Paul Green dies aged 49

[Chimp]

It being "voluntary" is such a weird wording.

Surely most people voluntarily choose there career or life choice in some fashion.

In a legal sense, I think it's incumbent on all employers (including the NRL) to ensure they are taking all reasonable steps to protect their employees. There is no need to create shelf companies or have players sign their lives away.

Rugby League is certainly not the Lone Ranger in terms of this issue.

Because sport is a hobby, people initially start playing the game for enjoyment, not to undertake it as a ‘profession’. Hence professional sport needs its own legal employment framework, as it comes with inherent risk.
It’s like suing the Armed Forces for getting injuries in the battlefield.

 

[Tiger5150]

Quite funny - I’ve worked as head of OH&S for many years and have a Diploma in that very subject. I’m very well versed thank you, what you seem to be missing, is that I’m saying those very frameworks should not be applied to sport as they are any other profession. Given the voluntary nature of sport, there needs to be a separate legal framework that covers it, particularly as a profession.

Mate you should have paid more attention. No one is going to be held responsible if they get hurt playing a sport. If a company pays people to do something that has been proven to cause life long and life changing injuries...THEY will be held responsible. Surely taught you THAT in your Diploma?

I’ll answer your point on mining differently - if you CHOOSE to voluntarily go mining for gold as a hobby, dig nice and deep into a hillside and find your ‘mine’ collapses on you, should somebody else be held liable for that?

Who else profits from that? You have burned your own argument. If I pay you to go and dig nice and deep into that same hillside to profit from your hard work and the hillside collapses, should I be held liable for that? I would imagine since you have a Diploma in that very same subject you would know the answer to that question?

 

[Chimp]

Mate you should have paid more attention. No one is going to be held responsible if they get hurt playing a sport. If a company pays people to do something that has been proven to cause life long and life changing injuries...THEY will be held responsible. Surely taught you THAT in your Diploma?

Who else profits from that? You have burned your own argument. If I pay you to go and dig nice and deep into that same hillside to profit from your hard work and the hillside collapses, should I be held liable for that? I would imagine since you have a Diploma in that very same subject you would know the answer to that question?

Yes, you would, under current employment laws - but that’s my point, those employment laws make professional contact sport impossible to continue (without drastically changing the fabric of the game), hence a new legal framework for professional sport needs to be agreed. You can’t apply standard OH&S logic to sport, it’s too restrictive.
Those laws were created to protect people in ‘normal’ professions, they don’t work for sport, particularly sport that relies heavily on aggression, physical domination of your opposition - it’s an absolute contradiction. OH&S laws are there with the primary aim of ‘eliminating’ risk, or minimising it ‘as far as reasonably practicable’. It just doesn’t work in contact sport.

 

[Tiger5150]

Are you saying it’s not a sport? There are way waaaaay more people playing the sport for free than there are professionally - who covers their liabilities?

Nobody other than the insurance that is taken out and provided at registration. That is the sport players risk.

IF someone starts paying and incentivising these people to take those risks, it is then their liability. Its pretty simple. Do you seriously think this isnt going to happen?

At its very core, rugby league is a sport, a hobby. The fact it has been commercialised at the highest level (like any other pro-sport) doesn’t make it the same as any other ‘job’.

It actually does. The clubs are the NRL are responsible the second that they receive income for others labour. Its not rocket surgery. Why do the clubs take out insurance? If it was "just a sport" then it would be the players risk and responsibility, but if Player X at your club tears an ACL, your club pays for the medical bills and his continued income when he cant play the "sport" because they are responsible because they are making money out of it.

My whole point is they there needs to be a separate legal framework for contact sport to continue to exist. Or we may aswell give it away now. Lots of people seem happy to blame the game, put the onus on the NRL, but that’s not a solution. There needs to be a solution that allows sports to continue, with people knowing the risks that come with it.

The law is the law including the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. you can not contract out of the law just because it is a sport and you cant sign a "waiver".

"A person conducting a business or undertaking must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the health and safety of other persons is not put at risk from work carried out as part of the conduct of the business or undertaking."

But you know this.....form your "Diploma"....no?

 

[Tiger5150]

Yes, you would, under current employment laws - but that’s my point, those employment laws make professional contact sport impossible to continue (without drastically changing the fabric of the game), hence a new legal framework for professional sport needs to be agreed. You can’t apply standard OH&S logic to sport, it’s too restrictive.

Why? Seriously why?

What you are saying is that the law needs to be changed to allow people to profit from knowingly getting other people to acquire brain damage..........because why?

you think that will fly?.....why? Because you and I like Rugba Leeg?

Those laws were created to protect people in ‘normal’ professions, they don’t work for sport, particularly sport that relies heavily on aggression, physical domination of your opposition - it’s an absolute contradiction. OH&S laws are there with the primary aim of ‘eliminating’ risk, or minimising it ‘as far as reasonably practicable’. It just doesn’t work in contact sport.

When a business profits from it, it is an occupation. End of story

 

[Canard]

Because sport is a hobby, people initially start playing the game for enjoyment, not to undertake it as a ‘profession’. Hence professional sport needs its own legal employment framework, as it comes with inherent risk.
It’s like suing the Armed Forces for getting injuries in the battlefield.

Soldiers etc sue the Armed Forces if negligence happens, and so they should.

You seem convinced that there is nothing that the NRL can do that will avoid them being sued in the future.

That's where we disagree, as long as the NRL (and yhe clubs) can demonstrate they took all reasonable steps to protect a players welfare and didn't act in a negligent manner they have a very solid position.

 

[Tiger5150]

Those laws were created to protect people in ‘normal’ professions,

No those laws were created to protect people.

 

[Chimp]

Why? Seriously why?

What you are saying is that the law needs to be changed to allow people to profit from knowingly getting other people to acquire brain damage..........because why?

you think that will fly?.....why? Because you and I like Rugba Leeg?



When a business profits from it, it is an occupation. End of story

So, what is the option? No longer have professional contact sports? Or sanitise/control them to the point, they’re no longer contact sport? It’s not ‘practicable’ - and maybe that’s where this will end, that a Court decides it’s not practicable to put more controls in without fundementally changing the sport. I very much doubt that.
There is no easy fix here - and I stand by my point, whilst not accounted for in employment law currently, professional sport is very different, as it emanates from a voluntary hobby, and there should be an element of the legal framework that is tailored to take into account the complexities associated with sport.
Other than armed forces, I can’t think of any other professions where one of the primary aims of your ‘job’ is to physically dominate another person.

 

[Wizardman]

Soldiers etc sue the Armed Forces if negligence happens, and so they should.

You seem convinced that there is nothing that the NRL can do that will avoid them being sued in the future.

That's where we disagree, as long as the NRL (and yhe clubs) can demonstrate they took all reasonable steps to protect a players welfare and didn't act in a negligent manner they have a very solid position.

I agree 100%. The crux of the matter is determining if the game has done enough to make their product as safe as possible. Personally, I think the NRL can do better....but that will be determined in the courts one day.
All organizations have a core responsibility to ensure that safety within their environment is as good as it can be. In sport, that counts as much for the NRL as it does for under six rugby league.
A waiver to absolve an organisation's responsibility for safety is absurd and would not pass muster anywhere.

 

[Chimp]

I agree 100%. The crux of the matter is determining if the game has done enough to make their product as safe as possible. Personally, I think the NRL can do better....but that will be determined in the courts one day.
All organizations have a core responsibility to ensure that safety within their environment is as good as it can be. In sport, that counts as much for the NRL as it does for under six rugby league.
A waiver to absolve an organisation's responsibility for safety is absurd and would not pass muster anywhere.

I’m not suggesting a compete waiver, obviously there are certain steps that need to be taken. But ultimately, head knocks will happen, and happen regularly in a high speed, contact sport like rugby league, and more so, whiplash, which is just as dangerous from a concussion perspective. That cannot be eliminated or even minimised without fundamental changes to the game. It will take a decision in Court under the current legal framework to support the sport being able to continue without fundamental changes, and I don’t have confidence that can happen.

 

[Tiger5150]

So, what is the option? No longer have professional contact sports? Or sanitise/control them to the point, they’re no longer contact sport? It’s not ‘practicable’ - and maybe that’s where this will end, that a Court decides it’s not practicable to put more controls in without fundementally changing the sport. I very much doubt that.
There is no easy fix here - and I stand by my point, whilst not accounted for in employment law currently, professional sport is very different, as it emanates from a voluntary hobby, and there should be an element of the legal framework that is tailored to take into account the complexities associated with sport.
Other than armed forces, I can’t think of any other professions where one of the primary aims of your ‘job’ is to physically dominate another person.

IMO one day it will be tested in the courts, and they will not legislate against it but costs of insurance/compensation will start to impact and the game will change or die.

 

[Canard]

IMO one day it will be tested in the courts, and they will not legislate against it but costs of insurance/compensation will start to impact and the game will change or die.

Then this will happen to almost every football code, combat sport and most ball sports.

 

[Chimp]

Then this will happen to almost every football code, combat sport and most ball sports.

Exactly, professionally at least.
But there’s far too much money at stake for that to happen - not just the money in the sport itself, more importantly the wider economy that trades off the back of professional sporting events and clubs. So, if the Courts can’t protect the sports under current legislation, new legislation will have to be drafted that still requires sports to take ‘reasonable’ steps, but ultimately lands on the individual to make an informed choice of whether to play the sport in the first place and then accept the opportunity to play professionally. Hell, I have to sign a waiver to take my kids on a trampoline park (so if I fall awkwardly or get hurt, it’s all on me, not the trampoline park) - whilst (as Tiger has pointed out) it is totally different once you’re getting paid, the same principles could apply with a change in legislation for professional sport.

 

[GreenMachine121]

Sounds like an incredibly difficult situation for all the partners in the game .
Played rugba league from 11 to 37 years old … few years off in there though for injuries and what not …. Mostly uninsured too … no doubt I have plenty of permanent damage from this but that’s the risk of playing sport

 

[Chimp]

Sounds like an incredibly difficult situation for all the partners in the game .
Played rugba league from 11 to 37 years old … few years off in there though for injuries and what not …. Mostly uninsured too … no doubt I have plenty of permanent damage from this but that’s the risk of playing sport

Same; played from 4 to 37. Neck, back, hips, knees, ankles, fingers all goosed - arthritis already diagnosed in neck and fingers, sleep around 4 hours a night due to aches/pains, and also suffered many instances of ‘seeing stars’ over the years - far too many to be able to put even a rough estimate on it. Injuries in later life are something that is inevitable, yes, didn’t consider (or know) of the whole CTE risk, but even if I did, would still have played (as would most people who’ve played the game, I’m sure).
Contact sport is a direct contradiction to H&S legislation, and should therefore be legislated differently.

 

[Perth Red]

Not sure that you understand OH&S or duty of care.

So I should be allowed to mine asbestos if I can find some workers?

Using that argument you wouldnt have paid parachute tandem divers or numerous other dangerous jobs. Risk isnt the issue, managing risk is and knowing the risk as an employee. There are literally thousands of different dangerous jobs that people get paid to do that can quite easily kill you.

one positive would be for nrl to get on front foot and work with rlpa to set aside some significant sums of money to support players and their families who end up suffering from this condition.

 

[Floodwaters]

Of course it will

court cases will determine a precedent then the sport will adapt to any judgement

the nrl has been way ahead of the curve in getting rid of the shoulder charge and now the hia protocols

but a class action law suit inevitable it’s an ambulance chasing society

Ahead of the curve in regards to shoulder charge? Not at all every other sport didn't have it for years before Rugby League got rid of it, it was a red card in Rugby while SBW was putting players in lala land in his younger days in the NRL.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

How the players train and the frequency of it will need to be scrutinised. They might even need to play fortnightly rather than weekly to give themselves more time to recover from head trauma. The season is way too long and there's too much training.

 

[The Great Dane]

Brain Autopsy Results have confirmed that Paul green was suffering from CTE and this was likely to be a key factor in his suicide. Very sad but a relief for the family in many ways in that they now know why.

Expert sheds light on Paul Green tragedy

'Daddy's brain was sick'

wwos.nine.com.au

Paul Green being found to have suffered from a severe case of CTE does not necessarily mean that it caused his suicide, and I find the willingness of people to jump to the conclusion that it did to be quite a dangerous precedent.

That's not to say that it wasn't a, the main, or only, factor, or to say that it's impossible that brain damage as bad as this could be enough in of itself to push somebody to do such a thing. However correlation doesn't equal causation, and it'd take significantly more evidence than that that has been provided to support such a claim.

I think it's more than safe to say that CTE plays absolutely no part in the vast majority of suicides, and to negate other possible factors in such a publicised case would be a mistake. It's an especially bad idea when considering that many people are only doing so because it's a convenient thing to blame, or simply because some people find it emotionally distressing to believe that other potential factors could have played a significant part in his decision making.

I'm genuinely sorry if anybody finds this post upsetting, but unfortunately hard subjects like this need to be discussed in a frank, even cold, manner sometimes.

 

[Canard]

Exactly, professionally at least.
But there’s far too much money at stake for that to happen - not just the money in the sport itself, more importantly the wider economy that trades off the back of professional sporting events and clubs. So, if the Courts can’t protect the sports under current legislation, new legislation will have to be drafted that still requires sports to take ‘reasonable’ steps, but ultimately lands on the individual to make an informed choice of whether to play the sport in the first place and then accept the opportunity to play professionally. Hell, I have to sign a waiver to take my kids on a trampoline park (so if I fall awkwardly or get hurt, it’s all on me, not the trampoline park) - whilst (as Tiger has pointed out) it is totally different once you’re getting paid, the same principles could apply with a change in legislation for professional sport.

They are not going to change laws to absolve multi billion dollar of their responsibilities.