AFL to argue players ‘knew the risks’ in landmark concussion class action

The AFL will argue that clubs and players knew the concussion risks in the game, as it faces a landmark class action filed to the Supreme Court led by dual premiership player Max Rooke.

The AFL claims clubs and “players themselves” are responsible for footballers health and wellbeing, as the league defends a major class action led by Geelong favourite Max Rooke.

In documents filed in the Victorian Supreme Court as part of the class action, in which Rooke is the lead plaintiff, the league has revealed it will argue “the clubs, as the AFL players’ employers, along with the AFL players themselves”, are primarily responsible for players’ health and wellbeing.

Dual premiership player Max Rooke has led a class action against the AFL filed to the Supreme Court.

It will also dual premiership player Rooke and the other players suing the league knew, and accepted, the risks inherent in playing a professional contact sport.

The class action now involves almost 100 former players, as well as the families of some players who have died since retiring.

Rooke claims to have suffered 23 “head knocks” and concussions during his career, including what his lawyer, Michel Margalit, has described as “sickening knockouts”.

The claim alleges the AFL failed to implement reasonable concussion protocols for players and clubs.

The AFL will argue it made at least 30 rule changes to game since 2000 in a bid to reduce the risk of players suffering concussions, as knowledge about the risks of concussion evolved.

The league’s defence says clubs, coaches and officials have long been banned from allowing a player to take to the field or training track if they suspected a player might have been concussed.

Ex-Geelong player Max Rooke claimed he suffered at least 23 head knocks during his career.

Max Rooke is the lead plaintiff in the class action against the AFL.

Rooke says he suffered multiple head knocks in the first quarter of the 2005 elimination final.

He also claims he suffered two head knocks in the first quarter of the 2007 preliminary final.

The league has admitted it owed all players a duty of care, but said it “exercised reasonable care for the health, safety and welfare” of players.

The AFL will argue clubs are responsible for managing their players’ medical care, and deciding when they were fit to return to play and train.

“Responsibility for the management and assessment of players’ injuries during … matches and training, and removal … of players from those matches and that training fell to the players’ employers, (club officials) and the players themselves,” the league’s defence says.

Another crucial limb of the league’s defence will be that players, including Rooke, knew the risks involved in the game.

“Players were able to exercise their own judgment and free will in deciding whether, and how, to train and play Australian football and follow medical … or other advice having regard to the risk of traumatic injury to their head, and in particular their brain,” the AFL’s defence says.

“(Rooke) suffering from a concussion … during a match or training was a risk that was obvious to a reasonable person in (his) position.

“(Rooke) freely and voluntarily, with awareness of the risk of suffering from a concussion … during a match or training, impliedly agreed to incur that risk.”

The class action, still in its early stages, returns to court at a later date.