Former Newcastle Knights player James McManus has win in concussion court battle

[Flipper Hands]

Only a request for access to records, but if he gets a win, a long term game changer for the NRL.

"But, in its defence, the Knights said the risk of harm to McManus was “obvious” and that any claim in respect of loss, injury or damage from playing the sport should be waived."

I doubt this defence will do well in the courts.

[rented tracksuit]

Very dangerous grounds. Could effectively ruin the game as we know it.

[ism22]

> suing the Knights for allegedly breaching its duty of care to him by continually exposing him to the risk of concussion, failing to monitor or assess him properly, relying upon unqualified medical personnel to do so and failing permanently to retire him from the game.

The bit I find interesting is 'relying on unqualified medical personnel to do so'. Be interesting to see if anything comes of this.

Saying this because I did a 1st aid cert with a company owned by a few Raiders support staff. Not head injury related, but the course was attended by a heap of unqualified quacks who were doing the tick box of a 1st aid certificate, saying 'I disagree with all the stuff that the doctors say on this' (with discussions branching off from that) and then all rambling on about how the Raiders rely on a heap of quacks who 'do a better job than doctors and physios'.

Again not head injuries, but they talked a lot about how quacks will be things like 'strapping experts' whose role is to just strap shyte up at the request of players in a way that the doctors/physios refuse to do it. For example the physio would be like 'nah your night is over mate I can't just tie your leg back on with tape'... whereas the quacks would be like 'k I'll tie it back on and give you x, y, z to kill the pain temporarily ya?'

While players often ask for this kinda stuff, I reckon it's shoddy that it goes on. Again... head injuries are different. However, I'd be interested to see if the court basically says 'I don't care, the club/NRL never shoulda put him back out there and NONE of these quack 'experts' shoulda been hanging around in the first place!!! The doctor's handbook says no more running after any head injury of that nature... HIA is irrelevant and nobody other than the NRL recognises it as being a legit test for anything'.

[Guest]

i wonder how many times this guy was checked on or asked to come off and he said nah mate im sweet

[rented tracksuit]

i wonder how many times this guy was checked on or asked to come off and he said nah mate im sweet

Good point. It still happens today.

[Mickie Lane]

I dont know if it is legal but if I was the NRL I would have all players playing the game sign a declaration acknowledging they understand that the game is physically violent, that they play the game at their own risk & that the NRL cannot be held accountable for players injuries.
I would also make it mandatory that all players have health insurance.

[Flipper Hands]

Good point. It still happens today.

IMO it is not a "good point", it definitely does still happen. It happened in the NFL too. And for every one of those, there is another case where the player is pushed into continuing.

The point is the NRL can't have blokes coming out the other side of a career with brain damage. To get around this they need to take a no tolerance view to head knocks of any sort, and not allow blokes back on after one. It seems that didn't happen in this guys case.

[rented tracksuit]

IMO it is not a "good point", it definitely does still happen. It happened in the NFL too. And for every one of those, there is another case where the player is pushed into continuing.

The point is the NRL can't have blokes coming out the other side of a career with brain damage. To get around this they need to take a no tolerance view to head knocks of any sort, and not allow blokes back on after one. It seems that didn't happen in this guys case.

I think you missed the point. It was a 'good point'.

[Flipper Hands]

I think you missed the point. It was a 'good point'.

I don't think I missed anything, I explained one of the reasons why I thought players wanting to continue after a head knock was irrelevant.

If you think I missed something, tell me what I missed.

[Guest]

I think you missed the point. It was a 'good point'.

yep missed the point completely and still misses it anyway what happens with players who refuse to come off the field does the game stop completely until theyre taken off some teams especially the ones who play in purple would definitely bung it on for extra breather

[Cockadoodledoo]

i wonder how many times this guy was checked on or asked to come off and he said nah mate im sweet

It's not the players responsibility to make that call, particularly someone who is concussed. It is a bit like asking someone who is totally inebriated if they are ok to drive a car.

[Cockadoodledoo]

I think you missed the point. It was a 'good point'.

Seriously? There wasn't anything remotely resembling a good point. The coaching staff always have the final say in replacing a player. Processes should have been in place for the medical staff to advise the coaching staff. It is pretty simple. If a player makes a few clangers and the coach decides to hook them, does the player get the final say as to whether to be replaced or not? Of course they don't and this is no different either when it comes to concussion.

[Guest]

It's not the players responsibility to make that call, particularly someone who is concussed. It is a bit like asking someone who is totally inebriated if they are ok to drive a car.

that doesnt change the fact that prior to the hia this was a common thing to happen

[rented tracksuit]

Seriously? There wasn't anything remotely resembling a good point. The coaching staff always have the final say in replacing a player. Processes should have been in place for the medical staff to advise the coaching staff. It is pretty simple. If a player makes a few clangers and the coach decides to hook them, does the player get the final say as to whether to be replaced or not? Of course they don't and this is no different either when it comes to concussion.

HIA has only been around for a few years. He was playing for many years before that where players usually argued to stay out and quite often did.

There is the good point!

[4 the all in brawl]

Tracksuit and Boogie I get what u are saying but the courts will not accept a defence by the NRL or the club who argues a 'concussed' player at the time said he was still good to go. It is a ground of diminished responsibilty therefore a weaker defence. Same as saying we let the pilot get high before the flight but he was the one who crashed the plane.

Whether it occured before the HIA rules was brought in it is moot.