Goodesy - One Week

[GongSwan]

If you were to take a legal viewpoint nearly every incident of contact on a football field could be a lack of duty of care in that a reasonable person in that position would have forseen that in carrying out their actions , it would cause the person harm or damage.

Thats a fact, it's a fairly subjective thing in cases like football, where there is no malicious intent, and no direct rule against what Adam did, what he actually did was a hip to hip bump, near as I could tell he didn't hit the guy with his knees. I suppose I could whine on about it all day, but it's done and I thnk we have to accept that these things will continue to happen. The decisions handed down by the MRP are moving towards suspending people for very soft actions

[Mr Magoo]

Thats a fact, it's a fairly subjective thing in cases like football, where there is no malicious intent, and no direct rule against what Adam did, what he actually did was a hip to hip bump, near as I could tell he didn't hit the guy with his knees. I suppose I could whine on about it all day, but it's done and I thnk we have to accept that these things will continue to happen. The decisions handed down by the MRP are moving towards suspending people for very soft actions

And thats where a legal concept such as duty of care gets misused in the context of a football game and judiciary rulings. At law , owing a duty of care is one part of proving that someone was negligent but on the flip side a defence to a claim for negligence is that in say the Goodes case the person for whom the duty of care is owed knew or ought to have known that if they run into a contest on football field that they should expect that they would be met with reasonable contact from an oppossing player.

[GongSwan]

You could also argue Contributary Negligence as the other player went into the contest as well, knowing it was a contest, tho I'm not a solicitor or a QC so WTF do I know

[Nondo]

The duty of care derives from the charge, which is rough conduct by negligence.

Duty of care is an element of negligence, ie something that needs to be proved to establish the charge. You need to establish there is a duty in that situation and the player breached it where harm was foreseeable. It would be harder to prove the charge of recklessness (indifference to consequence) or intent. This has been the case as long as there has been a category of 'negligence' in Tribunal reports, it's just been spelt out more recently.
A 'duty of care' at general law depends on the circumstances. A player would not be under a duty of care to avoid bumping people in a game, even bumps that are against the rules, because that's a foreseeable part of it understood by all the players. A player may be found negligent at general law, ie breach a duty of care, if they eg inadvertently infect someone with a serious blood borne disease they should have known about, or walk out with a razor sharp plaster cast.

The recent interpretations of the tribunal strengthen the idea that a player is under a duty to not act so as to injure a player in a vulnerable position. ie. the duty is higher in the head over the ball' / on the ground case. The laws and the tribunal are saying that in that situation you have a duty to take care, so you can still be guilty even if you don't intend to harm. The penalty is (much) lower. The AFL think it's consistent with the spirit of the game, a lot of people disagree, I generally think it is as the game is better if they player who makes the ball his object is protected.
Goodes was pretty unlucky, but I think the decision is right - to clarify the charge is rough conduct (sliding in with the knees), it's proven by establishing Goodes was negligent (was under a duty of care to players in the vicinity, did the act anyway, injury was foreseeable).

[Ratna]

When a player takes the field injury is forseeable.

The decision stands no problem, but if a player who takes the field doesn't expect to be involved in this level of contact they should look at another sport.

Trying to discourage certain actions on the field may be useful, I don't want to even see the serial pests of the competition injured (most of the time). However, to heavily penalise actions that are a split second decision or even reflex action that have no intent to cause injury and resulted in minimal contact with greater than a free kick is rubbish. When talking negligence on a football field the time a player has to consider actions and the implications of alternate actions should be considered.

Rant over. Moved on completely........ or maybe still only a slight bit bitter but not revisiting this thread.

[Beerman]

I am curious about the whole concept of 'duty of care' in the context of a contact sport like AFL. Would be interested in the comments of any lurking lawyers, given it is a concept taken from law, and also anyone actually familiar with the written rules of the game and/or tribunal guidelines. Is it actually defined / documented anywhere precisely what duty of care players owe each other, and to the extent that a duty exists, what defences they can rely on to demonstrate that they have met it?

There are a few specific instances where the AFL has made it clear the extent to which players owe each other a duty of care. In recent years this has centred around head high contact, especially in the context of bumps and tackles. And most of us would intuitively accept that players have a duty of care not to deliberately set out to injure another player. But more broadly, given the nature of the collisions and contact that occur every minute of a game and the frequent injuries that happen that we accept are just (an unfortunate) part of the game, where does players duty of care to others start and stop?

INAL, but...be careful about confusing "duty of care" as defined by the AFL and duty of care that might arise in a case brought under the law of torts. The AFL can define "duty of care" to be whatever they like. In the secular courts, whether a "duty of care" exists would be determined (I think) partly through legislation and largely through common law (ie. precedent). The AFL tribunal system is different because they explicitly don't allow precedent. So 100 players can slide in with their knees in the same way that Goodes did and not be charged and it doesn't mean a thing in this case. (cf the case where Judd split Pav's cheek open, got off and someone got 3 weeks for a similar incident later that year). And we wonder why there are inconsistencies!

Note that if you get a broken back when someone jumps on your back in a marking contest, the AFL might not even suspend the perpetrator, however you might launch a successful civil lawsuit in such a case. As Nondo says, you would have to demonstrate that the perpetrator's actions were beyond what could be reasonably expected on the football field. (cf Leigh Matthew's conviction for assault, although that was a criminal matter, not a matter of negligence).

Given the charge against Goodes, where a marking attempt is "unrealistic", the player could well have breached their duty of care - they would certainly have been negligent in the same way that Goodes was. But as I said, consistency is not required :smiley:

[Mr Magoo]

The duty of care derives from the charge, which is rough conduct by negligence.

Duty of care is an element of negligence, ie something that needs to be proved to establish the charge. You need to establish there is a duty in that situation and the player breached it where harm was foreseeable. It would be harder to prove the charge of recklessness (indifference to consequence) or intent. This has been the case as long as there has been a category of 'negligence' in Tribunal reports, it's just been spelt out more recently.
A 'duty of care' at general law depends on the circumstances. A player would not be under a duty of care to avoid bumping people in a game, even bumps that are against the rules, because that's a foreseeable part of it understood by all the players. A player may be found negligent at general law, ie breach a duty of care, if they eg inadvertently infect someone with a serious blood borne disease they should have known about, or walk out with a razor sharp plaster cast.

The recent interpretations of the tribunal strengthen the idea that a player is under a duty to not act so as to injure a player in a vulnerable position. ie. the duty is higher in the head over the ball' / on the ground case. The laws and the tribunal are saying that in that situation you have a duty to take care, so you can still be guilty even if you don't intend to harm. The penalty is (much) lower. The AFL think it's consistent with the spirit of the game, a lot of people disagree, I generally think it is as the game is better if they player who makes the ball his object is protected.
Goodes was pretty unlucky, but I think the decision is right - to clarify the charge is rough conduct (sliding in with the knees), it's proven by establishing Goodes was negligent (was under a duty of care to players in the vicinity, did the act anyway, injury was foreseeable).

But answer me this :
1. What makes sliding in with the knees on its own rough conduct ? Surely sliding in with the knees could only be rough conduct if there is some sort of damage caused. Lets say both players slid in with their knees (as they did) but both arrived at the ball at exactly the same time. Is it then still rough conduct by both player and in any respect why should the person who just happens to slid in first be seen as the victim if they did the same action?
2.To establish negligence at law , you also have to have material damage as a consequence of the breach of duty . What material damage occured in this case? The player was not materially injured?
3. What situation on the field where body contact occurs would the duty of care not arise. In any single situation of contact on a field there will be a forseeability of injury, you would have done the act, there will be a player in the vicinity. Duty of care therefore in a footballing context will always be a foregone conclusion when associated with any charge as it is almost impossible to dispute that such a duty didnt exist.

My point being in my slightly rhetorical questions is that trying to take legal concepts and apply them to such a degree in split second decision high contact sports is what gets up peoples noses. On the flip side, administrators I imagine are forced into this situation by clubs (like the swans with one BBBH in 2005) using QCs and smart lawyers to pick apart the rules to such an extent that the league is forced to put legal meanings into such charges. So in many respects , the clubs have themselves to blame.

[Melbourne_Blood]

I think the long and short of it is he wouldn't have missed a week except he had points hanging over. He would have just been reprimanded which is what should have happened ( at most). However, with a poor record, its his own fault. Not for this incident so much, but the previous one against the Cats ( which i agree is not on) and whatever incident in the previous 12 months that left him with lingering points. Its a shame a 'nothing' incident led to a 1 week suspension, but the fact is it wouldnt have had he had a clean record. The stupid incident against the Cats has essentially cost him two games.

[lwoggardner]

What material damage occured in this case? The player was not materially injured?

Grass abrasions and a leg contusion. Life threatening stuff.

[Big Al]

Grass abrasions and a leg contusion. Life threatening stuff.

That would be enough to miss 3 weeks at Collingwood at the moment.

[liz]

The exclamation mark to the discussions this evening on AFL360. Firstly, while going through each of the games, they nothing about the Swans Roos match-up other than the fact that Goodes would be missing. Why not focus on who would be playing. Then they asked their two panel guests what they thought about Goodes' action - the guests being Barry Hall and Cameron Mooney. But the best bit was when they asked Bazza if he were still captain at the Swans, what advice he would give Goodes...

[wolftone57]

Liz I didn't get the last of your post! Adam got shafted by the media. Simple but true! I am at the moment doing a Media Studies Unit and boy does this fit! The Tribunal looked at the footage but took into account all that has been said of the event instead of judging the incident on it's merit. I have looked at the footage and it is very soft. The Port player also goes with the legs and knees. Goodes' knees and feet hit him at a gentle pace as both players has reduced their momentum knowing they were about to fuse. This whole thing stinks of a Media Fit Up!!!

[GongSwan]

don't say it too loud Adrian Anderson might take that out of the game too. The inconsistency is staggering but the current nut bags at control headquarters are determined to leave a legacy, more likely to the detriment of the game if truth be told but a legacy nonetheless.

I might have to get the shoe phone out and call the cheif, book 99 for rough conduct last night

[Triple B]

I might have to get the shoe phone out and call the cheif, book 99 for rough conduct last night

That would create a bit of kaos...

[Wardy]

That would create a bit of kaos...

Would you believe.......?