Court decision has major implications for league

Talk about NRL, State of Origin, Tests, Four Nations, World Cup, everything rugby league

Moderator: GH Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Court decision has major implications for league

Post by greeneyed »

From www.news.com.au

Liability meeting urgent
By John Coomber
February 23, 2005

THE NRL and rugby league players association will meet tomorrow for urgent talks on player liability after a judge ruled that footballers could be sued for injuries caused in illegal tackles.

The NRL insisted today that the Supreme Court ruling in favour of former West Tigers and New Zealand captain Jarrod McCracken, who says his career was ended by a spear tackle, would not change how the game was conducted.

"Our advice is that there are no significant implications for either the NRL judicial system, or the manner in which our competition is conducted," NRL chief operating officer Graham Annesley said in a statement.

"Players are already covered under existing insurance for on-field personal liability in respect of these issues.

"This includes claims that are made against a player for his actions."

A hearing in August will decide the amount of damages awarded to McCracken, who is seeking more than $750,000.

The NRL believes Melbourne Storm players Stephen Kearney and Marcus Bai, who performed the tackle on McCracken in May 2000, will be covered by existing insurance.

However Tony Butterfield, chief executive of the Rugby League Professionals Association, said he was not satisfied with the NRL's assurances that players were not personally liable.

"Unless the players have an arrangement with the club whereby they are indemnified, I would suspect the player(s) would be exposed to payment on these issues," he told Radio 2KY.

"Whilst I note Graham Annesley's comments that he doesn't see a great deal will change, we probably take a different view and we'll be discussing that on Thursday."

The players are concerned that if they enter early guilty pleas in the NRL judiciary in cases where an opposing player is injured, it could be regarded as an admission that they'd deliberately set out to cause injury.

The McCracken case could also have a flow-on effect with the AFL, which this season is adopting the rugby league model of lesser penalties for players who plead guilty without need for a tribunal hearing.

"The Supreme Court justice in this case certainly relied on the pleas made by the players at the NRL judiciary, so clearly there is some bearing on what is said at the judiciary," Butterfield said.

"Therefore players will have to really seriously consider taking these early pleas which, as we all know, were designed to clear a bit of a backlog.

"That's a cause for concern because players who ... should be taking early guilty pleas in order to get things out of the way will eventually be wearing much longer suspensions and certainly clubs won't be comfortable with that, nor will players."

Butterfield said that a new collective bargaining agreement between the players and the NRL contained no provisions on player indemnity.

"That agreement has been negotiated and was voted on on Monday and basically 100 per cent of the players supported it.

"It's a new eventuality and obviously something that the NRL will need to consider, and there may well be the need to amend the rules to ensure that the players are better supported in this situation."
Image
DJ Raida
David Furner
Posts: 3779
Joined: January 9, 2005, 8:35 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by DJ Raida »

i dont think it has too much bearing on the game, if anything itll hopefully reduce malicous tackles
User avatar
SOULS 04
Jason Croker
Posts: 4320
Joined: January 25, 2005, 1:00 am
Location: Central Coast

Post by SOULS 04 »

yeh even if it doenst i think if a tackle causes major injury players will be lest likely to plead guilty just to get a couple of weeks off their suspension.
THE GREEN MACHINE PODCAST - https://soundcloud.com/user-792269565
Post Reply