2018 Brisbane Broncos Thread

I don't think Wayne is perfect in matters like this but one thing that he says that is dead right is that Cronulla have an obligation for player welfare right up until the end of his contract, even if that is after the last game he ever plays for them, particularly where the injury was caused while playing for them

This is not saying they haven't looked after him appropriately, just a reply to the people who say it's the Broncos responsibility not Cronullas.

If a tradie hurts himself at work, takes sick leave, finds another job that starts in a month's time then takes paid holidays from his current employer until he starts with the new job, then it is quite clearly the first employer's responsibility to ensure his recouperation (through Workcover or whatever). You can't just say "sure he hurt himself working for us, but he's changing jobs so that's their responsibility now".

Dip wrote:I don't think Wayne is perfect in matters like this but one thing that he says that is dead right is that Cronulla have an obligation for player welfare right up until the end of his contract, even if that is after the last game he ever plays for them, particularly where the injury was caused while playing for them

This is not saying they haven't looked after him appropriately, just a reply to the people who say it's the Broncos responsibility not Cronullas.

If a tradie hurts himself at work, takes sick leave, finds another job that starts in a month's time then takes paid holidays from his current employer until he starts with the new job, then it is quite clearly the first employer's responsibility to ensure his recouperation (through Workcover or whatever). You can't just say "sure he hurt himself working for us, but he's changing jobs so that's their responsibility now".

Wayne is merely conservative in his player welfare opinions - whatever, he has every right to be (nor should any of his personal matters be a consideration Pieman you moronic simpleton).

But in fairness to Cronulla, I don't think it is clear cut from the information that has been made public.

Scans are what they are and the fact the Broncos said they wouldn't know the actual extent of the damage and therefore the likely recovery time until the surgery has been completed, says that there is a slight chance it is not be a blatant disregarding of their duty of care.

Having said all that, it would be completely out of character for Bennett to gift the media a story without there being more to the story and Cronulla did have an incentive for deferring the surgery and they do have a history of medical negligence....

So on the balance of probabilities I think it is fair to assume that Cronulla are deadset cunts.
Case closed.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

Wayne is merely conservative in his player welfare opinions - whatever, he has every right to be (nor should any of his personal matters be a consideration Pieman you moronic simpleton).



But in fairness to Cronulla, I don't think it is clear cut from the information that has been made public.

Scans are what they are and the fact the Broncos said they wouldn't know the actual extent of the damage and therefore the likely recovery time until the surgery has been completed, says that there is a slight chance it is not be a blatant disregarding of their duty of care.

Having said all that, it would be completely out of character for Bennett to gift the media a story without there being more to the story and Cronulla did have an incentive for deferring the surgery and they do have a history of medical negligence....

So on the balance of probabilities I think it is fair to assume that Cronulla are deadset cunts.
Case closed.

Haha, nice summary. Some correct, some incorrect, but nice. Let's all move on, it seems the clubs have since Cronulla clarified the situation so we might as well.

Dip wrote:I don't think Wayne is perfect in matters like this but one thing that he says that is dead right is that Cronulla have an obligation for player welfare right up until the end of his contract, even if that is after the last game he ever plays for them, particularly where the injury was caused while playing for them

This is not saying they haven't looked after him appropriately, just a reply to the people who say it's the Broncos responsibility not Cronullas.

If a tradie hurts himself at work, takes sick leave, finds another job that starts in a month's time then takes paid holidays from his current employer until he starts with the new job, then it is quite clearly the first employer's responsibility to ensure his recouperation (through Workcover or whatever). You can't just say "sure he hurt himself working for us, but he's changing jobs so that's their responsibility now".

Yeah but welfare doesnt just come down to physical. If its in Jack's best interests to try and make the Aus squad for the WC, then Cronulla had every right to support him to do that. If that means not pushing for surgery and the Dr is happy with that, then thats fine from Cronulla's perspective because it is helping Jack further his career. Which is 100% a factor in player welfare.

Whoever said it is right, Bennett is very conservative with having his players play rep and he would have advised Bird to get surgery right away if that was what the dr's suggested.

They are just different points of view, neither is right or wrong.

Also, with your injured worker situation, its a bit off.

Generally, (depending on how big the company is) the workplace would refer the worker onto the insurer (e.g. work cover) who would contact a third party rehab provider in to do an assessment. So the third party would assess the worker and say "this is what he is capable of" and "these are the roles he is suited" to within that industry or workplace. The third party would then help with coordinating rehab and either - getting the worker back to the same job same workplace, different job same workplace, same job different workplace, different job different workplace. The employer has very little to do with it all, thats why they pay insurance fees. To go back to work, the worker needs clearance from a GP, which in this case - it appears Bird has clearance from the sharks dr, the aus dr and so on.

Now, If the employee finds a new job on his own, then as soon as the worker is no longer the employee of the original workplace, the original workplace has nothing to do with the employee because it is his choice to leave. If he is taking paid holidays (or sick leave? or is getting a comp claim?) until the new job starts, then sure, the employee would be working with the third party rehab provider/insurer/rehab clinicians in order to rehab himself. It appears that the sharks have had him assessed, had dr's look at everything and he had been given the all clear. If its the worker's choice to quit and move to a new job that is suitable, the original employer most certainly cuts ties with the employee once they are off the books. If you get hurt at work you dont take a paid holiday - you are off work getting paid via the insurer on a compo claim until you are cleared by your dr. or until the workplace finds you suitable duties or you have a graded return to work.

So all it comes down to is a difference of opinion from the dr's and Bennett's philosophy on surgery in the offseason for injured players.

Out of interest and following on from what No Worries mentioned earlier, when would the new club be able to conduct a thorough physical/medical examination?

I sort of always assumed a new contract would be subject to a favourable medical examination and that they may not get the opportunity to conduct a thorough medical until they had left their previous club.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:Out of interest and following on from what No Worries mentioned earlier, when would the new club be able to conduct a thorough physical/medical examination?

I sort of always assumed a new contract would be subject to a favourable medical examination and that they may not get the opportunity to conduct a thorough medical until they had left their previous club.

don't know for sure, but i assume it would be a part of the initial contract signing process, which in Birds case was well before the injury occurred.

From my understanding - the existing club passes on all injury history to the new club prior to/during contract negotiations. Whether the club owns the injury history or the dr or the player - Im not sure. If there is an ongoing injury that the new club is concerned about they can do further testing of their own before the contract is signed.

The player is also given an exit physical assessment from the original club.
The player is also given an entry physical assessment from the new club.
The players also have end/start of season physical assessments (eg if the player needs a shoulder reco the club isnt going to allow him to fuck off to europe for 4 weeks instead of have the surgery)

Broncos duty of care - Benny the hypocrite

Francis Molo

I would have thought that doing a shoulder charge that resulted in a death would be enough to ensure you wouldn't do it again. Apparently not.

wizard333 wrote:Broncos duty of care - Benny the hypocrite

Francis Molo

The article literally says the Broncos were 'too concerned with Molo's welfare following the incident'......

Is 'hypocrite' just a big word you overheard someone else saying and (despite not knowing the meaning) thought you'd have a crack at using to try and sound smart?

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

The article literally says the Broncos were 'too concerned with Molo's welfare following the incident'......

Is 'hypocrite' just a big word you overheard someone else saying and (despite not knowing the meaning) thought you'd have a crack at using to try and sound smart?

Run along now junior.  Get your mummy to explain the article to you while she changes your nappy.

the coroner is drawing a long bow, given that shoulder charges have happened league-wide since the incident, all 16 clubs in the NRL are guilty of 'not doing enough to teach proper tackling techniques' in his world.

I would imagine that since the incident, Molo has been involved in countless tackling practices, and if showing a propensity to shoulder-charge in those sessions, it would be addressed. If he's still shoulder-charging after everything that's gone down, in the words of Ron White 'you can't fix stupid'.

surmo13 wrote:I would imagine that since the incident, Molo has been involved in countless tackling practices, and if showing a propensity to shoulder-charge in those sessions, it would be addressed. If he's still shoulder-charging after everything that's gone down, in the words of Ron White 'you can't fix stupid'.

Nope.

Seem him a few times at bashup park over the years. Hasn't changed at all. Hell of a player, close to best on ground in a losing team almost every time he plays, but still prone to a brain snap.

Dip wrote:I would have thought that doing a shoulder charge that resulted in a death would be enough to ensure you wouldn't do it again. Apparently not.

i could be wrong but i am fairly sure he actually did one against the same team when they played again which started an all in brawl, he kept claiming he was requiring counseling to help with dealing with the tragedy but the bloke still couldn't stop himself from shoulder charging people, such a bizarre situation

I wonder whether the suspensions for shoulder charges will become heavier, or send offs happening again as a result of the coroner's findings and recommendations. It's interesting to no note he found no contact with the head was made, so pre 2012 it would have been a legal tackle.

I used to be one of the guys who thought that the shoulder charge should be allowed but with very heavy penalties when it goes wrong. Over the years I've come around to it being banned. The game is tough enough as it is and the players are now too big, strong and fast for it to be allowed. Legal tackles by guys like Matai, Papalii and Napa in the last few years show the game is still as tough as it ever has been IMO.

I wonder if AFL will react and ban it due to the risk of litigation. There'd be even more uproar about it in AFL than NRL I reckon. It's such a big part of that game in comparison to the NRL.

Dip wrote:I wonder whether the suspensions for shoulder charges will become heavier, or send offs happening again as a result of the coroner's findings and recommendations. It's interesting to no note he found no contact with the head was made, so pre 2012 it would have been a legal tackle.

I used to be one of the guys who thought that the shoulder charge should be allowed but with very heavy penalties when it goes wrong. Over the years I've come around to it being banned. The game is tough enough as it is and the players are now too big, strong and fast for it to be allowed. Legal tackles by guys like Matai, Papalii and Napa in the last few years show the game is still as tough as it ever has been IMO.

I wonder if AFL will react and ban it due to the risk of litigation. There'd be even more uproar about it in AFL than NRL I reckon. It's such a big part of that game in comparison to the NRL.

The bolded point you mentioned in the first paragraph above has been my biggest issue with the ban.
And my opinion has nothing to do with a perceived 'softening of the game', as you've said it's still plenty tough enough.

My issue with the ban is that it is so specific and reactive and I don't believe it is providing the targeted and effective overall risk mitigation that the NRL should be trying to achieve.

I have no stats to back this up and am only commenting from observation and gut feel but I personally think banning the shoulder charge has had a negligible impact on injuries to the players being tackled and could very well increase the impacts on the blokes making the tackle i.e. being unable to brace themselves and thus potentially putting their head in unnatural/unorthodox positions to make tackles.

Unfortunately, in a sport where high speed contact is not only inevitable but part of the game, there remains a risk that these sort of tragic incidents can occur, even with perfectly legal and/or unintentional actions.

leaguegod wrote:

Dip wrote:I would have thought that doing a shoulder charge that resulted in a death would be enough to ensure you wouldn't do it again. Apparently not.

i could be wrong but i am fairly sure he actually did one against the same team when they played again which started an all in brawl, he kept claiming he was requiring counseling to help with dealing with the tragedy but the bloke still couldn't stop himself from shoulder charging people, such a bizarre situation

Yeah, that is bizarre. I clearly don't know the guy, but if correct it brings his remorse into question. I guess the other side of the coin is the opposition/fans may have been looking for anything that even resembled a shoulder charge.

SI wrote:

Yeah, that is bizarre.  I clearly don't know the guy, but if correct it brings his remorse into question.  I guess the other side of the coin is the opposition/fans may have been looking for anything that even resembled a shoulder charge.

sounds like they were legitimate shoulder charges: see here

Molo was penalised twice in 22 minutes for shoulder charges. After the second incident, a wild brawl erupted

It is the second time in three weeks Molo has been suspended for a shoulder charge — and comes one year after the tragic death of Ackerman two days after being knocked out by another Molo shoulder charge.

Genuine question, not trying to highlight the overwhelming advantage the Broncos have being a 1 team town in Australia's 3rd biggest city, but the responsibility they have to the game in QLD.

During last night's WC coverage a player was mentioned who plays or played for East Tigers (?) a Broncos feeder club. I'm sure I've heard Redcliff or other clubs mentioned as Broncos feeder clubs. This got me thinking, in NSW each NRL team has a feeder club and this distributes talent across the competition keeping it even. If the Broncos were to only have 1 feeder club, this would give that club a clear unfair advantage. So my question is:

How many feeder clubs do Brisbane have and how to they determine who goes where ?

No Worries wrote:Genuine question, not trying to highlight the overwhelming advantage the Broncos have being a 1 team town in Australia's 3rd biggest city, but the responsibility they have to the game in QLD.

During last night's WC coverage a player was mentioned who plays or played for East Tigers (?) a Broncos feeder club. I'm sure I've heard Redcliff or other clubs mentioned as Broncos feeder clubs. This got me thinking, in NSW each NRL team has a feeder club and this distributes talent across the competition keeping it even. If the Broncos were to only have 1 feeder club, this would give that club a clear unfair advantage. So my question is:

How many feeder clubs do Brisbane have and how to they determine who goes where ?

Brisbane have the 5 Brisbane based clubs, minus Easts.

Storm have Easts and Sunny Coast. Cows have the 3 northern teams. Titans have the 2 SEQ/NNSW teams + CQ. Nobody has PNG, which you'd think would change.