Random Comments/Questions about League

Discussion in 'The Cesspit: Rugby League Discussion' started by Hurricane, Nov 22, 2020.

  1. stupersteve03 SJ Cambridge

    The actual case fully hinges on whether channel nine took reasonable measures to mitigate any potential risks associated with the activity. Most waivers aren't worth the paper they are written on if the company that asks you to sign them hasn't done their due diligence. I would expect than channel 9 would have done so however if they just told them the risks and asked them to sign a waiver then they will probably have to pay out. Any prior desicion making is clearly and obviously not relevant because he was asked to do this, it was not a random decision he made.
     
  2. Tartmaster AJ James

    So is Wendell Sailor also a little bitch idiot for doing an arm wrestle?
    He's not a professional arm wrestler either.

    I would arm wrestle one of my colleagues, because I would view us as rough equals in terms of skill at arm wrestling.
    If however I was arm wrestling one of my colleagues because my employer wanted an arm wrestling competition at the Christmas party, and my colleague broke my arm and caused dramatic changes in my personal and work life, damn straight I would want compesnation for it.



    If it went the other way and Ross snapped Sailors arm, would he be owed more compensation because you respected his on field behaviour more?

    So far your legal points have been you don't like Ross as a rugby league player, you don't like surfing, and you don't lift things over 20kg.
    None of these things have anything to do with what happened, or the legalities thereof.
     
  3. AVA T Delonge

    ^^
    Also if you want to use the 'reasonable person test', I'm fairly confident that at least 95% of that footy show audience would have arm wrestled Sailor if offered the chance.
     
  4. Hurricane JD Hurricane

    Absolutely loving the banter. You are a terrific debate opponent Tartmaster. Had a mighty LOL at the above sentences last night.

    OK well think we have done this debate as far as possible.

    I have a new topic which will post on later tonight :)

    Cheers lads.

    PS Ava - are the footy show attendees "reasonable people"?

    PPS Tartmaster - even though the general mud I am throwing along with my legal arguments may not be objectively substantive and carry no legal weight with a trained judge it would with a jury full of laymen and laywomen if they were to decide the case. So I feel my overall thrusts are relevant about Ben Ross's character.
     
  5. stupersteve03 SJ Cambridge

    Civil cases have no jury though so only legally substantive arguments have merit in this case.
     
  6. Hurricane JD Hurricane

    OK that is interesting. Suspected that might be true but wasn't sure.

    In that case my legal team would cancel 90% of the witness list had planned. And in terms of substantive arguments would hone in on the reasonable person test and my legal team would focus on a corollary around celebrity boxing matches.

    Reasonable person test
    Tartmaster is saying that because he is an NRL player and big prop he is justified in taking on one of his peers in an TV arm wrestle and that passes the reasonable person test.

    My reasonable person supposition in the court of law is not going to be whether an NRL player would reasonably accept an arm wrestle on TV. I am going to ask the judge whether a reasonable person would realise they are entering the contest at some material risk and that they would be accepting that risk themselves. IE that a reasonable person would know that they are entering at their own risk.

    From Google
    "The “reasonable person” standard is an objective test in personal injury cases that jurors use to determine if a defendant acted like other people would have in the same situation.
    If and when the jury reviews the facts, they will compare it to the “reasonable person” standard.
    They will determine how a typical person would have acted in the same scenario under the same circumstances. Would a reasonable person have reacted in the same fashion? What would those jurors have done under those circumstances? Would they have reacted the same way the defendant did?"

    I think that celebrities who enter these contests and former sportspeople know they are entering at their own risk and are aware or a reasonable person would be aware that there is a chance of injury even if that person like Ben Ross can personally also bench 150kgs.

    My corollary is sports personality boxing matches and they happen as frequently and probably much more frequently than celebrity arm wrestles.
    Scott Styris on our equivalent of the footy show called the crowd goes wild, had a boxing match that the tv show organised with Mark Richardson.
    Scott is ten years younger than Mark and wasted in him with some nasty jabs and gave him a solid blood nose. Could even have broken his nose.

    Would it be reasonable for Mark to think that the crowd goes wild owed him compensation if his nose had been broken?

    I think not as if you enter a boxing match of any description against a former athlete like Styris you must be aware you are accepting the risk of bodily harm.

    Arm wrestles aren't as dangerous as boxing matches usually but they frequently do have injuries and a reasonable person would factor that in before accepting even if they did think they were as strong as their fellow entrant.

    Arm wrestling injuries are frequent and it is documented. Interestingly I found this article when I googled the topic which focuses on our friend in question

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-12/arm-wrestling-how-easy-is-it-to-break-an-arm-explainer/

    "Arm wrestling, considered by some as entertainment, is also recognised as a potentially dangerous form of competition with arm wrestling injuries on the rise.
    One of the most common injuries is a fracture of the humerus, or upper arm as former NRL player Ben Ross discovered on The Footy Show.
    His injury was captured for eternity by television cameras and now joins a multitude of online videos demonstrating sickening arm-wrestling fractures.
    And it is not only men who experience this injury; women who arm wrestle are just as likely to present with a fracture.

    Ross's injury is the most common seen - a humeral shaft fracture, meaning he has broken the arm bone above the elbow.

    But how can a person break their arm in something as seemingly harmless as a friendly arm wrestle?
    Physics has a lot to do with it. Think levers, braces and opposing forces.
    It is a battle between the arm wrestler's rotating shoulder joint and their bent, static elbow working in opposition, with the upper arm bone taking the pressure.

    "The main thing is that there is just so much torque going through the humerus," Dr John Arnold, lecturer in exercise science at the University of South Australia said.

    "Because you have your elbow fixed and then you are trying to push against the other person, you are then twisting your humerus.
    "That motion, which would normally be taken up at the elbow, is actually getting transferred into the humerus.
    "So, you are getting a twist in the humerus which usually results in a spiral fracture."

    The result is usually a spectacular and cringeworthy bone break and a nasty shock for all.
    "It's pretty sickening, especially the audible crack," Dr Arnold said.
    Treatment is dependent on the severity of the fracture but usually involves surgical fixation with metal screws and plates followed by a reasonable period of rehabilitation.
    Perhaps closer scrutiny of an alternative sport is also recommended."
     
  7. Hurricane JD Hurricane

    Am getting rugby league withdrawals symptoms. Can't wait for next season and this season just finished.
     
  8. Cribbage RG Cribb

    Ah, Cane's first off season.

    It sucks for us all. :(
     
    Paddy and Hurricane like this.
  9. Hurricane JD Hurricane

    I want to have my say
    Rugby union is a better sport as a concept than rugby league
    However the administrators of union are fucking idiots
    Watching a game of union is impossible unless eithe it is referred by Nigel Owens or one of the very elite referees
    A regular test match is full of inexplicable penalties that the ref seem to award based on which team is annoying him and which team he decides deserves to lose

    rugby league administrators are geniuses
    All the rules are designed with the fans in mind and making the game attractive to watch

    a penalty in league is easy to understand
    While in union I have no idea and have watched easily over 1000 games of union and even played the game at club level .

    I hope union dies out and is replaced by league

    thanks for listening
     
    Sultan Pepper, Lukic and jazman84 like this.
  10. jazman84 JM Eightyfour

    I still don't get why a Scrum-half can knock the ball on while picking it out of a breakdown and not get pinged. I see it all the time. Them fumbling around with the ball while baulking the other team. Ref does nothing.
     
  11. Sultan Pepper HG Emm

    It's especially bad when the team goal seems to be win win a penalty 80% of the time. Just makes for a rubbish spectacle, especially when as you say the penalties are so inconsistent. I swear by the letter of the law either team could be pinged at every second ruck.

    I've always felt the game of Rugby Union would be improved immensely and obviously by simply cutting penalty goals to 2 points and if that didn't fix it up a try to 6 points, actually encourage teams to play rugby.
     
    jazman84 likes this.
  12. jazman84 JM Eightyfour

    Yeah, I've been saying the 2 point PG thing to my RU mates for years.
     
  13. Hurricane JD Hurricane

    It used to be worse. Grew up with 4 points for a try and 3 for a penalty. Maybe 20% of test matches had no tries and another 40% only one or two tries.

    "I swear by the letter of the law either team could be pinged at every second ruck."
    Disagree with this. I would say by the letter of the law every ruck has an infringement not every second ruck.

    There must be maybe ten to twenty different ways to infringe at the ruck.

    Here are the ones I know of:
    1) Tackler must clear release before competing for the ball
    2) Tackled player must release the ball immediately after being tackled
    3) Players from either team competing for the ball must be on their feet
    4) Players entering the ruck must come through a theoretical gate
    5) Players may clean out other players competing for the ball and other players involved in the ruck except for the "A defender"
    6) Players may not use their boots to ruck the ball or ruck other competing players

    Here is what google says

    1. An arriving player must be on their feet and join from behind their offside line.
    2. A player may join alongside but not in front of the hindmost player.
    3. A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.
    4. Players must join the ruck or retire behind their offside line immediately.
    5. Players who have previously been part of the ruck may rejoin the ruck, provided they do so from an onside position.
    6. Possession may be won either by rucking or by pushing the opposing team off the ball.
    7. Once a ruck has formed, no player may handle the ball unless they were able to get their hands on the ball before the ruck formed and stay on their feet.
    8. Players must endeavour to remain on their feet throughout the ruck
    9. All players in a ruck must be caught in or bound to it and not just alongside it.
    10. Players may play the ball with their feet, provided they do so in a safe manner.
    11. Players on the ground must attempt to move away from the ball and must not play the ball in the ruck or as it emerges
    12. Players must not:
      1. Pick the ball up with their legs.
      2. Intentionally collapse a ruck or jump on top of it.
      3. Intentionally step on another player.
      4. Fall over the ball as it is coming out of a ruck.
      5. Kick, or attempt to kick, the ball out of a ruck.
        Sanction: Penalty.
      6. Return the ball into the ruck.
      7. Take any action to make opponents believe that the ruck has ended when it has not.
        Sanction: Free-kick.
    1. When the ball has been clearly won by a team at the ruck, and is available to be played, the referee calls “use it”, after which the ball must be played away from the ruck within five seconds. Sanction: Scrum.
    2. The ruck ends and play continues when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball in the ruck is on or over the goal line.
    3. The ruck ends when the ball becomes unplayable. If the referee decides that the ball will probably not emerge within a reasonable time, a scrum is awarded.
     
  14. Hurricane JD Hurricane

    Here is SBW with pics of his wife

     
  15. Lukic L Popovic

    wtf is this
     
    Jake, jazman84 and Boobidy like this.
  16. Hurricane JD Hurricane

    This thread will be very random at times. But always connected to league somehow.
     
  17. Toolman TR Man

    He had sex with David Warner's wife in a toilet. And David Warner insists that she be respected as a lady. What a cuck.
     
  18. Hurricane JD Hurricane

    Good use of English Toolman. Impressed.

    cuck
    /kʌk/
    Learn to pronounce

    noun
    1. 1.
      DEROGATORY•INFORMAL
      a weak or servile man (often used as a contemptuous term for a man with moderate or progressive political views).

    2. 2.
      a man whose wife is sexually unfaithful; a cuckold.
     
  19. Toolman TR Man

    'Twas a term more common in the Shakespearean age. I shall essay to introduce it into modern vernacular. Mayhap thou wilt come across it more oft upon the internet henceforth, should my power of influence command it so.
     
    Hurricane and Sultan Pepper like this.
  20. Hurricane JD Hurricane

    This comment isn't about league. But has been on my mind.
    China is spoiling for a fight with Australia as in military conflict and has been insidiously gaining naval deployment outlets in the pacific islands.
    My intuition says the threat is real and has a 25% chance of realising. Obviously not an invasion or anything full scale but could be a military skirmish on the falkland islands scale.
    Want to say this. If it eventuates, New Zealand with her shitty 4 frigates we bought second hand from you guys, and our tiny army of 15 000 trained professional soldiers, and our paltry 25 000 reservists, all of it, we are coming. We are coming to fight.
    Don't know why wanted to share this. But it has been on my mind.
     

Share This Page