News Injuries & Suspensions

Joined
18 Jul 2016
Messages
4,033
Likes
28,109
AFL Club
Sydney
View: https://twitter.com/GWSGIANTS/status/1782210874272608444[/QUOTE]

Giants have by far the best social media manager.

AFL insurance should cover concussion as well as other injuries. That's how it works in the NBA/NFL.

Ideal system has the player welfare not being interwoven with financial considerations from either side. You don't want a system where a player keeps playing for financial reasons, you don't want a system where a club forces a player out or encourages them to keep playing for financial reasons but you'd prefer the first over the latter.

Ultimately the AFL has decided it wants to reward players leading with their heads and encourage them to risk concussions for free kicks with their rules and to force the responsibility of care on other players ahead of the players themselves, so it seems fair the AFL should bare the burden that system creates before anyone else.
 

Connoisseur

Leadership Group
Joined
3 Jul 2017
Messages
39,505
Likes
128,563
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Your bolded line makes more sense as well, I wonder where workcover comes into play here? Does workcover even apply to the AFL? if it does, their premiums must be huge, and which case the player/AFL is insured for these events?
https://theconversation.com/why-spo...-injured-workers-and-how-we-can-fix-it-200702
Worse still, exemptions from state and territory employer-funded workers’ compensation schemes deny professional sportspeople the fallback protection afforded to other workers.

In the absence of workers’ compensation, the primary medical obligation transfers to Medicare, shifting it from employers and state governments to taxpayers and the federal government.

The exemptions were introduced in the 1970s at a time when athletes first started to be paid well and leagues and clubs were concerned about their financial capacity to pay workers’ compensation premiums.

There also were perceptions that sport was not “normal” work, and (part-time) athletes were not workers. The arguments are redundant in a world in which sport has been corporatised and commercialised.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...t/news-story/c6fd39b735a2dc258a0a56be62c4e77d
“From 2009, the cover available under the AFL insurance policies has been essentially illusory, due to a very narrow TPD (total permanent disability) definition which provides that the policy will only pay out in the most catastrophic circumstances,” the case brief says.

“The effect of this is that in most if not all cases, a current or former AFL player would not be covered for serious mental health conditions that arise from concussion based injuries.

“In other words, since being drafted, AFL players have been asked to pay an annual premium in respect of the AFL insurance policies, despite these policies providing no relevant cover for serious concussion and related risks facing AFL players.”

The Herald Sun also reported that the insurance schemes set up for footballers are dubbed as “zombie policies”, with one retired star set to be a test case for the action.
 
Joined
9 Aug 2012
Messages
40,896
Likes
154,057
AFL Club
Carlton
https://theconversation.com/why-spo...-injured-workers-and-how-we-can-fix-it-200702
Worse still, exemptions from state and territory employer-funded workers’ compensation schemes deny professional sportspeople the fallback protection afforded to other workers.

In the absence of workers’ compensation, the primary medical obligation transfers to Medicare, shifting it from employers and state governments to taxpayers and the federal government.

The exemptions were introduced in the 1970s at a time when athletes first started to be paid well and leagues and clubs were concerned about their financial capacity to pay workers’ compensation premiums.

There also were perceptions that sport was not “normal” work, and (part-time) athletes were not workers. The arguments are redundant in a world in which sport has been corporatised and commercialised.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...t/news-story/c6fd39b735a2dc258a0a56be62c4e77d
“From 2009, the cover available under the AFL insurance policies has been essentially illusory, due to a very narrow TPD (total permanent disability) definition which provides that the policy will only pay out in the most catastrophic circumstances,” the case brief says.

“The effect of this is that in most if not all cases, a current or former AFL player would not be covered for serious mental health conditions that arise from concussion based injuries.

“In other words, since being drafted, AFL players have been asked to pay an annual premium in respect of the AFL insurance policies, despite these policies providing no relevant cover for serious concussion and related risks facing AFL players.”

The Herald Sun also reported that the insurance schemes set up for footballers are dubbed as “zombie policies”, with one retired star set to be a test case for the action.
So we should expect a class action and Royal Commission with massive fines/penalties/refunds with interest in favour of the players.
 
Joined
20 Mar 2016
Messages
1,397
Likes
4,837
Joined
9 Feb 2015
Messages
9,926
Likes
60,424
AFL Club
West Coast
So why did Charlie Cameron get off for a similar action last week when he used "the good bloke argument" which was successful?

Barrass had character references/ all his charity work was shown but the 1 week suspension still stands.

I am very confused...AFL opened a can of worms with Cameron verdict, now another player uses the same defence after a similar action yet the suspension still stands?
 
Joined
9 May 2012
Messages
2,912
Likes
8,936
So why did Charlie Cameron get off for a similar action last week when he used "the good bloke argument" which was successful?

Barrass had character references/ all his charity work was shown but the 1 week suspension still stands.

I am very confused...AFL opened a can of worms with Cameron verdict, now another player uses the same defence after a similar action yet the suspension still stands?
Here's the official ruling

View: https://twitter.com/DavidZita1/status/1783006050465284203
 
Joined
10 Feb 2014
Messages
11,388
Likes
21,254
AFL Club
Essendon
So why did Charlie Cameron get off for a similar action last week when he used "the good bloke argument" which was successful?

Barrass had character references/ all his charity work was shown but the 1 week suspension still stands.

I am very confused...AFL opened a can of worms with Cameron verdict, now another player uses the same defence after a similar action yet the suspension still stands?
Character shouldn't come into it. Contradicts the rules and the nature of the game. But then... AFL... USA... we'll play it by ear.
 

KLo30

Leadership Group
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
18,340
Likes
53,871
AFL Club
North Melb.
So why did Charlie Cameron get off for a similar action last week when he used "the good bloke argument" which was successful?

Barrass had character references/ all his charity work was shown but the 1 week suspension still stands.

I am very confused...AFL opened a can of worms with Cameron verdict, now another player uses the same defence after a similar action yet the suspension still stands?
All being equal then the public start looking at other differences.........country music fan?
 
Top