I still can't see how the AFL is taking this seriously.
We still have club doctors in control of decision making in terms of players being able to continue playing, and I've seen multiple instances this year where players have sustained hits and the doctors have cleared them to play. Weitering, Wines, and Marshall are the ones I remember and I vaguely remember seeing one more from Carlton, Geelong, and Brisbane. I'm sure there are many more. I've watched documentaries where players have been wiped out only to pass the test.
We then have AFL360 doing a montage of a "heroic" and "Brave" Riewoldt effort on a mark that could have easily resulted in severe injuries. I know this is going to be controversial but at what point do we ask the hard questions. Why is it that the AFL penalize a defensive player running against the flow of traffic making even the most minor front on contact, but in a marking contest they give it the ok, and every media outlet calls it out as being brave. If the AFL want to stamp out head injuries, then they cannot have inconsistencies in the rules. Running against the flight of the ball irrespective of the intent should be treated the same way. If Josh Kennedy is steaming out on a lead he should have right of access to the ball without facing any front on contact. Ive already seen several cases this year where players on the lead have had to back away because a kamikaze player was running against the flight of the ball. I think one simple change in attitude could reduce a massive number of head injuries.
I acknowledge there would be some grey and difficult areas such as a forward pressing kick to a forward running player to be met by a defender, so I'm not sure how to handle that. But my query was around how the AFL can continue to allow consistencies.
I think for a start, we need to take the decision making away from the clubs, and run it independently. I think the current 12 day plan needs to be altered to take into consideration the severity of concussion, and met on a case by case basis in the event that a particular player has not yet fully recovered. I don't agree with a set time period as not everyone is going to recover adequately in 12 days, particularly in subsequent cases. We need more openness (couldn't think of a better word) about concussion statistics, How many concussions, and the grade of concussion. If we're dealing with every incident on a case by case basis, we don't have to set absolute figures in determining when and if players can play.
Thoughts?
We still have club doctors in control of decision making in terms of players being able to continue playing, and I've seen multiple instances this year where players have sustained hits and the doctors have cleared them to play. Weitering, Wines, and Marshall are the ones I remember and I vaguely remember seeing one more from Carlton, Geelong, and Brisbane. I'm sure there are many more. I've watched documentaries where players have been wiped out only to pass the test.
We then have AFL360 doing a montage of a "heroic" and "Brave" Riewoldt effort on a mark that could have easily resulted in severe injuries. I know this is going to be controversial but at what point do we ask the hard questions. Why is it that the AFL penalize a defensive player running against the flow of traffic making even the most minor front on contact, but in a marking contest they give it the ok, and every media outlet calls it out as being brave. If the AFL want to stamp out head injuries, then they cannot have inconsistencies in the rules. Running against the flight of the ball irrespective of the intent should be treated the same way. If Josh Kennedy is steaming out on a lead he should have right of access to the ball without facing any front on contact. Ive already seen several cases this year where players on the lead have had to back away because a kamikaze player was running against the flight of the ball. I think one simple change in attitude could reduce a massive number of head injuries.
I acknowledge there would be some grey and difficult areas such as a forward pressing kick to a forward running player to be met by a defender, so I'm not sure how to handle that. But my query was around how the AFL can continue to allow consistencies.
I think for a start, we need to take the decision making away from the clubs, and run it independently. I think the current 12 day plan needs to be altered to take into consideration the severity of concussion, and met on a case by case basis in the event that a particular player has not yet fully recovered. I don't agree with a set time period as not everyone is going to recover adequately in 12 days, particularly in subsequent cases. We need more openness (couldn't think of a better word) about concussion statistics, How many concussions, and the grade of concussion. If we're dealing with every incident on a case by case basis, we don't have to set absolute figures in determining when and if players can play.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
