But then what stops past players from suing the game out of existence. If the N.R.L is deemed as a workplace and provides the information, the outlines that high shots are illegal, the concussion stand down, harsh penalties on those who badly breach high tackle rules, surely the N.R.L have done enough in their duty of care. Noone is signing their rights away, they are just signing that they accept the game is not responsible for any permanent injury as a result of playing the game. A game most are well compensated for. If the N.R.L is looked at as a workplace then surely permanent injury must be seen as a possible outcome due to the nature of the workplace being a contact sport. If the N.R.L did everything to educate the players of the dangers and made it clear high shots are illegal, how could a signed document not stand up, I'm no lawyer I'm prob wrong but I figure if the N.R.L does everything it can to educate the players on the dangers and penalise those found guilty to protect players then surely they have met their responsibility in their duty of care based on the nature of the workplace.
You've posed 2 different but related questions here.
What stops past players from suing the game?
Nothing and lots of things. Past players would certainly have a case if they chose to go down that path. However with most legal battles there is no guarantee of outcome (as you stated at the end of your post the NRL would argue they have held up their end of duty of care) and it would be a costly process to initiate. So first answer is cost with no guarantee of return.
Other considerations are we don't have a litigation culture in our country, players not wanting to potentially cripple the game they love or be ostracised for doing so, players recognising they made a living from the game or that they truthfully did accept the risks, Timeframe limitations in filing a case and finally you can only genuinely prove CTE after an autopsy.
Why would a signed document not stand up in court?
I'm not a lawyer either but I have read articles about it in the past. My recollection is that essentially the law comes down to negligence and no waiver rids you from that negligence. If the NRL is found negligent in protecting from concussion no waiver would save them.
Accepted risk is part of the law as well. You don't need to legally outline what an obvious risk is. So no need to have a waiver saying the players accept the obvious risk. Again there is grey area about what level of risk is deemed obvious.
So you can say there is obvious dangers but it does not absolve you of your legal responsibility to minimise these dangers, failure to do so would be criminally negligent.
The question is are/have the NRL been negligent in protecting from concussion. Lawyers on one side would point to examples such as the Tuilagi hit on May that went unpunished and say yes. The other side would point to laws of the game and sinbins and suspensions of high shots and say no.
There are further arguments on either side if you really want to delve into it such as rules leading to changed tackling techniques but this is the gist of it.
All waivers would do at this point is highlight the workplace has been unsafe for a while and become further evidence if a former player was to now sue.
Adding to the complexity of the waivers is they do need to be very specific and detailed in order to have any legal grounds and so much about concussion is still to unknown to make the waiver specific to the results of concussion.
Also are there further issues resulting from waivers? Coercion and under reporting are two concerns out forth but I'm sure there would be others.
