I'd like to add that the legalised and bastardised definition and use of the three words, duty of care, make them so far removed from the language meaning of the three words, duty of care, that they become irrelevant in what they are trying to achieve.
I cringe every time I hear them used in reference to a workplace. It's a cop out that actually means excessive dollars spent for near on zero efficiency improvement but supporting a whole sub-industry of beuraucracy, "law" practitioners and associates.
People are inherently poor at risk assessment. Unless it is black or white. Life or death. And even then some are pretty bad at it. And it tends to vary with age, adrenaline and testosterone levels.
Even if you go all Integrated Management System and apply a hazard management hierarchy of control.
1. Elimination - don't play footy. Perfect. Zero injuries. But zero footy is not really what anyone's after.
2. Substitution - let someone or something else play. Maybe, but can you truly say one player is less likely to get injured than another at any one time? And I don't want to watch virtual footy - although the WA government will be interested in letting people bet on it. Ye gads!
3. Engineering controls. Can't see concrete bunding or ballustrading helping groin muscle fibres to not overstretch. Save these things for slowing fans from entering or exiting brand new stadia with wonderful big entry gates as much as humanly possible.
4. Administrative controls. Yes, it would give all those ass coaches something to actually do but this would make for real attractive footy.
5. PPE. Yay, let's play gridiron. They never get injured. Maybe all the players could just wear those big foam Sumo wrestling suits.
So, what ya gonna do?
