NRL's concussion challenge a product of the game's twilight zone

He never came from the field . Perhaps he should have for assessment . Every interview Sam has been quizzed about the incident he has always stated he was glad he played. So I feel it's highly unlikely Souths have anything to worry about at all.

The law is an ass Mushi - just ask 99% of the professionals who work within the industry. You appear hell bent on insisting on band-aid solutions that ultimately provide little to no protection until after an incident has occurred, and the need for litigation. You offer no constructive criticism or alternatives, yet continue to lambast those who do with startling non-factual insipid claims such as ' Your views are basically that we should absolve our current system for something more autocratic'. I highly doubt that you truly understand the meaning of the term autocratic. I want results for our present and future generations across all codes and ages in contact sport, and if that means recommending the introduction a code of conduct that partly resembles a standard Work Place Safety agreement, then so be it. You just keep riding the merry-go-round and see how far it takes you and the next generation.

This was posted earlier today - why the moderator(s) deem it inappropriate is beyond my comprehension - is there an agenda here? You may have failed to read my comments below prior to posting. I want one code of conduct on player welfare to cover all forms of contact sport in this country. I don’t care whether it’s a head injury or a leg injury. If a player goes down then they need to take no further part in the game. Allowing them to stay on the field to further aggravate an injury is what is criminal. That player, whether a school kid, amateur or professional should also not be allowed to play another game until cleared by a medical professional to do so. A simple doctor’s certificate will absolve parents, teachers, coaches, trainers, and officials from litigation and set everyone’s mind at ease (with the exception of a handful of lawyers). Add a clause for unlimited interchanges in these contact sports, and a problem that most people place in the too-hard basket completely disappears.

Now you're being a lawyer - where have I ever said that it's OK for a parent to allow an injured player to remain on the field? Take the time to read and comprehend what I have stated before proceeding any further. Additionally , please wait for my comment (in reply to your 5.21am comment) that is still awaiting the moderators approval.

As to the suing the NRL becuase they own the knights that isn't relaly the case. Unless the NRL have guaranteed all past liabilities of the knights you have no recourse to them unelss they are found laible too (in which case it wouldn't matter if they owned them or not)

Also on the money thing all your saying is that people should be compelled to sue people taht will never be able to afford the judgement? Of course there is no point in suing someone who doens't have the money to pay the judgement that just send you broke as well.

He could be (and this is simply conjecture as is all the other dross put up on this topic) arguing they cut corners vs the NRL policy.

Actually our system of government is reliant on common law and the judicary. Your views are basically that we should absolve our current system for something more autocratic.

Um of course it is yes yet it is still a required part. I haven't really seen any findings that were "Party A had more money than party B and hence party A is clearly liable". Subjectivity is inherent, just like how you view it as reoasnalbe for a parnet to send a concussed kid back out to play back yard footy where as I view that as being criminally negligent.

"firm laws"? Court is how the law is tested and where any liability and entitlement is determined. That's where they work out what the 'firm laws' are... Wrong doing is only subjective when we use it as an abstract term. Liability and entitlement will only be determined based on the laws of the land. If the Knights did nothing wrong there will be no liability. If they did then McManus will likely have an entitlement.

You may have failed to read my comments below prior to posting. I want one code of conduct on player welfare to cover all forms of contact sport in this country. I don't care whether it's a head injury or a leg injury. If a player goes down then they need to take no further part in the game. Allowing them to stay on the field to further aggravate an injury is what is criminal. That player, whether a school kid, amateur or professional should also not be allowed to play another game until cleared by a medical professional to do so. A simple doctors certificate will absolve parents, teachers, coaches, trainers, and officials from litigation and set everyone's mind at ease (with the exception of a handful of lawyers). Add a clause for unlimited interchanges in these contact sports, and a problem that most people place in the too-hard basket completely disappears.

Moosh - Wrong doing is subjective - that's what lawyers rely on to make bundles of cash, over and above any firm laws that are in place.

There is a duty of care. I actually worry that you're worried about the fall out for mums and dads and backyard footy. If a parent tells their kid to keep playing after they are clearly concussed I think they are failures as a parent and there should be criminal consequences. On the "who's to say" straw man well that's why they actually have a process.

Really gee that's some good lawyering. Normally you need some kind of wrong doing

Ok, perhaps then the NRL can continue to make tackling safer.

Even with the processes in place, clubs have ignored the protocols as recently as the 2016 grand final with Melbourne not getting an obviously rattled Dale Finucane off for 5 minutes when the trainer had signalled a head check was needed -- this period of time included a break when Welch gave away that monumentally stupid penalty too.

Unfortunately Northerner, civil law will not protect the kids in a playground or elite athletes who make a living from contact sport. Laws are broken, especially where money, pride or possessions are concerned. One simple rule: To remove any and all players from the field for the remainder of a game, is the only real solution when it comes to player care, and the possibility of litigation. An unlimited interchange is the only way to ensure that an injury is not further aggravated on the day.

Personally, I'm not in favour of government getting involved in this and I don't think they need to be. Any sports organizations has a duty of care to its players. That doesn't mean it can or should eliminate any possibility of a player being hurt on the field. It does mean it should, first, institute whatever measures it needs within its own code to to reduce the risk of serious harm happening. American football players wear helmets, ice hockey players wear helmets and goalies wear masks, spear tackles are banned, and so on. There are plenty of steps that clubs from the under 10s right up to the pros can and should take to protect their players, without having to invoke a whole new code of sports legislation. It also means that, if a player is hurt on the field, then any decision about his ability to carry on has to be made by a qualified medical professional who has his own ethical standards and duty of care to meet. And if an across the board rule of - head hit, you're out of the game and sent off for a full medical is introduced, that's fine. Obviously, the under 10s aren't likely to have a doctor on the field, but there's no reason a kid with a head hit can't be sent off to see a doctor or hit an emergency ward if circumstances warrant it. And it means as well that a player with concussion or knee injuries or whatever it might be gets the gold standard of care. Again, with the under 10s, that's going to be the club making sure he gets to a local hospital; for the pros, a higher standard. And if any of these bodies fail what a normal person would regard as an appropriate duty of care, then let the player sue them up the creek. That's what civil law is for.

Vincent, see below under Al's comment.

Haha...