This development has been anticipated for some time.

It doesn't mention who the other players are apart from Rooke, but I wouldn't be surprised if former Demon Daniel Bell is among them.

 https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/former-geelong-player-rooke-to-lead-class-action-lodged-against-afl-in-supreme-court-20230314-p5crxx.html

1 hour ago, Demonstone said:

This development has been anticipated for some time.

It doesn't mention who the other players are apart from Rooke, but I wouldn't be surprised if former Demon Daniel Bell is among them.

 https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/former-geelong-player-rooke-to-lead-class-action-lodged-against-afl-in-supreme-court-20230314-p5crxx.html

This has the potential to bankrupt the competition if it gets up

If he pulled the boots on as recently as 2021 can we assume that his symptoms started after that date or is he perhaps suggesting that his decision to play is due to impaired judgement caused by his head knocks?

5 minutes ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

This has the potential to bankrupt the competition if it gets up

And the potential to change the way the game is played. 

We knew this was coming. Just got a little more real.

7 minutes ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

This has the potential to bankrupt the competition if it gets up

Not so sure about bankruptcy. But rules and umpiring will be changed.

Maybe those who think the game is poorer for having lost some of the "biffo" will be forced to reconsider their position.

Hmm, I wonder if the AFL has insurance cover for these risks. 🤔

7 minutes ago, hemingway said:

And the potential to change the way the game is played. 

If it means that the umpires, the MRO and the tribunal start to look after Max’s head, then bring it in. 

14 minutes ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

This has the potential to bankrupt the competition if it gets up

Not too sure.

I'm no lawyer but I would think the 'injured' has to 1) show cause and effect between the events and the injury, 2) there was negligence on the part of the accused and 3) that the injury caused or will cause quantifiable losses.  There may be other criteria that come into play...

Not sure what the level of proof is for those three things (and any other criteria) but I would think it has to be reasonably substantial.

Should be an interesting test case.

This was always going to happen in a world full of ambulance chasing law firms. Settle out of court with cashed up corporations is their bread and butter.

Just wait for ex AFLW players to get in on the action over the next 20 years.

Its going to be hard though to prove your headaches or mood swings are because of playing footy years ago not to mention the makeup of player contracts. A woman will sue because she cant have kids or has cancer of some kind.

It will happen. Its called money.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Deebauched said:

This was always going to happen in a world full of ambulance chasing law firms. Settle out of court with cashed up corporations is their bread and butter.

Just wait for ex AFLW players to get in on the action over the next 20 years.

Its going to be hard though to prove your headaches or mood swings are because of playing footy years ago not to mention the makeup of player contracts. A woman will sue because she cant have kids or has cancer of some kind.

It will happen. Its called money.

I think that's a very cynical view of a serious condition.

There is strong evidence of the effects of concussion, just as there is/was evidence for asbestos, cigarette smoking and now silicosis ... you know, all the other tragic conditions the "ambulance chasers" made us alert to. 

1 hour ago, Winners at last said:

Hmm, I wonder if the AFL has insurance cover for these risks. 🤔

For some reason, the AFL is exempted from Workcover obligations as pertains to footballers. So that’s not gonna help. 

This could be a very costly situation. I am surprised it hasn’t happened sooner 

 

1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Not too sure.

I'm no lawyer but I would think the 'injured' has to 1) show cause and effect between the events and the injury, 2) there was negligence on the part of the accused and 3) that the injury caused or will cause quantifiable losses.  There may be other criteria that come into play...

Not sure what the level of proof is for those three things (and any other criteria) but I would think it has to be reasonably substantial.

Should be an interesting test case.

The test is one of negligence. The group will have to prove that the AFL fell short of its expected duty of care. I wait with great anticipation to see how it will play out. 

1 hour ago, Deebauched said:

This was always going to happen in a world full of ambulance chasing law firms. Settle out of court with cashed up corporations is their bread and butter.

Just wait for ex AFLW players to get in on the action over the next 20 years.

Its going to be hard though to prove your headaches or mood swings are because of playing footy years ago not to mention the makeup of player contracts. A woman will sue because she cant have kids or has cancer of some kind.

It will happen. Its called money.

Why reference AFLW?  It shouldn't matter if it is a male or female that has been concussed.  No need to wait 20 years for an AFLW player to go to court on this:  re-read the article in the op.

The lawyers wouldn't go to court or even hope for an out of court settlement if they didn't have a reasonable case and evidence.  Judges don't like having their time wasted.   

The injuries are a lot more than headaches or mood swings and there needs to be losses resulting from those injuries to get compensation. 

Important case for the code and sport in general.  The AFL has talked big with protecting the head through the MRO and tribunal system, but so often have failed to deliver.  No idea if those failures come into it or not.

Interesting that Emma Grant and Liam Picken chose not to be part of this class action.

I have no idea what the outcome of this will be, but anything that increases the AFL's caution towards head knocks is a good thing. 

Danny Frawley and Shane Tuck offer two glimpses into what chronic traumatic encephalopathy can lead too. Sounds like a pretty awful condition to live with.

 

6 minutes ago, Vipercrunch said:

Important case for the code and sport in general.  The AFL has talked big with protecting the head through the MRO and tribunal system, but so often have failed to deliver.  No idea if those failures come into it or not.

Interesting that Emma Grant and Liam Picken chose not to be part of this class action.

Yeah, interesting especially as Emma Grant is using the same law firm as the class action.

I wonder if their cases are more clear cut in that they can identify relatively recent, specific instances and there is video footage of the events, at a time when AFL had protocols in place with a lot more documentation happening.

50 minutes ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

The test is one of negligence. The group will have to prove that the AFL fell short of its expected duty of care. I wait with great anticipation to see how it will play out. 

Well they can point the finger at the Cripps decision being overturned on legal grounds, if they want to prove negligence. And the Cotchin decision also proves that the AFL fall short when it comes to duty of care.

I'm staggered that the AFL haven't overturned more MRP and Tribunal decisions. Maybe this is a wake up call.

1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Why reference AFLW?  It shouldn't matter if it is a male or female that has been concussed.  No need to wait 20 years for an AFLW player to go to court on this:  re-read the article in the op.

The lawyers wouldn't go to court or even hope for an out of court settlement if they didn't have a reasonable case and evidence.  Judges don't like having their time wasted.   

The injuries are a lot more than headaches or mood swings and there needs to be losses resulting from those injuries to get compensation. 

Not singling out Aflw. Whatever the men do the women will follow suit not now but in the future. 

Am i cynical?  yes, absolutely. How can you not be in this world.

Start the clock running now. If the men win a case the girls will follow in the near future.

3 hours ago, monoccular said:

If it means that the umpires, the MRO and the tribunal start to look after Max’s head, then bring it in. 

It is unbelievable how few free kicks Max gets for hits in the head and chopping of the arms. Never ceases to amaze me.

Many AFL non suspensions open them up to legal action.

3 hours ago, D4Life said:

It is unbelievable how few free kicks Max gets for hits in the head and chopping of the arms. Never ceases to amaze me.

Many AFL non suspensions open them up to legal action.

Couldn’t agree more, again.

Hypocritical hand wringing and talk of the head being sacrosanct when deliberate head hits go unpenalised week after week should leave the AFL vulnerable.  Accidental head knocks on the other hand are far more a grey area.

Maybe they should consider what has been one of my hobby horses over the years, penalizing players who recklessly lead with their head into another player or a pack.  Currently they are more likely to be awarded a free for high contact, even though they instigated it.  Some poor bugger one day will be made to feel eternal guilt when one of these incidents results in paralysis. It must be stamped out at its source. (Gil or his successor will go on about how the head and neck should be protected whilst not doing something proactive to reduce the risk.) 

Edited March 14, 20232 yr by monoccular

Players that charge into a pack Head first should be penalized. They have no intention of getting the ball. 
Happens far too often 

7 hours ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

This has the potential to bankrupt the competition if it gets up

The first goal of the season hasn't been kicked, and we have our clubhouse leader . . .

1 hour ago, monoccular said:

Couldn’t agree more, again.

Hypocritical hand wringing and talk of the head being sacrosanct when deliberate head hits go unpenalised week after week should leave the AFL vulnerable.  Accidental head knocks on the other hand are far more a grey area.

Maybe they should consider what has been one of my hobby horses over the years, penalizing players who recklessly lead with their head into another player or a pack.  Currently they are more likely to be awarded a free for high contact, even though they instigated it.  Some poor bugger one day will be made to feel eternal guilt when one of these incidents results in paralysis. It must be stamped out at its source. (Gil or his successor will go on about how the head and neck should be protected whilst not doing something proactive to reduce the risk.) 

We are totally in agreement on this...if a player puts himself at risk like this they need to get at least a 4 week suspension to have a good think.