Roast Concussion? Nah, walk it off boys..

[It Just Is]

So it's not at all possible to get a knock in the face and not have concussion?

It hurts and it shocks. It does not mean concussion. So Jonas ran a little to the right. Because he was holding his head down, not looking where he was going, because he was smashed in the eye. Not exactly irrefutable proof (though I do believe Jonas was deserving a test, that alone isn't the smoking gun).

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

Where does the burden of proof lie? Other clubs have been moving to a position of taking a slow and considered approach after very heavy head knocks regardless of immediate concussion symptoms.

 

[treegreen]

Where are the guidelines and protocols. List them. Link them.

Your interpretation isn't good enough. Produce them.

Don't give me this bullshit that I read it in the media the commentators have told me etc. Commentators speak a lot of s**t. Produce the official AFL Guidelines for the Management of Concussion at AFL level.

Give me a full detailed run down of what Dr Fisher did last night. Step by step by step by step.

Why did the AFL Chief Medical Officer clear Dr Fischer and not take treegreen's 132 page submission into account??

I repeat, I will take the assessment of Dr Fisher and the AFL Chief Medical Officer's word over some internet nuffie any day.

If you're actually interested in learning I'm really happy to hear that. I'm copying myself but:

You can find the procedure here. Note that this is global best practice and the guidelines advocated by Sport Australia and the Australasian College of Sport and Exercise Physicians.

The TLDR is that if any of the observable signs below are observed after a direct or indirect blow to the head, the player must undergo the full test in a distraction-free environment (which is why they are generally done in the club rooms).

• Lying motionless on the surface
• Balance or gait difficulties
• Stumbling, slow, or laboured movements
• Blank or vacant look
• Facial injury after head trauma

Anyone with eyes could tell you at least some (if not all) of those signs were observed in both cases.

The first paragraph of the document explicitly says the test must not be completed in less than 10 minutes, yet the players were back on the field 6 minutes after coming off. The test therefore was not properly conducted (if at all).

 

[It Just Is]

Agree. Coach should be immediately stood down by the afl. Permanently. An example needs to be set

Yeah, honestly it is no small factor in why it annoys me that they were sent back out.

We’ve got a coach who regularly throws players under the bus for his own ineptitude, desperate for a win to save his career, combined with a football department looking increasingly like the Wild West and lacking any controls, e.g. whatever the * our preseason training was, Aliir returning while injured, Fantasia medi sub, Dixon still limping a month after his return, Duursma playing injured than dispatched to the magoos when fit, injury reporting in general being complete BS, and I’ve probably missed a few.

Maybe the Doctor and club did nothing wrong. Who knows. But it looks loose compared to best practice and where league is obviously heading in relation to very heavy head knocks.

 

[It Just Is]

Do boxers get concussion every single time they take a punch?

They call off the fight when someone goes down like Jonas did.

 

[bomberclifford]

incompatance

Lol

 

[jonasshirtfront]

For me it just shows a lack of care for our most valuable resource: our own players. You get problems after a head clash like that because the brain smashes into the inside of the skull and then starts swelling, which is why they have the requirement to take time to perform the test. But we don't care so we send Butters straight back out there and he gets his *in head rammed into the turf minutes later because he's that sort of player who thinks nothing of putting his body on the line. It was just a stupid high risk low reward play, and in the end we got zero reward for it. ******* stupid.

 

[VineValerian]

If you're actually interested in learning I'm really happy to hear that. I'm copying myself but:

You can find the procedure here. Note that this is global best practice and the guidelines advocated by Sport Australia and the Australasian College of Sport and Exercise Physicians.

The TLDR is that if any of the observable signs below are observed after a direct or indirect blow to the head, the player must undergo the full test in a distraction-free environment (which is why they are generally done in the club rooms).

• Lying motionless on the surface
• Balance or gait difficulties
• Stumbling, slow, or laboured movements
• Blank or vacant look
• Facial injury after head trauma

Anyone with eyes could tell you at least some (if not all) of those signs were observed in both cases.

The first paragraph of the document explicitly says the test must not be completed in less than 10 minutes, yet the players were back on the field 6 minutes after coming off. The test therefore was not properly conducted (if at all).

The AFL ok'd it.
Maybe they need to be punished for not having strict enough protocols? Or for not clamping down harder on what rules they do use?

 

[Mikey13G]

Just a couple of little face tweaks

 

[Duck Farmer]

The TLDR is that if any of the observable signs below are observed after a direct or indirect blow to the head, the player must undergo the full test in a distraction-free environment (which is why they are generally done in the club rooms).

• Lying motionless on the surface
• Balance or gait difficulties
• Stumbling, slow, or laboured movements
• Blank or vacant look
• Facial injury after head trauma

I think we've finally found a way to get Hinkley out of the coach's box.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

If you're actually interested in learning I'm really happy to hear that. I'm copying myself but:

You can find the procedure here. Note that this is global best practice and the guidelines advocated by Sport Australia and the Australasian College of Sport and Exercise Physicians.

That is not the AFL guidelines and protocols document. Its a document endorsed by other sports bodies.

If you are going to say that Dr Fisher and the AFL Chief medical Officer have breach and/or ignored AFL Guidelines, then produce the AFL Guidelines document. Its not that hard a concept to understand.

For example here is the AFL GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF CONCUSSION AT AFL LEVEL Developed by the AFL Medical Officers Association (AFLMOA) and issued by the AFL as a guideline under AFL Player Rule 26.1 (‘Medically Unfit Players’). Version: March, 2013 for Round 1 of the 2013 Premiership Season.

Where is the 2022 version of that document?? And yes I have read in full the document you linked and the above one I linked, which I found a couple of hours after the Richmond v Port game. The SCAT test is the test that the AFL use. They were using SCAT3 in 2013 and 2016. I don't know what version they are using in 2022 because nobody has produced the 2022 AFL Guidelines.

The TLDR is that if any of the observable signs below are observed after a direct or indirect blow to the head, the player must undergo the full test in a distraction-free environment (which is why they are generally done in the club rooms).

• Lying motionless on the surface
• Balance or gait difficulties
• Stumbling, slow, or laboured movements
• Blank or vacant look
• Facial injury after head trauma

Anyone with eyes could tell you at least some (if not all) of those signs were observed in both cases.

The first paragraph of the document explicitly says the test must not be completed in less than 10 minutes, yet the players were back on the field 6 minutes after coming off. The test therefore was not properly conducted (if at all).

10 minutes is if you are performing a full SCAT5 evaluation.

You have assumed the AFL Guidelines are that you have to do a FULL - SCAT5 process immediately, no ifs, no buts, no whys, no maybes.

Don't assume anything. If the AFL Chief Medical Officer has cleared Dr Fisher, then that means AFL Guidelines don't automatically apply the SCAT5, 10 minute rule, if any of the Step 1 Red Flags are observed.

Based on what Tom Jonas said this morning on Triple M, looks like the AFL require the doctors to do Step 1 thru to Step 4 and then the Cervical Spine assessment on page 2 of the document you linked, and they then can make the assessment if they continue on to page 3 of the document you linked.

On page 3 it starts off with
OFFICE OR OFF-FIELD ASSESSMENT
Please note that the neurocognitive assessment should be done in a distraction-free environment with the athlete in a resting state.

If you go thru that, that will take you 10 minutes to go thru and fill out and that's probably when they take the players down into the rooms so the doc can fill out that form properly and in full.

But you refuse to produce the AFL Guidelines that would fully detail what the AFL requires of club doctors and all the steps involved.

If you use your common sense, and I know that is not as common as it should be these days, if the AFL's Chief Medical Officer has cleared Dr Fisher, then given how much concern the AFL has over concussion, the AFL Guidelines allows the AFL Club Doctors to follow procedure on page 2 of the document you linked, and then make a call if he proceeds onto page 3 of the SCAT5 document and do the full SCAT test.

You have to stop wetting your pants, and stop and think thru that the AFL has its own Guidelines and if their Chief Medical Officer has said protocols were followed and the doc didn't breach them, then the AFL Guidelines are different to those approved by a couple of international sports bodies.

If you don't like what the AFL are doing, then take your complaints to them and go and meet with the AFL's Chief Medical Officer and tell him that given your great experience, the AFL Medical Officers Association have got it all wrong.

 

[davesnothere]

Lol

I don't know why it does that OK incompetence.

 

[raptalia]

If only Ken defended his players as strongly as he defended the club doctor.

At times Ken does and that is part of the problem. I will wager that if Ken was asked about Steven Motlop's 3 possession game against Richmond he would say something like, 'Steven did the job we asked him to do' and Motlop will be in the side next week regardless. Time for Ken to stop defending and ask some serious questions of some of the bigger names like Motlop, Jonas and Byrne Jones.

 

[raptalia]

That is not the AFL guidelines and protocols document. Its a document endorsed by other sports bodies.

If you are going to say that Dr Fisher and the AFL Chief medical Officer have breach and/or ignored AFL Guidelines, then produce the AFL Guidelines document. Its not that hard a concept to understand.

For example here is the AFL GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF CONCUSSION AT AFL LEVEL Developed by the AFL Medical Officers Association (AFLMOA) and issued by the AFL as a guideline under AFL Player Rule 26.1 (‘Medically Unfit Players’). Version: March, 2013 for Round 1 of the 2013 Premiership Season.

Where is the 2022 version of that document?? And yes I have read in full the document you linked and the above one I linked, which I found a couple of hours after the Richmond v Port game. The SCAT test is the test that the AFL use. They were using SCAT3 in 2013 and 2016. I don't know what version they are using in 2022 because nobody has produced the 2022 AFL Guidelines.



10 minutes is if you are performing a full SCAT5 evaluation.

You have assumed the AFL Guidelines are that you have to do a FULL - SCAT5 process immediately, no ifs, no buts, no whys, no maybes.

Don't assume anything. If the AFL Chief Medical Officer has cleared Dr Fisher, then that means AFL Guidelines don't automatically apply the SCAT5, 10 minute rule, if any of the Step 1 Red Flags are observed.

Based on what Tom Jonas said this morning on Triple M, looks like the AFL require the doctors to do Step 1 thru to Step 4 and then the Cervical Spine assessment on page 2 of the document you linked, and they then can make the assessment if they continue on to page 3 of the document you linked.

On page 3 it starts off with
OFFICE OR OFF-FIELD ASSESSMENT
Please note that the neurocognitive assessment should be done in a distraction-free environment with the athlete in a resting state.

If you go thru that, that will take you 10 minutes to go thru and fill out and that's probably when they take the players down into the rooms so the doc can fill out that form properly and in full.

But you refuse to produce the AFL Guidelines that would fully detail what the AFL requires of club doctors and all the steps involved.

If you use your common sense, and I know that is not as common as it should be these days, if the AFL's Chief Medical Officer has cleared Dr Fisher, then given how much concern the AFL has over concussion, the AFL Guidelines allows the AFL Club Doctors to follow procedure on page 2 of the document you linked, and then make a call if he proceeds onto page 3 of the SCAT5 document and do the full SCAT test.

You have to stop wetting your pants, and stop and think thru that the AFL has its own Guidelines and if their Chief Medical Officer has said protocols were followed and the doc didn't breach them, then the AFL Guidelines are different to those approved by a couple of international sports bodies.

If you don't like what the AFL are doing, then take your complaints to them and go and meet with the AFL's Chief Medical Officer and tell him that given your great experience, the AFL Medical Officers Association have got it all wrong.

Interesting that you should bring up protocols in other codes as there is a parallel in this week's NRL State of Origin. In the NRL in most instances the initial decision for a HIA rests with the trainer. A player takes a high hit and the trainer runs onto the field, asks a series of questions and I assume makes an assessment. If the player's on field response is not correct he is removed and the Club Doctor goes through a full assessment usually in the rooms. Obviously if the incident is serious the Doctor will come out with the trainer. At times the whole procedure can be quite annoying as the game is held up while the on field HIA is performed.

In last week's State of Origin NSW Lock forward Issah Yeo took a high knock early in the match, staggered after regaining his feet and appeared dazed. The trainer went out but Yeo had none of it and continued playing. The incident raised some eyebrows among the commentary team and the media who believed Yeo had a problem and should have been subject to a full HIA. Yeo will not play for Penrith this weekend.

I suspect that I am not telling you anything you do not already know but problems do not only exists in the AFL, every code has it's problems with head injury protocols. In the article below NRL boss Peter V'Landys is quoted as saying he believes that Yeo should have come off but as with the Jonas/Butters clash he says the correct protocols were followed. Players are injured and the correct protocols are followed, the media raises concerns, then in response the head honchos say all is good. I find that an interesting parallel between codes.

I note Cameron Munster's concern for Yeo is mentioned in the article. Munster tried to attract the Ref's attention to the fact that Yeo was not right and should go off the field.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Tibbs]

The two signs of potential concussion from this clash were 1] both had facial gashes, and 2] both were seemingly groggy after the clash

1] The two gashes they had were on renowned "soft spots" on the face. Areas that bleed extremely easily and profusely (just ask any boxer), and where footy players often get cuts on during games. Merely having a cut above and below the eye is nowhere near a definitive indication of concussion.

2] I will say it again, the second replay of the clash shows they had a direct nose-on-nose clash. Have you ever walked into a door nose/face first? Imagine running into it as it runs into you! That's is an incredibly painful incident. The 10 seconds or so as they stumble & hang their heads is a pain reaction.

So the above two signs were no doubt concerning to the medicos, as they should be, and as were we all. They are not definitive though! AFL concussion protocols call for an immediate assessment of the players, which the doctors immediately carried out, and subsequently deemed them clear of concussion and free to play on.

Idiots here slamming the doctors as wrong, and slamming the club, are just morons with an axe grind. As REH said, if you are not happy with the process Port doctors followed, and the outcome, them go whinge to the AFL to tighten their concussion protocols

idiots!!!

 

[Garibaldi Red]

The bloody nerve of a Forest fan taking on REH .
Ended up like Huddersfield, 0 shots on goal, penalty shouts went to VAR (the AFL medico) and they ruled in favour of our Docs.

 

[Tibbs]

The bloody nerve of a Forest fan taking on REH .
Ended up like Huddersfield, 0 shots on goal, penalty shouts went to VAR (the AFL medico) and they ruled in favour of our Docs.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Whether they were concussed or not isn't really the point. The point is that if that exact same head clash happened halfway through the second quarter, or if we were already ten goals up/down, both would have been taken off for proper concussion tests. Yet another example of Hinkley's Port Adelaide putting player welfare at a lower priority than saving Hinkley's job.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Whether they were concussed or not isn't really the point. The point is that if that exact same head clash happened halfway through the second quarter, or if we were already ten goals up/down, both would have been taken off for proper concussion tests. Yet another example of Hinkley's Port Adelaide putting player welfare at a lower priority than saving Hinkley's j
Of course its the *in point.

If Doc Fisher didnt believe they were concussed, why would he have given them the full concussion test? None of us are in his head to know what he would have done. He is on the Medical Officers Association that have drawn up the protocols, so he would have had his say in drawing them up and knows how they work.

Why would he take a completely different position in 2 different scenarios, if the substance of the players condition was the same?

Now they might have stayed off longer whilst they were being bandaged up and rested if it was 13.45 to go in the 2nd quarter compared to 13.45 to go in the last quarter, but to say you are 100% sure you know what Doc Fisher would have done, is rubbish.

 

[sobrave]

Tell someone who is interested
Tell someone who will keep their lunch digested
Tell someone who wants your conversation

Of course its the duckin point.

If Doc Fisher didnt believe they were concussed, why would he have given them the full concussion test? None of us are in his head to know what he would have done. He is on the Medical Officers Association that have drawn up the protocols, so he would have had his say in drawing them up and knows how they work.

Why would he take a completely different position in 2 different scenarios, if the substance of the players condition was the same?

Now they might have stayed off longer whilst they were being bandaged up and rested if it was 13.45 to go in the 2nd quarter compared to 13.45 to go in the last quarter, but to say you are 100% sure you know what Doc Fisher would have done, is rubbish.

You're missing the point entirely and getting worked up.

The AFL is pretending at least to take concussion seriously. You can't conclusively say in 6 minutes that someone hasn't got a concussion. Doesn't matter how good of a doctor you are. We rolled the dice because it was a tight game, and would have treated it differently if it was in the first quarter, which is not how it should work.

Did we technically abide by the AFL protocols? Apparently. Does that mean it was the safest approach for our players welfare? Hell no.

 

[Ljc_86]

Lol how many doctors do we have on this board??? Unreal. Move on.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

You're missing the point entirely and getting worked up.

The AFL is pretending at least to take concussion seriously. You can't conclusively say in 6 minutes that someone hasn't got a concussion. Doesn't matter how good of a doctor you are. We rolled the dice because it was a tight game, and would have treated it differently if it was in the first quarter, which is not how it should work.

Did we technically abide by the AFL protocols? Apparently. Does that mean it was the safest approach for our players welfare? Hell no.

That quote from TISM wasn't supposed to be posted.

I was thinking of using it if teegreen replied with more stuff yesterday but wouldn't provide the AFL protocols, but just with more stuff from other sports. I forgot it was there. My big mistake.

You play by the rules. If you wanted safest approach in a collision sport, then you would probably only have 10 players on the field for each team. You don't play elite sport with big $$$ and not roll the dice sometimes.

"You can't conclusively say in 6 minutes that someone hasn't got a concussion." says who?

 

[Tibbs]

So many faux experts on this sight, it's not funny!

 

[sobrave]

Unprecedented...