The Speculator wrote:The problem we are facing here is that there are two basically incompatible elements involved - namely, the fast, high-impact sport that we love, versus the ruling bodies' desire to minimise head contact and concussions. That means that something's got to give, and we can all see which way it's going. You can look at any of these rule amendments or proposals in isolation and think 'maybe that's not so bad', but it's the cumulative effect that's the concern. Before you know it, three, four or five rules have been amended, and the sport that we loved suddenly looks quite different, and not for the better, as far as spectators are concerned. The situation kind of reminds me of the way the Welsh government cut speed limits on roads to 20mph in an attempt to reduce the number of deaths. Well-intentioned, obviously, but also hugely unpopular, with 70% of people opposed to it. The difference is that motorists can't do much about a 20mph limit being imposed (apart from protest), but RL speccies have the option of just walking away and keeping their cash in their pocket.
I ask again, how on earth do the world governing bodies of contact sports such as boxing (a target of which is to render the opponent unconscious by deliberate and repeated head contact) manage with defending claims under negligence / failure of the duty of care?
No one wants players to suffer life altering injury or brain damage but it is an unavoidable hazard for any player that crosses the white line in a full contact sport. Moreover, the players know this, and knew this, and decided to play.
