Jonas and Butters subbed back on after head clash - with no concussion protocol undertaken

[peternorth]

FWIW, IF the doctor/club made the decision to avoid concussion tests because of the nature of the game, for the betterment of the team/club (play butters and jonas) i dont have a problem with it.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

I thought there was supposed to be an AFL appointment independent Doc on the sidelines to prevent this sort of rubbish from occurring with the new concussion rules?

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Lol what a nerd, talking about lawyers going after forum posters haha

Haha I haven’t heard someone be referred to as a nerd in years!

 

[SSwans2011]

I have got a law degree mate. You reckon you can ramble on for upto 5 minutes on national television about the incident without having so much as having spoken to the doctor about it without being at risk of defaming someone' Literally every word would be analysed and if it comes back that any one of them implied the doctor acted improperly, the onus would then fall on the person alleging impropriety to prove that in court.

That's the entire point. It was clear Holmes wanted to continue on with the 'controversy' rather than just highlight the issue and get back to the (very close) game. Then Hamish said a minute or 2 later that 'we would never second guess' the doctor, which appears to be a clear instruction from the producer.

My friend from high school that I haven't seen in 15 years is a doctor. I must know something about medicine. See how that works.

WTAF did she actually say that would qualify as defamation? She said that they should surely have to undergo concussion protocols and that it was a big story developing. She didn't name the doctors, nor call them incompetent. Everything she said was an honestly held opinion, and would only have been interpreted as such by any reasonable person, so any lawsuit wouldn't pass the reasonable person test. And I think most reasonable people also would have thought they would have to undergo concussion protocols. Players have, and have been subbed out for far, far less than that collision.

 

[boncer34]

I have got a law degree mate. You reckon you can ramble on for upto 5 minutes on national television about the incident without having so much as having spoken to the doctor about it without being at risk of defaming someone' Literally every word would be analysed and if it comes back that any one of them implied the doctor acted improperly, the onus would then fall on the person alleging impropriety to prove that in court.

That's the entire point. It was clear Holmes wanted to continue on with the 'controversy' rather than just highlight the issue and get back to the (very close) game. Then Hamish said a minute or 2 later that 'we would never second guess' the doctor, which appears to be a clear instruction from the producer.

My friend from high school that I haven't seen in 15 years is a doctor. I must know something about medicine. See how that works.

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary in this thread.

 

[HairyO]

So.... were either concussed?

I tend to side with medical opinions of doctors over commentators.

 

[Vitalogy]

Similar incident last year and not sure if they underwent concussion test? Any West Coast fans know?

Eagles win soured by shocking head clash

West Coast’s big win over Collingwood has been soured by a shocking head clash between teammates Tom Cole and Josh Rotham with just seconds remaining in the match.

thewest.com.au

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Cornes provides some personal experience to vouch for the doctor of 25 years, and therefore supports the decision he made.

(1) one night he had a stomach pain and called the doctor, who attended to him.
(2) Kanes son broke his arm on a sunday, doctor called who got him into hospital straightaway.

That's a joke right?

 

[Bostonian]

Butters looked fine. Just a cut.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So.... were either concussed?

I tend to side with medical opinions of doctors over commentators.

Why? The questioning is about following AFL rules, not questioning their medical credentials.

Did they follow the AFL's concussion protocols?

Given Abbey Holmes witnessed the clash at ground level, and has a partner that plays AFL footy - I think it's absolutely fair for her to ask the question as to whether a concussion test was done as per the AFL's rules, and if not, why not?

Either the doctors f***ed up, or the AFL's protocols are appalling. She has absolutely every right to call that out. In fact, as a commentator I think it's her responsibility.


It's absolutely absurd for the AFL to talk the talk on the head being sacrosanct, but then have protocols that allow two guys who suffers high impact violent head knocks to go straight back on the ground without thorough testing. Absolutely absurd.

The rule of thumb should be that for any decent head knock, the doctor tries to find a reason to keep them off the ground. They should exhaust every avenue possible to find a skerrick of evidence that the player should NOT return to the field.
Not the other way around.

So in this instance, the Dr. can say that based on the AFL's protocols there were no obvious signs of concussion so he didn't bother looking any further than that.

It's just so laughable.

 

[Xtreme]

I'd like to think that it was the players choice, surely if they didn't feel up to it, they'd tell the trainers/doctors/Kenny himself that they were not feeling the best at the time!!!

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I'd like to think that it was the players choice, surely if they didn't feel up to it, they'd tell the trainers/doctors/Kenny himself that they were not feeling the best at the time!!!

Seriously??

 

[Xtreme]

Seriously??

They are grown men who can say no

 

[ptrg]

The ARC also has power to order a club doctor to drag a player and do a concussion test if they believe a warranted test has been missed.

So this is just as much on the AFL as it is the compromised club doctors (Port weren’t the first and won’t be the last - when you’re on the payroll of the club, it’s impossible not to be biased whether subconsciously or not.)

only a matter of time until an independent “fight doctor” is brought in ala NRL who for all their thuggery, have already been through this issue and come to this conclusion.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

They are grown men who can say no

I'm cautious to engage here, as I'm not sure if you're serious or not...

 

[HairyO]

Why? The questioning is about following AFL rules, not questioning their medical credentials.

Did they follow the AFL's concussion protocols?

Given Abbey Holmes witnessed the clash at ground level, and has a partner that plays AFL footy - I think it's absolutely fair for her to ask the question as to whether a concussion test was done as per the AFL's rules, and if not, why not?

Either the doctors f***ed up, or the AFL's protocols are appalling. She has absolutely every right to call that out. In fact, as a commentator I think it's her responsibility.


It's absolutely absurd for the AFL to talk the talk on the head being sacrosanct, but then have protocols that allow two guys who suffers high impact violent head knocks to go straight back on the ground without thorough testing. Absolutely absurd.

The rule of thumb should be that for any decent head knock, the doctor tries to find a reason to keep them off the ground. They should exhaust every avenue possible to find a skerrick of evidence that the player should NOT return to the field.
Not the other way around.

So in this instance, the Dr. can say that based on the AFL's protocols there were no obvious signs of concussion so he didn't bother looking any further than that.

It's just so laughable.

Or the doctors reviewed it and didnt think it was needed.

Having a partner playing football is a qualification now ?

 

[ptrg]

And ironically, and predictably, the medi-sub, which was brought in EXCLUSIVELY for concussed players, was already used on a guy who blew his calf, again compromising the doctor and the system.

 

[Xtreme]

I'm cautious to engage here, as I'm not sure if you're serious or not...

Oh I'm always serious

But I also concede that if they had been knocked about they obviously shouldn't make the decision on their own.

 

[ptrg]

Oh I'm always serious

But I also concede that if they had been knocked about they obviously shouldn't make the decision on their own.

So, if they were indeed concussed, how could they make the correct decision? Have you ever been concussed? Clear and correct decision making is not something that goes hand in hand with concussion

 

[Big Crow]

This certainly appears to constitute negligence in terms of their duty of care to the players. It was a big collision, and both players appear pretty dazed afterwards and stumbled off the field.

Why not at least do a concussion test? If the answer involves how long left in the match then it’s not looking good.

Pretty sure the ARC also has the ability to request/order a concussion test based on viewed footage. So it’s not just Port in question here. Sub-professional all around.

 

[Xtreme]

So, if they were indeed concussed, how could they make the correct decision? Have you ever been concussed? Clear and correct decision making is not something that goes hand in hand with concussion

Gut instinct
Yes I've been concussed before

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Or the doctors reviewed it and didnt think it was needed.

Having a partner playing football is a qualification now ?

How can you review it though in 6 minutes?

You will often see 'obvious' signs of concussion in that time period, but we all know that concussion can be delayed, and that it's very common for 'obvious' signs to not show immediately.

Concussion is caused by the brain rattling inside the skull. You do not need a medical degree to know that a collision like that one is a very, very high risk one in terms of the likelihood of concussion.

Even if there are no obvious signs, it's staggering to not take 20-30 minutes to see if any develop. Staggering.


As for Holmes' partner playing AFL footy, it doesn't make her an expert. That's nonsense.

It gives her a heightened sense of the personal risk a player is under after a collision to the head like that. It gives her perspective that the Hamish McLachlan's of the world with the 'trust the doc and get back out there and get on with it' mentality, might not have.
It's a perspective that plenty of us have, where the fact that there's only 20 minutes left and it's a close and important game is irrelevant. It's a perspective that that decision last night is heavily flawed, regardless of whether it's a doctor error (which do, and have happened by the way) or a gaping hole in the AFL's rules.

 

[BringFevBack2021]

And then crapped on for another several minutes about it. Defamation is about the imputation of the words, not the words themselves. She was absolutely implying the doctor had acted improperly. She would want to be right about it.

This is such a reach it isn't even funny. Stop blindly defending the obvious mistake your club made yesterday evening.

Holmes went up in my estimations yesterday with how much emphasis she put on the issue. Clearly, she understands the importance of adhering to concussion protocols for the longevity of the players career as well as their post-career quality of life.

I really think Port have something to answer for here, if I were running the AFL I'd be sending independent doctors to assess both Butters and Jonas for concussion and hold Port Adelaide accountable for breaching this protocol should there be any reason to suggest concussion occurred.

 

[peternorth]

That's a joke right?

No it is not. from 2.50 onwards

Kane and Kingy in 30 Minutes (10.6.22)

Port Adelaide's decision not to put Zak Butters and Tom Jonas through concussions tests was at the top of Kane and Kingy's agenda this morning, and Kingy then asked if Ken Hinkley has "wrung the rag dry" at the Power. Kane gave an update on Port Adelaide's stance on their decision last night...

player.whooshkaa.com

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

No it is not. from 2.50 onwards

Kane and Kingy in 30 Minutes (10.6.22)

Port Adelaide's decision not to put Zak Butters and Tom Jonas through concussions tests was at the top of Kane and Kingy's agenda this morning, and Kingy then asked if Ken Hinkley has "wrung the rag dry" at the Power. Kane gave an update on Port Adelaide's stance on their decision last night...

player.whooshkaa.com

But what relevance does that have to whether the Port doctors made another concussion related error or not?