Toast All things Paul Roos + Coaching: McCartney joins coaches

[Cannon82]

If you don't like the proposed concussion sub, and I don't either, then that's fine. But you're being deliberately obtuse saying the long term effects of a bad ACL or foot or groin are anywhere near as severe as the long term effects of multiple concussions. You only need to look at Greg Williams to see this. Jack Trengove's football career has been impacted by his foot issues. Thankfully, he has retained his mental capacity and will be able to re-train for pretty much any other job he wants after footy.

Well I guess it wouldn't be a topical discussion on the Dees board without you posting something completely daft and irrelevant that no one here is actually arguing. Where have I talked about the severity of concussion issues? We were talking permanent / long-term injury effects so I brought up other things people can do on the football field aside from concussions - because that's what we're talking about; a silly idea to have a concussion sub. If you want to restrict the spectrum of injuries down to purely neurological issues, then congratulations, concussion / head knocks are the only thing that matters because that's where you've just moved the goal posts to.

If you're not arguing that the concussion sub is a good idea, then what the * are you on about? Because that's what we're talking about. What are you proposing?? The AFL has a concussion test. If a player gets a head knock and fails it, he's out of the game. If he passes, then... you're going to sub him out of the game at 3/4 time as a precautionary measure despite the fact that he has passed the standard test? Does he play on until 3/4 time or does he just come off, in which case pretty much any head knock then spells the end of a player's game... unless... he's the second player to get a head knock, so he'll probably play on because there's only one concussion sub. Meanwhile, the other team are one short but can't use their sub because a player broke his leg, and well boo hoo sucks for them because it's not a concussion. So the only time the concussion sub would really come into play is if someone fails the concussion test and the sub gets to run out for a 1/4, but that does nothing to stop concussions because the player is already concussed and was never coming back out to begin with because they failed the AFL's standard concussion test. So, at the end of the day, all you have is a rule that allows for a substitute for a quarter of the game for one type of injury... which is ******* stupid, which is what we're talking about. What are you talking about? How concussions can be debilitating despite the fact no one here has argued against it.

If you're going to tilt at windmills, fine, but dislodge the rocks from your head before you tell other people they're being "deliberately obtuse".

 

[Tulip]

Well I guess it wouldn't be a topical discussion on the Dees board without you posting something completely daft and irrelevant that no one here is actually arguing. Where have I talked about the severity of concussion issues? We were talking permanent / long-term injury effects so I brought up other things people can do on the football field aside from concussions - because that's what we're talking about; a silly idea to have a concussion sub. If you want to restrict the spectrum of injuries down to purely neurological issues, then congratulations, concussion / head knocks are the only thing that matters because that's where you've just moved the goal posts to.

If you're not arguing that the concussion sub is a good idea, then what the **** are you on about? Because that's what we're talking about. What are you proposing?? The AFL has a concussion test. If a player gets a head knock and fails it, he's out of the game. If he passes, then... you're going to sub him out of the game at 3/4 time as a precautionary measure despite the fact that he has passed the standard test? Does he play on until 3/4 time or does he just come off, in which case pretty much any head knock then spells the end of a player's game... unless... he's the second player to get a head knock, so he'll probably play on because there's only one concussion sub. Meanwhile, the other team are one short but can't use their sub because a player broke his leg, and well boo hoo sucks for them because it's not a concussion. So the only time the concussion sub would really come into play is if someone fails the concussion test and the sub gets to run out for a 1/4, but that does nothing to stop concussions because the player is already concussed and was never coming back out to begin with because they failed the AFL's standard concussion test. So, at the end of the day, all you have is a rule that allows for a substitute for a quarter of the game for one type of injury... which is ******* stupid, which is what we're talking about. What are you talking about? How concussions can be debilitating despite the fact no one here has argued against it.

If you're going to tilt at windmills, fine, but dislodge the rocks from your head before you tell other people they're being "deliberately obtuse".

View attachment 656535

Some self awareness would go a long way here. Not sure what your issue is, but try getting over it. Equating the long-term effects of an ACL or a broken leg with the long-term effects of repeat concussions and claiming they're alike is just stupid.

 

[Proper Gander]

Threads gone very weird.

 

[Cannon82]

Some self awareness would go a long way here.

You are misguided.

Not sure what your issue is, but try getting over it. Equating the long-term effects of an ACL or a broken leg with the long-term effects of repeat concussions and claiming they're alike is just stupid.

My "issue" here is that you're clinging to a point that literally no one here is arguing. Why are you attempting to re-frame this discussion as "talking down" the effects of concussion or some such when its been about the complete and utter toss that is the concept of having a substitute for one type of injury?

Instead of trying to put on airs of faux mental superiority, how about dusting up on your reading comprehension and attempting to make some kind of relevant point rather than doubling down on sad deflections.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Can't say I've done more than skim this but from what I gather the idea is get around clubs avoiding their duty of care to concussed players by allowing an extra player when there's a concussion.

You're just going to go from shitheads pretending their players aren't concussed to shitheads pretending their players are.

Painfully stupid idea, just enforce the actual rules.

 

[Proper Gander]

Can't say I've done more than skim this but from what I gather the idea is get around clubs avoiding their duty of care to concussed players by allowing an extra player when there's a concussion.

You're just going to go from shitheads pretending their players aren't concussed to shitheads pretending their players are.

Painfully stupid idea, just enforce the actual rules.

Paul Roos fault.

He campaigned vigorously for an end to the sub rule.

Now he is proposing essentially the reintroduction of the sub - but covering his arse from people like me saying WTF by cloaking his backflip in rhetoric about the need to consider concussion etc.

Concussion didn’t appear in the last ten years as a new phenomenon so I don’t get it really. Have a general rule that either you have a bloke in the sub jacket to take the field as a replacement for an injured player, or do what we do currently and have 4 rotation players that coaches have to manage - and if there are injuries then that is bad luck, fate or Dr Whoooooo. Either scenario I can live with.

I don’t like the idea of the extra “concussion specific” sub because we all know coaches are turds and will reach for an opportunity to drag off any poorly performing player on the basis of a head knock (which in a contact sport means everyone on any given week) so you will get situations where coach A pulls off an OMac for fresh legs, but coach B is now down to one on the bench because 3 of his players are heading for hospital with busted knees, but no replacement on field for them.

In summary, I want Roos back as coach because it means he’s out of media.

 

[Topkent]

Well I guess it wouldn't be a topical discussion on the Dees board without you posting something completely daft and irrelevant that no one here is actually arguing. Where have I talked about the severity of concussion issues? We were talking permanent / long-term injury effects so I brought up other things people can do on the football field aside from concussions - because that's what we're talking about; a silly idea to have a concussion sub. If you want to restrict the spectrum of injuries down to purely neurological issues, then congratulations, concussion / head knocks are the only thing that matters because that's where you've just moved the goal posts to.

If you're not arguing that the concussion sub is a good idea, then what the **** are you on about? Because that's what we're talking about. What are you proposing?? The AFL has a concussion test. If a player gets a head knock and fails it, he's out of the game. If he passes, then... you're going to sub him out of the game at 3/4 time as a precautionary measure despite the fact that he has passed the standard test? Does he play on until 3/4 time or does he just come off, in which case pretty much any head knock then spells the end of a player's game... unless... he's the second player to get a head knock, so he'll probably play on because there's only one concussion sub. Meanwhile, the other team are one short but can't use their sub because a player broke his leg, and well boo hoo sucks for them because it's not a concussion. So the only time the concussion sub would really come into play is if someone fails the concussion test and the sub gets to run out for a 1/4, but that does nothing to stop concussions because the player is already concussed and was never coming back out to begin with because they failed the AFL's standard concussion test. So, at the end of the day, all you have is a rule that allows for a substitute for a quarter of the game for one type of injury... which is ******* stupid, which is what we're talking about. What are you talking about? How concussions can be debilitating despite the fact no one here has argued against it.

If you're going to tilt at windmills, fine, but dislodge the rocks from your head before you tell other people they're being "deliberately obtuse".

View attachment 656535

 

[Topkent]

Here is Tulip and Gysberts2Bate

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Here is Tulip and Gysberts2Bate

View attachment 656756

I don’t actually care or want a concussion sub, I just like wasting people’s time tbh. It’s the only reason I’m on this board.

 

[Topkent]

I don’t actually care or want a concussion sub, I just like wasting people’s time tbh. It’s the only reason I’m on this board.

Jokes on you, I have nothing better to do

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Jokes on you, I have nothing better to do

Same.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

get a room

 

[CWaffles]

This thread went from big words and finger pointing to memes and gifs very quickly.

 

[saj_21]

Topkent's original point was valid, he wasn't comparing the severity of a concussion vs a soft tissue/muscle injury but the just the simple fact that if player A goes down with a knee injury no replacement but if player B goes down with a head knock then there is a replacement. When all know that a head injury has far more dire consequences long term than a knee/hip replacement, but why should a concussion trigger a player replacement and any other game ending injury does not.

It was almost as if Roos was hinting clubs still try to play concussed players, whereas a player who break his legs there is no chance he is coming back on.

 

[KickLongTackleHard]

....remember how Paul Roos cut Dean Terlich from an AFL list twice

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

....remember how Paul Roos cut Dean Terlich from an AFL list twice

Clearly it's because he knew that big head of his posed a huge concussion risk to other players on the list. Actually it's the reason he's now in favour of a concussion sub.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

....remember how Paul Roos cut Dean Terlich from an AFL list twice

Overly conservative not going for three times?

 

[PerfectFooty]

....remember how Paul Roos cut Dean Terlich from an AFL list twice

Paul Roos didn't cut him the second time, Goodwin did

 

[Cannon82]

Paul Roos didn't cut him the second time, Goodwin did

More likely it would have been a requirement during Roos' search for a successor that the hopeful candidate would cut Terlich from the list. Instant fail if that box wasn't ticked.

 

[djpaulydemon]

If impartially is a problem the AFL could have a neutral doctor at each game to assess concussions.

I don't think it would be though, club doctors are actually doctors and would put the players health first. The symptoms of concussion vary and diagnosing it seems more difficult compared to a joint or muscle injury. I doubt coaches are overiding doctors decisions in this day and age.

 

[KickLongTackleHard]

Paul Roos didn't cut him the second time, Goodwin did

In between the handover seasons. Goodwin’s final act under instruction to complete his apprentice training.

 

[PerfectFooty]

More likely it would have been a requirement during Roos' search for a successor that the hopeful candidate would cut Terlich from the list. Instant fail if that box wasn't ticked.

In between the handover seasons. Goodwin’s final act under instruction to complete his apprentice training.

My theory is that the only reason we signed him to 2016 is because Roosy didn't want be the one to cut him again

 

[ponsdale]

If impartially is a problem the AFL could have a neutral doctor at each game to assess concussions.

I don't think it would be though, club doctors are actually doctors and would put the players health first. The symptoms of concussion vary and diagnosing it seems more difficult compared to a joint or muscle injury. I doubt coaches are overiding doctors decisions in this day and age.

How easy would it be for a player to fail a concussion test? The cognitive ability ones were they set a benchmark preseason and have to achieve the same score to be cleared of concussion symptoms.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk