Injury 2023 injury thread

[Cataholic]

Doubt we see one penalty next year for what some deem "non-compliance" - clubs will simply argue that they don't have sufficient information on the player/s situation at the time of reporting and we'll see more teams taking either the GWS option of TBC or the Richmond option of 4 - 10 weeks

It would seem hard for the club to argue that when the players are monitored to the nth degree.

 

[Cataholic]

There is absolutely no downside to the AFL regulating this from next year onwards.

• Maintain a comprehensive list.
• Estimated weeks of absence. No “short term” etc.
• Update it weekly.
• Penalties for non compliance.

There's no downside at all, but it seems the preferred answer is that we just lose interest in a player's progress through an injury.

 

[Strange Cat]

It would seem hard for the club to argue that when the players are monitored to the nth degree.

Medical recovery isn’t an exact science , people can and will recover at different rates

 

[Cataholic]

Medical recovery isn’t an exact science , people can and will recover at different rates

That's true, and why an injury update is appreciated from week to week.

 

[Strange Cat]

That's true, and why an injury update is appreciated from week to week.

But why? If the injury is still persistenting what good is an update? The player is still injured and doesn’t need a minute by minute account of how it’s progressing imo

 

[Cataholic]

But why? If the injury is still persistenting what good is an update? The player is still injured and doesn’t need a minute by minute account of how it’s progressing imo

I don't think anyone is looking for a minute by minute account, but simply an acknowledgement that a player's rehab is progressing as planned, there's been a setback with a revised timeline, or the injury is rehabbing faster than expected.

Just a simple acknowledgement is all, vs a complete omission of the player's existence.

 

[Cataholic]

Whatever you suggest about what other clubs have been doing, Geelong has had them all covered by the length of the street on one simple measure. And I believe it's the only measure that truly matters. Injured players are reasonably expected to appear on the injury list. Not 'disappear' for weeks or months at a time, as has happened in many of our recent seasons.

Under my view of what's reasonable, the club can still carry on with their 'short-term/medium-term/long-term/TBC' timeframes to maintain their 'competitive advantage'. Just list all your injured players at the start of the season, and then update the list (where it's appropriate to do so) each week. While that still seems like a measured and sensible proposition to me (and clearly also now to the AFL), it's clear that some here think even that is asking a lot of the club.

So we can only hope the GFC won't collapse under the weight of this ridiculous imposition upon our industry-leading practices as we enter 2024 and beyond.

Not the best analogy, but I think of it kinda like super.

The majority of our shares are generally invested in the proven / safer performers, but then we also have some invested in more speculative shares......shares that carry a higher risk, but shares that we hope will give us something better in the long run.

When our super provider issues a report on the performance of our shares, we'll not only look at the performance of the majority, but will still also look with keen interest at the performance of our speculative shares, albeit they're in a clear minority ,to see what return they might be generating. Now, if those shares aren't even listed, let alone some detail given, then we ask questions, don't we?

 

[catempire]

Doubt we see one penalty next year for what some deem "non-compliance" - clubs will simply argue that they don't have sufficient information on the player/s situation at the time of reporting and we'll see more teams taking either the GWS option of TBC or the Richmond option of 4 - 10 weeks

Perhaps. Even that would be a step forward. Don’t think TBC will be allowed.

 

[Shadow89]

Medical recovery isn’t an exact science , people can and will recover at different rates

This is true...but they also don't disappear off the face off the earth - like Guth did for basically half the season.

I've said it before...I don't care about all the other BS, but not even including a player on the injury list is just baffling behaviour; and something no other club has done.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Bews had knee surgery today.

 

[Strange Cat]

Bews had knee surgery today.

View attachment 1791839

Didn’t realise he was so big in person

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Didn’t realise he was so big in person

Yea he's huge. I've spoken to him in person.

 

[Partridge]

There is absolutely no downside to the AFL regulating this from next year onwards.

• Maintain a comprehensive list.
• Estimated weeks of absence. No “short term” etc.
• Update it weekly.
• Penalties for non compliance.

And if any club is as well run as they tell us they are, it's something that could be routinely handled by a 17-year-old grad employee, holding the list on a bit of paper in their teeth, while doing the morning coffee run.

 

[Footy Smarts]

This is true...but they also don't disappear off the face off the earth - like Guth did for basically half the season.

I've said it before...I don't care about all the other BS, but not even including a player on the injury list is just baffling behaviour; and something no other club has done.

Chris Scott was being asked about him basically weekly and always said they were targeting the end of the H&A season. Lloyd gave regular updates on Guthrie in the injury reports. There were no shenanigans going on here and the updates were accurate (he returned to the VFL in the second last AFL round).

I think you're reading something into this that isn't there. Someone in the back office who sends the list to the AFL somehow left him off the list one week and nobody at the club noticed for a few weeks (why would they be looking at the AFL published list?).

 

[feelinfeline]

Chris Scott was being asked about him basically weekly and always said they were targeting the end of the H&A season. Lloyd gave regular updates on Guthrie in the injury reports. There were no shenanigans going on here and the updates were accurate (he returned to the VFL in the second last AFL round).

I think you're reading something into this that isn't there. Someone in the back office who sends the list to the AFL somehow left him off the list one week and nobody at the club noticed for a few weeks (why would they be looking at the AFL published list?).

And Kroeger and Wills? Why were they not mentioned for large parts of the season when they were injured? Are they not important to qualify for the injury list? Did they ask the club not to include them in the injury list?

 

[catempire]

That's true, and why an injury update is appreciated from week to week.

You might be onto something. Perhaps they could adjust the estimated return times based on the latest prognosis. Ground breaking!

 

[allrighty]

Ah yes Gill's iron fist strikes again. A serious non-issue IMO

 

[Cataholic]

You might be onto something. Perhaps they could adjust the estimated return times based on the latest prognosis. Ground breaking!

Well, it IS a pioneering concept, so it might take a little while to become a mainstream practice.

 

[dangerwood]

Bews had knee surgery today.

View attachment 1791839

Typical. Club didn't even put out an injury update this week.

 

[Vdubs]

I don't think anyone is looking for a minute by minute account, but simply an acknowledgement that a player's rehab is progressing as planned, there's been a setback with a revised timeline, or the injury is rehabbing faster than expected.

Just a simple acknowledgement is all, vs a complete omission of the player's existence.

From where I viewed, we got that.
The omission of a player's existence - you refer to Kroeger? Conway? I gleaned from initial reports that they were significant long term injuries, and that there was nothing to report.

 

[Cataholic]

From where I viewed, we got that.
The omission of a player's existence - you refer to Kroeger? Conway? I gleaned from initial reports that they were significant long term injuries, and that there was nothing to report.

I don't think we did, and Scott has admitted that they've been less than open with their injury reporting.

 

[Vdubs]

I don't think we did, and Scott has admitted that they've been less than open with their injury reporting.

BUT in the cases of TC and FK, it was not for the reasons you are alluding to, or what CS said he was trying to prevent.
I strongly believe these wonderful words of wisdom from Uncle Michael


We are victims of too much instant gratification. Do we really have a right to know everything about our players? Every time we demand it?
Incomes..
Injury assessments ..

 

[dangerwood]

From where I viewed, we got that.
The omission of a player's existence - you refer to Kroeger? Conway? I gleaned from initial reports that they were significant long term injuries, and that there was nothing to report.

What about Willis? He didn't exist between May and August.

 

[Vdubs]

What about Willis? He didn't exist between May and August.

Who?

 

[Cataholic]

BUT in the cases of TC and FK, it was not for the reasons you are alluding to, or what CS said he was trying to prevent.
I strongly believe these wonderful words of wisdom from Uncle Michael


We are victims of too much instant gratification. Do we really have a right to know everything about our players? Every time we demand it?
Incomes..
Injury assessments ..

I don't think anyone is asking to know everything, just a regular acknowledgement of the progress being made, or otherwise, of each player on our injury list.