackle. Your point is taken on his repeated offences, but come on, how many times can the club say "don't do that".

Sure not in every tackle but you only need to do it once for it to be a concern - he has been suspended for a total of 15 weeks for Spear tackle infringments which is over 5 individual charges, wouldn't you call that a reason for concern?

Do we know the Storm said "don't do that"? I don't and I'm sure you don't so as you so often say why say it?

What a bullsh*t comment that was, talk about hearsay. Look, Kearney is a very experienced player.

Actually its not hearsay when the defensive coach runs through new techniques in which the players admit took place, its not hearsay when all of a sudden all the players on the park have a simular style which has change from their previous technique now is it?

It was not his tackling technique in question here, it was a tackle that went wrong. Nothing to do with his technique.

How many tackles need to go wrong for it to be a problem?

He has been charged a total of 5 times and suspended for a total of 15 weeks just for spear tackles - wouldn't that to you be deemed as technique problem to you?

1 is too many for mind regarding spear tackles but sure accidents happen so the benifit of the doubt comes into play but not after 5 offences (those are the only ones he has been found guilty of) - no player in the NRL has been charged more times than what Kearney has for spear tackles!

 

[NZ Warrior]

Dude, I've wasted my time on you. It's painfully f**king obvious that we are not going bring either one of us around to the other's way of think.

I was simply after answers and found nothing but bullshit and you. And let me just say I'm unhappy with both my findings.

Honestly, you quote to me about tackling techniques and asking me questions of did Melbourne do this, did they do that. Then there is your petty bickering. You seriously need to get back to the argument and stop f**king around, that'll get you nowhere. You also come up with bullshit for which you have no proof, you can't base an argument on that.

It is to this end that I no longer wish to carry this bullshit on. Have a nice day, Mighty Tiger, you f**king wanker. :lol:

 

[Mighty Tiger]

I was simply after answers and found nothing but bullsh*t and you. And let me just say I'm unhappy with both my findings.

Poor didums did I struck a nerve

Honestly, you quote to me about tackling techniques and asking me questions of did Melbourne do this, did they do that.

It was a spear tackle and Melbourne are held repsonsible for changing, keeping etc a players tackle technique - if kearney gets tired out on the park and can't perform the technique that he uses then obviously someone above has to be blamed or is it all Kearney's fault for the incident that took place and the other 5 incidents that he has been found guilty indoing?

Then there is your petty bickering. You seriously need to get back to the argument and stop f***ing around, that'll get you nowhere.

:lol: :lol: What a Hypocrite!

It is to this end that I no longer wish to carry this bullsh*t on. Have a nice day, Mighty Tiger, you f***ing wanker. :lol:

And as the curtains close its clear I have struck a nerve on this Hypocrite and no doubt this will last for him till he dies! (the audience rise and give a standing ovation)

 

[NZ Warrior]

Good stuff Mighty Tiger, I was waiting for your parting salvo. And you geek, you even got a picture of some tissues.

Mate, I'm just sick of arguing with you on the same shit. I had to put an end to it. And yes, I've been called a lot worse than a hypocrite.

Hey, what can I say. It hasn't be fun and you're still a wanker. Until next time, for being the wanker you are.

 

[Mighty Tiger]

Good stuff Mighty Tiger, I was waiting for your parting salvo. And you geek, you even got a picture of some tissues.

Mate, I'm just sick of arguing with you on the same sh*t. I had to put an end to it. And yes, I've been called a lot worse than a hypocrite.

Hey, what can I say. It hasn't be fun and you're still a wanker. Until next time, for being the wanker you are.

Good to see your tradition continues, at least we know one thing with you and that is you don't pratice what you preach!