You realise that there is no chance on earth players signing waivers it doesn't work like that. There is duty of care, it's the way the game is right now. It's not 1985 anymore you can't go out and whack blokes and get away with it the game is the cleanest it's been and that is a good thing we don't need more James Graham's after they have finished playing
Oh, if only it were that simple, but it's not.
People who have played the game, many since they were single digits old, can hardly claim that they weren't warned and made fully aware that RL is CONTACT sport. Every contract, club membership and competition entry they have ever signed has the warnings. Plus every NRL club runs a player welfare department that runs ongoing continuous education and consultation on the injuries possible and likely as result of playing RL. As more is known the player education steps up a level every year.
To put it bluntly no RL player can possible claim they play the game not knowing full well what the risks were and are. Ask Jammer and he will tell you that.
Secondly, the NRL can demonstrate years of progressive attempts to remove illegal play from the game, every year there is another more progressive edict, ruling and punishment issued. It would be impossible to demonstrate even the minutest level missing in their duty of care.
At the end of the day players play RL knowing the risks, that is undeniable. It is also undeniable that the NRL has taken progressive steps every year to increase player protection. But at the end of the day it's contact sport, that's the bottom line.
This a recent case of a player suing a club over spear tackle;
In November 2020, two decisions were delivered by the superior courts of NSW in relation to sporting injuries and, particularly, the extent to which the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (Act) provides protection against claims for such injuries.
In Dickson v Northern Lakes Rugby League Sport & Recreation Club Inc [2020] NSWCA 294, the NSW Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought by a rugby league player who was seriously injured during a game after he was ‘spear tackled’ by an opposing player.
Mr Dickson sued both the opposing player, Mr Fletcher and Northern Lakes Rugby League Club, alleging that his injuries were the result of Mr Fletcher’s negligence, which the Club was vicariously liable for.
The key issue which fell for determination was whether, in performing the spear tackle, Mr Fletcher intended to cause injury, thereby engaging s 3B(1)(a) of the Act – a provision which excludes the application of the Act to “the civil liability of a person in respect of an intentional act done with intent to cause injury or death”. This issue assumed significance in circumstances where, if the operation of the Act was excluded, the defendants would be unable to rely on the protection available pursuant to s 5L of the Act with respect to “harm suffered … as a result of the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity”.
Whilst the Court accepted the tackle was an “intentional act’ for the purpose of s 3B(1)(a), it did not find the requisite “intent to cause injury” was present. In coming to this conclusion, the Court confirmed that “intent to cause injury” (as the phrase is used in s 3B(1)(a)) comprises two key elements, both of which must be satisfied:
- firstly, the concept of “intent’ requires “a specific actual or subjective intention to achieve the consequence of injury” – mere recklessness is insufficient; and
- secondly, the word “injury” means “if not the injury … which is the subject matter of the claim, at least … an injury of that character” – a general intention to cause an injury, or even a specific intention to cause a different type of injury, may be insufficient.
As I said it's just not that simple.
Team Work
