Barry Hall - OHS issue for AFL

[Legs Akimbo]

Imagine you had a colleague at work who was a head case and periodically punched other workmates.

What would happen at your workplace?

How would you respond if he hit you?

What level of liability would your employer face if it continued to allow this person to work at your company? What if the person was trained in martial arts andboxing and was seriously dangerous.

What would happen if someone was seriously injured leading to a long term brain injury for example.

If this happened, what sorts of questions would be asked in retrospect?

Who would be responsible - the employee or the employer?

[Cher]

If they were trained in Martial Arts they should have more self control and none of the problems you mention. It's well know that people send their children to martial arts to to remove agressiveness and teach them more respect for others. Martial arts has also helped many an adult as well, so maybe that's where we should send Barry!

[Legs Akimbo]

If they were trained in Martial Arts they should have more self control and none of the problems you mention. It's well know that people send their children to martial arts to to remove agressiveness and teach them more respect for others. Martial arts has also helped many an adult as well, so maybe that's where we should send Barry!

That may be true, but set that aside, seriously, what would happen?

[ROK Lobster]

That may be true, but set that aside, seriously, what would happen?What if you are a professional boxer?

[Legs Akimbo]

What if you are a professional boxer?

Then I guess it is ok. Do professional boxers sign a waiver before entering the ring?

[ROK Lobster]

Then I guess it is ok.Just as it is clearly not OK if you are working in an office.

A football field is clearly somewhere in between.

Serious injury is certainly a possibility if you are a professional footballer. Serious injury caused by another is also a possibility (though a smaller one). Then you have a class of injuries caused by another in breach of the rules. Within that category you would have classes of deliberate, reckless, negligent, accidental etc.

Serious injury caused deliberately by another in breach of the rules in instances where the offender is known to be likely to do things which cause the damage could well be an issue for the AFL.

It could be argued (and probably will be at some stage in the future) that the AFL has a duty of care to take steps to ensure that it does not happen. If penalties/temporary suspensions/rehabilitation etc have been shown not to work with said offender it may be that the AFL's duty is to stop that player from playing altogether.

It is an interesting point that you raise Legs.

[ROK Lobster]

Do professional boxers sign a waiver before entering the ring?I dunno but they would not need to. Bit hard to complain about being punched on the nose if you step into a professional boxing bout. Connolly could tell you - he knows a bit about being battered about the ring apparently (his avatar would seem to support this too).

[laughingnome]

It could be argued (and probably will be at some stage in the future) that the AFL has a duty of care to take steps to ensure that it does not happen. If penalties/temporary suspensions/rehabilitation etc have been shown not to work with said offender it may be that the AFL's duty is to stop that player from playing altogether.


But the AFL could retort that the Tribunal System they implement provides heavier penalties for repeat offenders. As the player and club suffer for this it is up to the player and club to remedy any on-going issues with the player, not the AFL. In the case of Greg Williams v AFL in the Victorian Supreme Court the court upheld the AFL's original ruling as it decreed players and clubs agreed to a set of standards and rules in order to play in the AFL. Anyone who has an issue with this could simply not play.

Not that I necessarily agree with that, but I imagine it would be the AFL's defence.

[connolly]

I dunno but they would not need to. Bit hard to complain about being punched on the nose if you step into a professional boxing bout. Connolly could tell you - he knows a bit about being battered about the ring apparently (his avatar would seem to support this too).

Indeed crabs. Really interesting issue. In boxing and the common law basically punch ups for money (prizefighting) are illegal and would attract the criminal law sanctions for greivous bodily harm. However, state regulated boxing is not viewed the same way. This is issue was pretty much settled in 1901 Roberts when Queensbury rules fighting was deemed by the learned judge not to be intentional mayhem but a contest of skill, dexterity and basically ballroom dancing with gloves. In a 70's case Pallante v Stadiums Pty Ltd (No 1), a boxer who had suffered an eye injury sued for damage. The promoters ran the defence that the fight was a prize fight and therefore illegal and therefore no damages arose. They lost. McInerney J held that boxing was not intentional grevious bodily harm. One day no doubt the wowsers will have their way and the fine art of throwing and ducking leather will be outlawed by overpaid bludgers leeching on the punters. There is a really interesting consensual violence case Brown that went to House of Lords (very appropriately as it involved some punters engaging in a bit of S&M). Lets not go there as the last time i made a reference to that sort of nonsense i spent a bit of idle time in the wilds of BigFooty. In regard to OH&S i don't think that there is any doubt that a club that sent a psychopath or a violently predisposed player out onto the field could be prosecuted under the OH&S legislation for breach of the general duty of care provisions. As could the player. Interestingly in NSW the Players Association could launch a prosecution. As we know assault and battery on the footy field is not beyond the criminal law (ie serial thug and convicted crim Leigh Mathews). In regard to tort and damages the best person to talk to would be young Keiran Jack. His old man sued Ian Roberts for the beating he copped at a game at Leichardt from a group of Manly players. Jack claimed $100,000, sued eight years after the event and it is rumoured that Roberts settled for $50,000 out of court. A lot of the hard nuts in league are still dirty with Jack about it. As i said really interesting point here.

[CureTheSane]

That was one huge paragraph.

[PerthSwannie]

Sorry Baz. But I`ve had enough. Time to go mate. You really are becoming a liability. Roozy!! youve got to make a decision here!, what`s it gunna be??

[Cardinal]

Sorry Baz. But I`ve had enough. Time to go mate. You really are becoming a liability. Roozy!! youve got to make a decision here!, what`s it gunna be??

3rd round draft pick from the Dogs ? They should have taken him this year

[Number 43]

3rd round draft pick from the Dogs ? They should have taken him this year

It will be interesting to see what happens. All that aside though, he did kick 4 goals and play pretty well. Can we afford to lose Mick and Barry in the one year?

[bloods2005]

yeah i agree let the doggies have him, weve gotta start rebuilding, get rid of all the older players, get some game time into these kids. i reckon we have to bottom out this year and the next, try and get some good draft picks, we have always used recylcled players from other clubs... has worked tho.

[cruiser]

I want Hall gone. He is an incurrable psycho. Enough is enough.

[ROK Lobster]

There is a really interesting consensual violence case Brown that went to House of Lords (very appropriately as it involved some punters engaging in a bit of S&M). That is an interesting case indeed.

[Bas]

Hall can't go to the dogs next year as OKeefe will be doing that, so as to replace Aker.

I though precedent was set with Leigh Matthews when he was charged with assault. Daryl Brohman playing for Qld also sued Les Boyd for common assault as well as a result of injuries he sustained in a game. Remember these matters were settled out of Court and therefore not held as law binding. The House of Lords, well they would have plenty of experience in S & M but hardly influential these days on our judicial system.

I would like to see the AFL found guilty of negligence though. They let the maggots out everyweek so how much more negligent can you be?

And they upset so many people!

[ScottH]

Given that Nicky D wasn't a team player, how do those in the inner sanctum, see Hall???

(BTW: I've hit someone at work. I was given many many pats on the back, and the victim, was just stunned. Never let of a party popper in my ear ever again.)

[connolly]

Hall can't go to the dogs next year as OKeefe will be doing that, so as to replace Aker.

I though precedent was set with Leigh Matthews when he was charged with assault. Daryl Brohman playing for Qld also sued Les Boyd for common assault as well as a result of injuries he sustained in a game. Remember these matters were settled out of Court and therefore not held as law binding. The House of Lords, well they would have plenty of experience in S & M but hardly influential these days on our judicial system.

I would like to see the AFL found guilty of negligence though. They let the maggots out everyweek so how much more negligent can you be?

And they upset so many people!

From memory Mathews pleaded guilty and didn't use a self defense or consent to violence defence. The decision in Coney (1882) held that in a prizefight there was no implied consent to assault. Oscar Wildes tormentor the Marquis of Queensbury conveniently cobbled together some rules to overcome that decision. The House of Lords in Brown is law in Australia in regard to Lord Mustill's view that boxing is lawful and an exception to the crimes of assault. Its a special case which stands outside the law of violence because of social tolerance. In regard to footy if someone is flattened by a good hip and shoulder or cleaned up by a pack there is an implied consent by the victim to that assault. However, if a coach directs a player to take out an opponent with an elbow or a punch or a player with intent or recklessly punches or elbows an opponent then clearly there is no consent to that kind of assault. Act such as those would not be outside the law of assault. Criminal or civil prosecutions could follow. If there is permanent injury as was claimed in the Jack case in tort then damages could be sought. In addition a club carries vicarious liability in tort and in OH&S legislation for the acts of its employees. If Big Beamish had broken Rutten's jaw all of this could come into play. Would the South Australian OH&S authorities bring a prosecution against an interstate club that had failed to exercise its duty of care or a player who as an employee in a workplace has failed to exercise a duty of care? If there was enough public heat then possibly.

[Legs Akimbo]

So, Connelly, RWO Chief Counsel, says there are precedents in case law, the club has a common law duty of care as well as OH&S regulations to consider.

Whatever the legalities, the club is in a position where this has gone beyond our place on the ladder and Hall's career and into more fundamental issues of responsibility and dare I say, ethics.

Watching Hall on TV last week, he was intelligent, lucid and quite accepting of responsibility for his past transgressions. Makes it all the more bizarre that a couple of weeks later he punches someone in the head again. Hard not to conclude he is not fully cognis mentis when on the field.

[Matimbo]

Then I guess it is ok. Do professional boxers sign a waiver before entering the ring?

Pornstars sign a waiver before entering the ring.

[AnnieH]

Funny.



If the club suspended him for four weeks (like I asked them to) after losing the Hawthorn game for us, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The club have a duty of care to the fans.

Blind Barry's gotta go.

[Lohengrin]

Both Skilton and Schwass have said that he should go.