BenDoolan, what do you think of the AFL's potential liability regarding the playing surface at Telstra Dome in light of S26 of the OHS Act 2004 (for those unaware, S26 of the OHS Act essentially requires anyone who 'manages or controls' a workplace to make sure it is safe)?
To me, that's the glaring OH&S issue staring the AFL in the face, and it's only a matter of time before something happens there. A bloke will do his knee because the surface will give out underneath him, and depending on the risk management policies the AFL already has in place, they, and anyone else associated with administering the Tesltra Dome playing surface, could come under scrutiny.
The Bump under review
-
jimmyc1985
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 5869
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:33 pm
- Location: Position A
Just what I was looking for! A snoring sound wav to go with it would have been perfect, or even a chirping cricketF111 wrote:BD,Will this do? Are you tired? The night is but young!
it's good to get the opinion of a knowledgeable professional in the area of discussion.
As I say in my post, it's only supposition in the context of changes noticed...just supposition. I appreciate the opinion.
RegardingNeither have I. Taking that leap from workplace to sporting arena might not be easy, but the way this world is heading, it would not be a surprise.As I have said, I am yet to hear of any action taken by VWA or any other authority regarding injuries sustained during the game itself.
The day OH&S legislation gets their teeth stuck into the game itself is the day it is completely stuffed. The restrictive, rigid requirements of the Act and Regulations will strangle the game completely. Football clubs are bound by these laws within the club as they employ staff to work within the establishment - admin, gaming room, bistro, gymnasium, pool, physiotherapy etc, etc, but if the day comes when OH&S legislation influences the laws of the game, we will all have to be prepared for a very boring product.
Perhaps OH&S legislation is being used in a "broad sense" upon the AFL as an organisation in that they must provide and maintain a "workplace" that is safe and without risk to health. In this sense, the AFL must provide the facilities that does not place the safety and health of a player at risk. There could be implications if the AFL provided a ground or surface that caused a serious injury to a player i.e Luke O'Sullivan who wrecked his knee when he landed on an exposed sprinkler cap at Waverley some time ago. There were also cases involving Joe Misiti who claimed he sustained a broken jaw due to the hardness of the centre at the MCG. He lost his footing and was crunched by oncoming traffic. Steve Alessio also claimed to have sustained stress fractures of the foot over the same reasons. All these cases were settled out of court and I believe action was taken by the individual under Common Law and WorkCover was not involved.
In keeping with the "they must provide and maintain a workplace that is safe and without risk to health", I believe the AFL could be in strife where they schedule practice matches or pre-season games in February up north in temperatures and humidity that are dangerous to a player's wellbeing. That to me is far more serious than a simple "bump" on a player with the ball.
In any case, I have no real understanding of how OH&S legislation actually does impact upon the AFL or the football club, but I am interested to find out more.......there could be a job for me at Windy Hill !!
Quite right JC, I see that there are implications for the AFL under S26 of the Act, and broadly, S21 as well. They must provide and maintain a workplace that is safe and without risks to health. I am continually disallusioned by the standard of the playing surface at Telstra Dome, and I have no doubt that that surface contributes to a player's injury in certain circumstances. I am surprised that no action has been taken by the authority to investigate #1 players concerns about the surface, #2 the club's concerns about the surface, and #3 the spate of injuries that have occurred as a result of the surface. Maybe that day will come.jimmyc1985 wrote:BenDoolan, what do you think of the AFL's potential liability regarding the playing surface at Telstra Dome in light of S26 of the OHS Act 2004 (for those unaware, S26 of the OHS Act essentially requires anyone who 'manages or controls' a workplace to make sure it is safe)?
To me, that's the glaring OH&S issue staring the AFL in the face, and it's only a matter of time before something happens there. A bloke will do his knee because the surface will give out underneath him, and depending on the risk management policies the AFL already has in place, they, and anyone else associated with administering the Tesltra Dome playing surface, could come under scrutiny.
I have also mentioned to F111 that the AFL should be concerned about scheduling matches in February where the climate is putting a player's health & wellbeing at risk. A club can also be in strife when they select a player with a pre-existing injury and send them on the field only to have them injured more seriously. It's a very fine line. Perhaps the dynamics of the sport and the game itself is far too complex for the complex OH&S legislation to have significant impact. That's why Risk Management principals broadly deal with areas of negligence. Accept the risk, and insure against it (although this is only my opinion).
I don't doubt that OH&S legislation can impact upon the framework of the competition (facilities, conditions etc), but i doubt that it can seriously influence the "way" the game is played. I believe the AFL administrators are worried about the "image" of the game and are over reacting to the "potential" consequences of the "bump" on a player and the image it presents to parents/kids etc. I don't actually see the VWA or any other authority breathing down the neck ensuring that they remove any possible risk of injury to a player during the course of the game. If it comes to that, then we will see other sports disappear completely such as motor racing, boxing etc.
Happy to debate and discuss....
-
dingus
- Regular Senior Player
- Posts: 2374
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:12 pm
- Location: Adelaide. Your beer is worse than my beer.
Gringo: A long yet interesting post. particularly interesting in light of recent revelations that the IRB are actually trialling law changes that would see tackling and mauling taken out of the game of rugby.
Whilst such a dramatic change would be unlikely, one that is more likely is the change of engagement rules at scrums. Basically, the two props (Guys on either end of the front row, for the uninitiated) would have to reach out and touch their opposite number's shoulder with the palm of their hand prior to "engaging" this aims to dramatically decrease the amount of horrendous neck injuries that occur from the initial impact in a scrum having too little control. Some may remember Ben Darwin in the 2003 World Cup. One scrum, a few centremetres out of alignment, out a 6'2 120kg man in a wheelchair for a good few months. He still doesn't have full use of his back and neck, and risks paraplegia should he receive further significant impact to his neck.
Having played in the front row and having both destroyed and been destroyed by opponents, I can assure you its not a safe place to be. In this litigious age it would not surprise me at all if such changes, including AFL "bump" related changes were being considered in relation to minimising exposure from the kinds of civil cases gringo has mentioned. The AFL being a professional organisation must result in the double edged sword of OH&S requirements as well.
However, on a side note, if the AFL is a professional organisation subject to normal workplace laws, will the players in exchange for various rights and protections be subject to the same sorts of responsibilities that employees of normal organisations are?
Whilst such a dramatic change would be unlikely, one that is more likely is the change of engagement rules at scrums. Basically, the two props (Guys on either end of the front row, for the uninitiated) would have to reach out and touch their opposite number's shoulder with the palm of their hand prior to "engaging" this aims to dramatically decrease the amount of horrendous neck injuries that occur from the initial impact in a scrum having too little control. Some may remember Ben Darwin in the 2003 World Cup. One scrum, a few centremetres out of alignment, out a 6'2 120kg man in a wheelchair for a good few months. He still doesn't have full use of his back and neck, and risks paraplegia should he receive further significant impact to his neck.
Having played in the front row and having both destroyed and been destroyed by opponents, I can assure you its not a safe place to be. In this litigious age it would not surprise me at all if such changes, including AFL "bump" related changes were being considered in relation to minimising exposure from the kinds of civil cases gringo has mentioned. The AFL being a professional organisation must result in the double edged sword of OH&S requirements as well.
However, on a side note, if the AFL is a professional organisation subject to normal workplace laws, will the players in exchange for various rights and protections be subject to the same sorts of responsibilities that employees of normal organisations are?
Last edited by dingus on Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is why I hate it when people appear unrepresented...F111 wrote:Worksafe/workcover act of 2004 (Ithink it's 2004) is L.A.W. law. Gringo, your very interesting though laborious read is a civil action and dated 1998. With new law, I'm wondering if the AFL thinks it can be charged if a player gets injured. Workcover inspectors can now apply fines to persons and organisations just like the police can.
The Kosi clobber this year for example. If he had sustained damage, might workcover have an issue? Might they have one anyway? In the normal workplace, all it needs is a notification or a report of an incident to get the process started. Caracella's hit is another?
Of course the concept of knowledgeable adults playing a game that carries risk of injury just muddies the discussion.This is sport, and as such there may be issues that make it a little different, a bit more difficult to conceptualise the differences to the traditional workplace. Maybe time will change that though. The above High Court discussion also writesWhat is an unnecessary risk in an inherently dangerous sport? When an obviously risky activity is engaged in, voluntarily, for pleasure, by an adult, how does a court determine whether a certain level of risk is unnecessary?The AFL are being seen to be managing change towards a safer work environment by manipulating these rules. Maybe that's enough for the moment?The starting point for the present inquiry, however, must be the terms of the Rules..
I have no idea if I'm anywhere near the mark here. It's just supposition in the context of changes in footy rules and workplace safety law. They may have no relationship, but then again, they just might.
The other concept that is often mentioned is the perception of footy as a rough game. What effect does that have on mum's and their little boys, and the future involvement of youngsters?? Is the AFL looking to protect itself from the ever present soccer?
The OH&S Act you refer to was enacted in 1985, and repealed in 2004. Whilst legislation overides case law, this piece of legislation has nothing to do with the case I posted, and nothing to do with the matter being discussed. Agar v Hyde (and it is a 2000 case - the Court of Appeal heard it in 1998, it arrived in the HC in 2000) is still the current authority, and will be for considerable time.
Following the HC's judgment in Agar v Hyde, the AFL is never going to be liable for players who get hurt playing AFL, unless they are negligent in some other way (i.e. they schedule games in intense heat, they schedule a game where the condition of the ground is not appropriate etc). Accordingly, as far as the "bump" is concerned, which I believe is the central topic of this discussion, the AFL will never be liable for a player who gets injured due to a "bump", regardless of how it is administered.
The only accurate comment in your post is regarding the AFL wishing to make the game more appealing for young children. I suspect that this is the reason for the bump being reviewed.
Removing the Bump from the game threatens the whole dynamics of footy. There is a delicate balance between fear and bravery each time a player contests the ball.
By reducing the fear factor, the risk is that the physical aspects of the game are threatened and the game turns into an even faster, less contact debacle.
By reducing the fear factor, the risk is that the physical aspects of the game are threatened and the game turns into an even faster, less contact debacle.
Too far for Baker now he's on to it, now he’s got it, OPEN GOAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Dons are in front by one point at the 8 minute mark
Hey Gringo, please don't misunderstand my post as my opinion or having any level of expertise. I won't pretend that. It isn't. The posts are full of questions...I'm just trying to understand why the AFL is hell bent on changing the true essence of the game. It seems wrong to me, and I don't understand why they're doing it. What I've presented is deliberately interlaced with "supposition" because that's all it is.
I'm glad to have someone with some expertise present real world opinion to answer my questions. The resultant discussion has been useful and interesting at the least.
I'm glad to have someone with some expertise present real world opinion to answer my questions. The resultant discussion has been useful and interesting at the least.