Paul Green dies aged 49

[Wb1234]

I wonder if there might be a ‘breakaway’ sport/organisation created - a Super League version 2 almost, as a way to create that new line in the sand in terms of ‘accepted and known risk’, and also to protect against mass law suits. If the NRL, NSWRL and QRL are no more, and a ‘new version of RL’ is created under a new company and administration, they would surely have no liabilities for previous versions/administrations of the game.
it’s a long stretch, but might be what’s needed for the sport to survive.

Hahah and they new company would have zero income

 

[kdalymc]

Everyone talking about soccer and league, but no mention of boxing, a sport where you literally try and knock the other bloke out.

Also, just trying to understand - how does the CTE actually cause blokes to suicide?

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Sad reading in the papers today relating to the death of Paul Green and the impacts from CTE which was deemed, "one of the most severe we've seen." The front page of the Daily Telegraph reads, "Experts say repeated head knocks damages his brain so much that was unable to resist his urges when he suicided in August." Just scary to read.

The case linked in this post will change the whole landscape of rugby league. It is not IF, but when, the game will be forced to rethink a lot of what has been accepted both in the past and today in my opinion. The pre-season will change. Training. Game-day protocols. Post-game protocols. Rugby league will continue - as will the NFL - though the game will be forced by legislators and legal-minds to change to mitigate risk to all stakeholders. It will not be long before a group of Australasian rugby league players launch their own legal action against the National Rugby League and associated bodies i.e. the NSWRL, QRL etc.

Up to 75 ex-rugby league stars 'to sue the RFL over brain injuries'

Bobbie Goulding is one of 75 rugby league stars who have suffered brain injuries as a consequence of playing the sport that are reportedly launching a legal case against the Rugby Football League.

www.dailymail.co.uk

That head injury he suffered while playing for Parramatta would have caused a lot of damage.

 

[The Predictor]

Everyone talking about soccer and league, but no mention of boxing, a sport where you literally try and knock the other bloke out.

Also, just trying to understand - how does the CTE actually cause blokes to suicide?

It apparently makes some of them very impulsive, maybe had someone had been there or a minute extra to consider, he may still be here

 

[Maximus]

I wonder if there might be a ‘breakaway’ sport/organisation created - a Super League version 2 almost, as a way to create that new line in the sand in terms of ‘accepted and known risk’, and also to protect against mass law suits. If the NRL, NSWRL and QRL are no more, and a ‘new version of RL’ is created under a new company and administration, they would surely have no liabilities for previous versions/administrations of the game.
it’s a long stretch, but might be what’s needed for the sport to survive.

If the answer is a big f**k you to all the previous players who don't know what planet they are on due to decisions made by the game, the sport should die.

Setting up a new comp so previous players have nobody to sue is one of the grubbiest things that could be done.

 

[Maximus]

Absolutely get that, same in most ‘westernised’ countries. Sport should be treat differently to normal professions though - sport starts as a hobbie, a voluntary hobbie - the legal frameworks need to be changed to allow for sport at all levels to have a ‘disclaimer’ type sign up process. And whether you play amateur as a hobbie, or are lucky/good
enough to make it professional, that same disclaimer protects the sport. Enter at your own risk…. We now know, unequivocally, that multiple concussions/head knocks can and does cause damage to the brain, for sport to survive, the law has to allow the sport to ensure all potential participants are made aware of the very real risks, and then sign up if they wish to continue. It’s the only way.

This is one of the worst posts I've ever read. Sportspeople deserve less rights because their job is to play sports?

 

[Chimp]

This is one of the worst posts I've ever read. Sportspeople deserve less rights because their job is to play sports?

In this instance, yes, as fundamentally, rugby league is a sport first and foremost, a hobby they chose to start playing long before they had an option to earn a crust from it. It’s voluntary, it’s something they chose to do non-professionally, and happened to be good enough to end up being paid for it. It’s not a ‘job’ that anyone can apply for.
If professional players are entitled to compensation for this, then why shouldn’t every single amateur player who suffers the same fate be entitled to exactly the same.
Sport always starts out as a hobby - the line must be drawn that this is a dangerous hobby (like surfing, rock climbing, combat sports, sky diving), it comes with known risks, so whether you CHOOSE to play the game as an amateur, or professionally, you know that risk and have the choice whether or not to accept it and play. The fact some people get paid for it should be irrelevant, otherwise professional contact sport cannot exist.

 

[Chimp]

If the answer is a big f**k you to all the previous players who don't know what planet they are on due to decisions made by the game, the sport should die.

Setting up a new comp so previous players have nobody to sue is one of the grubbiest things that could be done.

It would be grubby, yes. But like I’ve said in other posts, the sport shouldn’t be held liable for something that was an unknown risk at that time - even now, the science is not exact, they’re still learning about it, so how could the games administrators in the 80’s/90’s/00’s have known they needed to do something different.

 

[Chimp]

Hahah and they new company would have zero income

I’m pretty sure they’d involve all of their existing commercial partners in the big move to a new Org.

 

[Tiger5150]

In this instance, yes, as fundamentally, rugby league is a sport first and foremost, a hobby they chose to start playing long before they had an option to earn a crust from it. It’s voluntary, it’s something they chose to do non-professionally, and happened to be good enough to end up being paid for it. It’s not a ‘job’ that anyone can apply for.
If professional players are entitled to compensation for this, then why shouldn’t every single amateur player who suffers the same fate be entitled to exactly the same.
Sport always starts out as a hobby - the line must be drawn that this is a dangerous hobby (like surfing, rock climbing, combat sports, sky diving), it comes with known risks, so whether you CHOOSE to play the game as an amateur, or professionally, you know that risk and have the choice whether or not to accept it and play. The fact some people get paid for it should be irrelevant, otherwise professional contact sport cannot exist.

Because when it become professional, someone else makes money out of it. If its a sport/hobby, then you are making that decision, presumably an informed decision. If you are being paid for it, someone else is incentivizing you to potentially suffer life long and life altering injuries for money and profiting off of it.

 

[Maximus]

In this instance, yes, as fundamentally, rugby league is a sport first and foremost, a hobby they chose to start playing long before they had an option to earn a crust from it. It’s voluntary, it’s something they chose to do non-professionally, and happened to be good enough to end up being paid for it. It’s not a ‘job’ that anyone can apply for.
If professional players are entitled to compensation for this, then why shouldn’t every single amateur player who suffers the same fate be entitled to exactly the same.
Sport always starts out as a hobby - the line must be drawn that this is a dangerous hobby (like surfing, rock climbing, combat sports, sky diving), it comes with known risks, so whether you CHOOSE to play the game as an amateur, or professionally, you know that risk and have the choice whether or not to accept it and play. The fact some people get paid for it should be irrelevant, otherwise professional contact sport cannot exist.

Every job has requirements you need to meet. I can't just go and perform surgery without meeting the requirements. Being an NRL player is no different.

NRL players are employees. Just like the person serving you at maccas. No employer should just be able to take away their employee's rights just because the employee is entertaining others.

 

[Chimp]

Because when it become professional, someone else makes money out of it. If its a sport/hobby, then you are making that decision, presumably an informed decision. If you are being paid for it, someone else is incentivizing you to potentially suffer life long and life altering injuries for money and profiting off of it.

But they started out doing it as a hobby, voluntarily, and made an informed choice to take it up as a profession, knowing the risks.
Also, how do you establish when the concussions that caused the issues took place? What if they were prior to becoming professional, why should the NRL be responsible for injuries that may have been caused prior to becoming professional? The NRL is much more controlled, much better sport science, physios, recovery etc and with far less deliberate high contact than the amateur game.
It’s an absolute mess, and way too complex of a situation for standard employment laws to cover it, hence sport should be dealt with differently when it comes to injury liability, whether amateur or professional.

 

[Maximus]

It would be grubby, yes. But like I’ve said in other posts, the sport shouldn’t be held liable for something that was an unknown risk at that time - even now, the science is not exact, they’re still learning about it, so how could the games administrators in the 80’s/90’s/00’s have known they needed to do something different.

Anyone who didn't know before 2007 that a concussion or head injuries were bad for your health is a moron.

Professional sports pretended there wasn't a problem because that was the easy option. Once someone sued they pretended it was the first they knew there could possibly be any long term effects, but it shouldn't stop them being liable for what they knew all along.

 

[Chimp]

Every job has requirements you need to meet. I can't just go and perform surgery without meeting the requirements. Being an NRL player is no different.

NRL players are employees. Just like the person serving you at maccas. No employer should just be able to take away their employee's rights just because the employee is entertaining others.

You’re missing the fundamental point that it’s a ‘sport’, which they spent many years playing voluntarily, taking the exact same risks, where the injuries could have first started, before turning professional. It’s not just like any other job, and there should be a separate legal framework to take into account these complexities.

 

[Tiger5150]

But they started out doing it as a hobby, voluntarily, and made an informed choice to take it up as a profession, knowing the risks.

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?

 

[Tiger5150]

You’re missing the fundamental point that it’s a ‘sport’, which they spent many years playing voluntarily, taking the exact same risks, where the injuries could have first started, before turning professional. It’s not just like any other job, and there should be a separate legal framework to take into account these complexities.

If its a "sport" let them open the gates for free and let 9 & Foxtel televise for free.

Many many people profit from Rugba league.

 

[Chimp]

Anyone who didn't know before 2007 that a concussion or head injuries were bad for your health is a moron.

Professional sports pretended there wasn't a problem because that was the easy option. Once someone sued they pretended it was the first they knew there could possibly be any long term effects, but it shouldn't stop them being liable for what they knew all along.

How could they ‘know’? Thescience is still even being debated today. Obviously yes, everyone knew it’s probably not good, but that includes the players, who chose to play the sport anyway, and would have continued playing the sport whether they got paid for it or not.

 

[Chimp]

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?

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.
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?

 

[Canard]

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.
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?

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.

 

[Chimp]

If its a "sport" let them open the gates for free and let 9 & Foxtel televise for free.

Many many people profit from Rugba league.

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?
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’.
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.