Opinion Concussion - Ongoing Court Cases

[SplintWhisky]

I have read a lot about the past AFL players and their ongoing court cases against the AFL for injury. There seems to be a common theme that the past players are alleging that medical staff breached their duty of care and were negligent when they put players on the field after they had a concussion.

Here is where I need background info as I was a child/young teem when most of these players played, however I do have to ask; What was the medical consensus on concussion back in the day (1990s to late 2000s)? Was it known that once a player was concussed they required time off or did the medical field believe that you just needed to watch the player just in case of brain bleeding?

The big question I am getting at is Are these players claiming negligence over concussion protocols on current medical knowledge or are they basing it on the medical knowledge of the time?

If it is the latter then I can fully understand where they are coming from and they deserve compensation for the negligence.

However, if it is the former then I have to say that they are not entitled to anything. It is known that AFL is a physical sport and as a player you are making the decision to trade off long term body health for a larger than average wage. Now people are going to jump in here and read half of this and go off on some half baked argument on how they don't deserve brain damage etc. but the counter to that is simple. Would you be in favour of Bankers/Investment Professionals/CEOs/High End White Collar Jobs suing for compensation due to the damage done to their bodies due to lack of sleep? These are people who often work 80+ hour work weeks. We know that long term sleep deprivation increases your chance for Dementia and Cancer by a decent amount (some studies estimate at worst 33% increase) and it can also cause things like weight gain, diabetes, hypertension etc. Would these people deserve compensation for a deal they already made?

 

[The 747]

I have read a lot about the past AFL players and their ongoing court cases against the AFL for injury. There seems to be a common theme that the past players are alleging that medical staff breached their duty of care and were negligent when they put players on the field after they had a concussion.

Here is where I need background info as I was a child/young teem when most of these players played, however I do have to ask; What was the medical consensus on concussion back in the day (1990s to late 2000s)? Was it known that once a player was concussed they required time off or did the medical field believe that you just needed to watch the player just in case of brain bleeding?

The big question I am getting at is Are these players claiming negligence over concussion protocols on current medical knowledge or are they basing it on the medical knowledge of the time?

If it is the latter then I can fully understand where they are coming from and they deserve compensation for the negligence.

However, if it is the former then I have to say that they are not entitled to anything. It is known that AFL is a physical sport and as a player you are making the decision to trade off long term body health for a larger than average wage. Now people are going to jump in here and read half of this and go off on some half baked argument on how they don't deserve brain damage etc. but the counter to that is simple. Would you be in favour of Bankers/Investment Professionals/CEOs/High End White Collar Jobs suing for compensation due to the damage done to their bodies due to lack of sleep? These are people who often work 80+ hour work weeks. We know that long term sleep deprivation increases your chance for Dementia and Cancer by a decent amount (some studies estimate at worst 33% increase) and it can also cause things like weight gain, diabetes, hypertension etc. Would these people deserve compensation for a deal they already made?

From what I understand - noting that nobody has seen the court documents but that doesn't stop hot takes on here - the action turns on what the AFL knew and when about concussion and whether they fully disclosed that to the players at the time.

And the last part of your post is classic whataboutism which leads me to doubt how genuine your question is.

 

[SplintWhisky]

From what I understand - noting that nobody has seen the court documents but that doesn't stop hot takes on here - the action turns on what the AFL knew and when about concussion and whether they fully disclosed that to the players at the time.

And the last part of your post is classic whataboutism which leads me to doubt how genuine your question is.

Then if there is proof of the alleged then the AFL needs to pay up.

As to the second point it is not fully a "whataboutism". If the AFL truely did follow common medical practice at the time then the players are not due anything. People will find that harsh and some tend to believe that they are still entitled to compensation due to the long term effects (that may have been unknown). I reject this argument because they already made that trade when they decided to play the game. My point about the white collar workers is an argument is a test of consistency presented with an analogous scenario. As Tommy Shelby says "Everyones a whore Grace. We just sell different parts of ourselves".

 

[Kwality]

Then if there is proof of the alleged then the AFL needs to pay up.

As to the second point it is not fully a "whataboutism". If the AFL truely did follow common medical practice at the time then the players are not due anything. People will find that harsh and some tend to believe that they are still entitled to compensation due to the long term effects (that may have been unknown). I reject this argument because they already made that trade when they decided to play the game. My point about the white collar workers is an argument is a test of consistency presented with an analogous scenario. As Tommy Shelby says "Everyones a whore Grace. We just sell different parts of ourselves".

Is Tommy related to Carroll ?

 

[The 747]

Then if there is proof of the alleged then the AFL needs to pay up.

As to the second point it is not fully a "whataboutism". If the AFL truely did follow common medical practice at the time then the players are not due anything. People will find that harsh and some tend to believe that they are still entitled to compensation due to the long term effects (that may have been unknown). I reject this argument because they already made that trade when they decided to play the game. My point about the white collar workers is an argument is a test of consistency presented with an analogous scenario. As Tommy Shelby says "Everyones a whore Grace. We just sell different parts of ourselves".

White collar workers sue their past employers all the time. I don't really understand what point you are trying to make. You asked a question it got answered.

I think you asked the question just so you can post your opinion about it.

 

[SplintWhisky]

White collar workers sue their past employers all the time. I don't really understand what point you are trying to make. You asked a question it got answered.

I think you asked the question just so you can post your opinion about it.

It was more preloading an argument in the OP so if there is a debate then it's there.

The follow up then is really what was known about concussion back 20-30 years ago? Do they actually have a case or is this a situation that lawyers are the only winners?

 

[The 747]

It was more preloading an argument in the OP so if there is a debate then it's there.

The follow up then is really what was known about concussion back 20-30 years ago? Do they actually have a case or is this a situation that lawyers are the only winners?

Without knowing the specifics there has been enough come out about the AFL's handling of concussion research - and the fact that they took their advice from someone who was meant to be a leading researcher in the field but actually wasn't - plus what we generally know about how the AFL operate, to suggest that this might have some legs.

 

[Power Raid]

I have read a lot about the past AFL players and their ongoing court cases against the AFL for injury. There seems to be a common theme that the past players are alleging that medical staff breached their duty of care and were negligent when they put players on the field after they had a concussion.

Here is where I need background info as I was a child/young teem when most of these players played, however I do have to ask; What was the medical consensus on concussion back in the day (1990s to late 2000s)? Was it known that once a player was concussed they required time off or did the medical field believe that you just needed to watch the player just in case of brain bleeding?

The big question I am getting at is Are these players claiming negligence over concussion protocols on current medical knowledge or are they basing it on the medical knowledge of the time?

If it is the latter then I can fully understand where they are coming from and they deserve compensation for the negligence.

However, if it is the former then I have to say that they are not entitled to anything. It is known that AFL is a physical sport and as a player you are making the decision to trade off long term body health for a larger than average wage. Now people are going to jump in here and read half of this and go off on some half baked argument on how they don't deserve brain damage etc. but the counter to that is simple. Would you be in favour of Bankers/Investment Professionals/CEOs/High End White Collar Jobs suing for compensation due to the damage done to their bodies due to lack of sleep? These are people who often work 80+ hour work weeks. We know that long term sleep deprivation increases your chance for Dementia and Cancer by a decent amount (some studies estimate at worst 33% increase) and it can also cause things like weight gain, diabetes, hypertension etc. Would these people deserve compensation for a deal they already made?

would it be reasonable in the 70s and 80s to understand that repeated head injuries and major head injuries can result in serious injury or death? I think the answer is an obvious and clear yes.

we certainly know more today than before and can probably specifically measure damage better through imaging and proteins in the blood. however through boxing and other sports, we already knew the risks and thus "ignorance" to specific details is unlikely to be a successful defence.


Regardless, if you hurt employees...........pay up. We don't want the AFL to be a James Hardie.

 

[SplintWhisky]

would it be reasonable in the 70s and 80s to understand that repeated head injuries and major head injuries can result in serious injury or death? I think the answer is an obvious and clear yes.

we certainly know more today than before and can probably specifically measure damage better through imaging and proteins in the blood. however through boxing and other sports, we already knew the risks and thus "ignorance" to specific details is unlikely to be a successful defence.


Regardless, if you hurt employees...........pay up. We don't want the AFL to be a James Hardie.

I guess it still comes down to what was the practice. We would have know about repeated head trauma from Boxing and Ali. But I guess the question still is, Did the AFL follow up to date (at the time) medical practice in the past? If not then there is a real problem with the organisation that needs to be addressed.

Would be nice to see them have to pay up and lose their charity status if they did the wrong thing

 

[BM123]

I have read a lot about the past AFL players and their ongoing court cases against the AFL for injury. There seems to be a common theme that the past players are alleging that medical staff breached their duty of care and were negligent when they put players on the field after they had a concussion.

Here is where I need background info as I was a child/young teem when most of these players played, however I do have to ask; What was the medical consensus on concussion back in the day (1990s to late 2000s)? Was it known that once a player was concussed they required time off or did the medical field believe that you just needed to watch the player just in case of brain bleeding?

The big question I am getting at is Are these players claiming negligence over concussion protocols on current medical knowledge or are they basing it on the medical knowledge of the time?

If it is the latter then I can fully understand where they are coming from and they deserve compensation for the negligence.

However, if it is the former then I have to say that they are not entitled to anything. It is known that AFL is a physical sport and as a player you are making the decision to trade off long term body health for a larger than average wage. Now people are going to jump in here and read half of this and go off on some half baked argument on how they don't deserve brain damage etc. but the counter to that is simple. Would you be in favour of Bankers/Investment Professionals/CEOs/High End White Collar Jobs suing for compensation due to the damage done to their bodies due to lack of sleep? These are people who often work 80+ hour work weeks. We know that long term sleep deprivation increases your chance for Dementia and Cancer by a decent amount (some studies estimate at worst 33% increase) and it can also cause things like weight gain, diabetes, hypertension etc. Would these people deserve compensation for a deal they already made?

How far back in human history would you have to go back before people didn't understand that blunt force head trauma isn't great for people? Even cavemen knew that clocking a dude in the head with a big rock/stick was the best way to injure/kill somebody. Did helmets not exist before the 1990's? A toxic work culture isn't justified simply because "people know it's toxic" either. In the European Union employers aren't legally allowed to contact workers outside work hours while in Korea and Japan you have 20 year old men dropping dead from overworking. Ironically studies have shown that EU workers often still match them in overall productivity despite working half their hours. Personally I'd like think those companies in JP/Korea that want people to work 18 hours a day just so they look "hard working" when they know it's not productive and toxic should provide compensation. Also you mentioning white collar workers to preface your whataboutism seems unbelievably disingenuous as well when you can easily acknowledge blue collar workers dealing with the same bullshit. Class differences ideally shouldn't matter anyway when it comes to providing fair and safe work conditions.

People apathetically going "it is what it is" back in the day shouldn't be a reason to deny compensation been given to people who have suffered traumatic brain injuries and early on set dementia.

Educated medical staff been overruled or even worse actively encouraging young men to "play it out" after head trauma is disgraceful. A lot of people failed these young men when they needed them most. The AFL has billions of dollars to work with. I think they can handle paying a few players back for.....y'know not treating brain damage appropriately.

It's psychotic to suggest a recreational sport justifies brain damage. Very few careers in general can claim that there is no risk of danger either so that's not a good argument either.

 

[My Tilly]

How far back in human history would you have to go back before people didn't understand that blunt force head trauma isn't great for people? Even cavemen knew that clocking a dude in the head with a big rock/stick was the best way to injure/kill somebody. Did helmets not exist before the 1990's? A toxic work culture isn't justified simply because "people know it's toxic" either. In the European Union employers aren't legally allowed to contact workers outside work hours while in Korea and Japan you have 20 year old men dropping dead from overworking. Ironically studies have shown that EU workers often still match them in overall productivity despite working half their hours. Personally I'd like think those companies in JP/Korea that want people to work 18 hours a day just so they look "hard working" when they know it's not productive and toxic should provide compensation. Also you mentioning white collar workers to preface your whataboutism seems unbelievably disingenuous as well when you can easily acknowledge blue collar workers dealing with the same bullshit. Class differences ideally shouldn't matter anyway when it comes to providing fair and safe work conditions.

Be interesting to know if their are studies on chimpanzees and other apes closely related to humans.
We know other similar brain diseases in our cousins but am not too sure CTE has ever been published.

If it is just known to exist in humans, somewhere along the evolutionary line, we have not compensated for the protection of our expanding brains. Incidentally, some research is finding that our brain size is decreasing.
Which does not equate to less intelligence by the way. At least what is known so far.

 

[HairyO]

would it be reasonable in the 70s and 80s to understand that repeated head injuries and major head injuries can result in serious injury or death? I think the answer is an obvious and clear yes.

Except they didnt. Players would generally miss 1 week and then go back to playing.

Often they wouldnt even miss a week.

I dont remember any news stories discussing the long term dangers of concussion. I do remember Muhammad Ali having Parkinsons, which Im pretty sure he never did. What he had was brain damage from being punched in the head thousands of times.

 

[My Tilly]

I do remember Muhammad Ali having Parkinsons, which Im pretty sure he never did. What he had was brain damage from being punched in the head thousands of times.

The head knocks may have contributed to the Parkinson's disease.

Whenever he was ever interviewed in later years, his faculties were still all there.

 

[HairyO]

The head knocks may have contributed to the Parkinson's disease.

Whenever he was ever interviewed in later years, his faculties were still all there.

I dont recall him sitting down to a 30 minute Frost-style interview.

Id put money on them having been heavily managed, just like all other celebs do.

 

[Power Raid]

The head knocks may have contributed to the Parkinson's disease.

Whenever he was ever interviewed in later years, his faculties were still all there.

one only has to listen to this interview to understand the brain damage incurred by two of the three boxing greats

 

[HTPunter]

Bump

prefacing this to defend myself against drunk with alcohol & glee Pies fans - this is not critical of Murphy nor the Pies medical staff, rather the wider AFL concussion protocols

How on earth does Murphy “pass” his concussion test yesterday?

Clearly knocked out.
Blurred vision. Memory loss. From his own mouth - he said this himself.

It was ONLY due to his own history with concussion that he was aware he wasn’t 100% and he should rule himself out. How on earth do you have all 3 of those issues and then have the chance to rule yourself out, rather than it have done for you?

AFL grand final 2023: Collingwood Magpies players react to win over Brisbane Lions

amp.theage.com.au

You may argue it was delayed symptoms but clearly he had had a brain rattling.

 

[HTPunter]

For all the carry on about Aliir - surely this is worse news for how mediocre the concussion testing standards are? Does this really protect the AFL? Surely a good lawyer would use this to tear them to shreds.

 

[Chief]

2024 AFL CONCUSSION PROTOCOLS
COMMUNITY FOOTBALL TO ADOPT MINIMUM 21 DAY RETURN TO PLAY PROTOCOLS

The AFL today announced important developments in relation to the return to play protocols in the concussion guidelines for AFL and AFLW and all levels of Australian Football, including community football.

In AFL and AFLW, where there are advanced care settings for players suffering a concussion, the mandatory minimum 12-day return to play protocol will be maintained. The minimum 12-day protocol provides a platform for the management of elite athletes under the constant care of Club medical professionals to monitor their progression through the well-established 3-stage, 11-step protocol.

The minimum 12-day protocol is as the name suggests a minimum number of days a player can return to play if they safely and medically clear the 11 steps in the protocol.

In 2023, when the minimum 12-day protocol operated in both the AFL and AFLW, 29% of AFL players missed more than one match following a concussion and 24% AFLW players missed more than one match following a concussion.

In a landmark decision, all other Australian Football competitions at all ages (i.e. adult/open competitions and all junior competitions), will adopt a mandatory minimum 21-day return to play protocol. This new protocol will apply for State Football competitions (including the VFL and VFLW), elite pathway competitions (including the Coates Talent Leagues for boys and girls) and all community football competitions. The AFL will work with all Leagues and football bodies, including the Western Australian Football Commission and the South Australian National Football League, to encourage the universal adoption of this important benchmark position in our sport in all States and Territories.

Under the new community football guidelines, the earliest that a player suffering a concussion can return to play is on the 21st day post the concussion incident provided they get medical clearance.

The new community football guidelines and the elite football guidelines are in-step with the recent Australian Institute of Sport’s Concussion and Brain Health Position Statement regarding return to play protocols post-concussion. The full details of the new community football guidelines will be released in the coming weeks ahead of the community football seasons.

The concussion guidelines for elite and community football are reviewed on an annual basis and the current updated versions have been prepared by the AFL’s Chief Medical Officer Michael Makdissi in conjunction with the AFL’s Medical Working Group and with input from the AFL Concussion Scientific Committee which has membership of medical experts from Australia and overseas.

The different positions for elite football (i.e. AFL and AFLW only) and all other levels of Australian Football reflect the differences in the level of medical resources that are generally available at the elite level of the game that generally do not exist to the same degree in other competitions.

Players in our AFL and AFLW competitions will have the benefit of “Advanced Care Settings” (within the meaning of that term in the AIS Statement) to closely monitor their recovery and progression through the minimum 12-day protocol. Then, reflecting the position that generally exists on medical resources available at lower levels where there is usually not the same level of constant care as elite football, a longer “guardrail” requiring a longer minimum rest and recovery period is built into the minimum 21-day protocol.

In the concussion guidelines for AFL and AFLW that have been released today, the AFL has also made a number of further changes to further protect players.

• In the event of “probable motor incoordination/no protective action”, the ARC Medical Spotter (an independent doctor) can now compel that the player be removed for a SCAT;
• The integration of the SCOAT6 (being the Sport Concussion Office Assessment Tool) (ie “Office” as opposed to “Sideline”) which is used to assess a player’s recovery from concussion from 72 hours after the concussion;
• Changes to the content of the Stage 2 Recovery phase of the return to play protocol which provides Clubs with some more flexibility in the activity that the recovering player may undertake in that period whilst still symptomatic (noting that the Amsterdam Consensus Statement permits more controlled activity for a player recovering from a concussion and still experiencing some symptoms)
• Expansion of the section relating to the management of difficult or complicated cases which, amongst other things, makes it clear that repeated concussions must be reported to the AFL Chief Medical Officer;
• Expansion of the section re the work of AFL Concussion Panels to clarify the process and purpose of Concussion Panels to assist players in clubs in dealing with complex cases of concussion.

The 2024 AFL and AFLW Concussion Guidelines and the minimum 12-day protocol will apply to all AFL and AFLW players, including 18 year old players. Whilst the AIS Statement does provide that players under 19 years of age at all levels (including in elite level sport) abide by a minimum 21-day return to play protocol, the AFL has determined that it is impractical to have different mandatory return to play protocol for different age groups in our elite football competitions.

Having said that, the 2024 AFL and AFLW Concussion Guidelines make it very clear that younger players sustaining a concussion must be treated more carefully and conservatively than older teammates and competitors.

AFL General Counsel Stephen Meade said the AFL takes very seriously the issue of concussion and the updated community football guidelines reflect the AFL’s ongoing commitment to the health and safety of all present, past and future players.

“The AFL’s concussion guidelines are the most stringent concussion protocols in Australian sport both at a community and elite level and we are committed to continuing to take action to protect the safety of players at all levels of the game.” Mr Meade said.

“The updated community guidelines represent a significant step in the AFL’s existing record of ongoing improvements to its concussion management strategy that reflect medical research and other learnings over time.

“We play a contact sport and there is always going to be risk, however over recent years we have continued to take action to strengthen match-day protocols and amend the Laws of the Game to discourage high contact, and we will continue to do so,

“We continue to listen and learn from the medical and scientific professionals and take action to deal with the important topic of concussion and player safety.

“While there are risks of injury in our sport, we will continue to act to reduce and manage those risks, and there are also many very significant physical and mental health benefits of playing our great game.”

Please note that AFL and AFLW listed players that are playing in lower competitions (e.g. VFL and VFLW) that suffer a concussion will be managed under the AFL and AFLW Concussion Guidelines and the minimum 12-day protocol, whether they are returning to play following the concussion in the AFL/AFLW or in a lower competition, provided their recovery from concussion has been managed under the Advanced Care Settings of the AFL/AFLW team.

The 2024 AFL and AFLW Concussion Guidelines have been released today and will take effect from the start of the 2024 Toyota AFL Premiership Season which begins this week with Opening Round matches from Thursday, 7 March 2024.

Under the new community guidelines, the earliest that a player can return to play after a concussion is on the 21st day after the day on which the concussion was sustained and provided that the player has safely progressed through each phase of the return-to-play program.

The example being if a player suffers the concussion playing in a match on a Saturday (for ease of the
example, let’s assume that the match in which the concussion is sustained is on Saturday 1 June and
all subsequent matches in the competition are also played on a Saturday;

The day on which the concussion is sustained is Day 0. Day 1 of the minimum 21-day protocol is the
day after the match, namely Sunday 2 June.

The player will, at a minimum, miss the next 2 Saturday fixtures (i.e. the match on Saturday 7 June
and the match on Saturday 14 June).

However, as Saturday 21 June is the 21st day after the day on which the player suffered the
concussion, the player may potentially return to play in the match on Saturday 21 June, assuming that the player has safely progressed through the 3 stages of the protocol and been approved by their medical practitioner to return to play.

The return-to-play program consists of three distinct stages – rest, recovery and graded return to training and play. The updated guidelines insist on a minimum period of 24 hours (or longer) for each Step of the progression and, if any symptoms recur during the graded return to training and play stage, the player athlete must go back to the previous symptom-free step.

The guidelines also insist on an individualised approach to return to play where factors such as young age (i.e., 18 years or younger), where there is a history of learning disorders or mood disturbance that may impact on monitoring of recovery, or a history of multiple concussions, may necessitate a more cautious and conservative approach.

The player must have medical assessment prior to being cleared to return to full contact training with the group and then a further medical assessment before being cleared to return to play.

 

[The Feeder Club]

So a two tiered system hey? Seems like the best invitation to a lawyer's picnic in recent history. Forget Sportsbet, Maurice Blackburn should be sponsoring the AFL

 

[shintemaster]

So a two tiered system hey? Seems like the best invitation to a lawyer's picnic in recent history. Forget Sportsbet, Maurice Blackburn should be sponsoring the AFL

Yep. Good to be conservative but feels like shaky ground. If this was two tiered based on age and research showing increased / excessive impacts to still developing brains that seems like a stronger position to stand.

The flipside argument to this is that elite level clubs and players will undoubtedly have significantly better access to resources, medical and expert review that would not be available at those levels thus supporting a different standard.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Please note that AFL and AFLW listed players that are playing in lower competitions (e.g. VFL and VFLW) that suffer a concussion will be managed under the AFL and AFLW Concussion Guidelines and the minimum 12-day protocol, whether they are returning to play following the concussion in the AFL/AFLW or in a lower competition, provided their recovery from concussion has been managed under the Advanced Care Settings of the AFL/AFLW team.

AFL listed player collides with a Southport player in the VFL. Both players concussed. AFL listed player misses at least the next 12 days, Southport player misses 21 days.

Although what about top up players in AFL aligned sides? Do they have access to the medical facilities that AFL players do? Or do they have to go through a 21 day break?

SANFL will probably say that 21 days is a good idea, and force it on all players involved in the competition, be they AFL listed or not. Because they're the SANFL.

 

[HairyO]

2024 AFL CONCUSSION PROTOCOLS
COMMUNITY FOOTBALL TO ADOPT MINIMUM 21 DAY RETURN TO PLAY PROTOCOLS

The AFL today announced important developments in relation to the return to play protocols in the concussion guidelines for AFL and AFLW and all levels of Australian Football, including community football.

In AFL and AFLW, where there are advanced care settings for players suffering a concussion, the mandatory minimum 12-day return to play protocol will be maintained. The minimum 12-day protocol provides a platform for the management of elite athletes under the constant care of Club medical professionals to monitor their progression through the well-established 3-stage, 11-step protocol.

The minimum 12-day protocol is as the name suggests a minimum number of days a player can return to play if they safely and medically clear the 11 steps in the protocol.

In 2023, when the minimum 12-day protocol operated in both the AFL and AFLW, 29% of AFL players missed more than one match following a concussion and 24% AFLW players missed more than one match following a concussion.

In a landmark decision, all other Australian Football competitions at all ages (i.e. adult/open competitions and all junior competitions), will adopt a mandatory minimum 21-day return to play protocol. This new protocol will apply for State Football competitions (including the VFL and VFLW), elite pathway competitions (including the Coates Talent Leagues for boys and girls) and all community football competitions. The AFL will work with all Leagues and football bodies, including the Western Australian Football Commission and the South Australian National Football League, to encourage the universal adoption of this important benchmark position in our sport in all States and Territories.

Under the new community football guidelines, the earliest that a player suffering a concussion can return to play is on the 21st day post the concussion incident provided they get medical clearance.

The new community football guidelines and the elite football guidelines are in-step with the recent Australian Institute of Sport’s Concussion and Brain Health Position Statement regarding return to play protocols post-concussion. The full details of the new community football guidelines will be released in the coming weeks ahead of the community football seasons.

The concussion guidelines for elite and community football are reviewed on an annual basis and the current updated versions have been prepared by the AFL’s Chief Medical Officer Michael Makdissi in conjunction with the AFL’s Medical Working Group and with input from the AFL Concussion Scientific Committee which has membership of medical experts from Australia and overseas.

The different positions for elite football (i.e. AFL and AFLW only) and all other levels of Australian Football reflect the differences in the level of medical resources that are generally available at the elite level of the game that generally do not exist to the same degree in other competitions.

Players in our AFL and AFLW competitions will have the benefit of “Advanced Care Settings” (within the meaning of that term in the AIS Statement) to closely monitor their recovery and progression through the minimum 12-day protocol. Then, reflecting the position that generally exists on medical resources available at lower levels where there is usually not the same level of constant care as elite football, a longer “guardrail” requiring a longer minimum rest and recovery period is built into the minimum 21-day protocol.

In the concussion guidelines for AFL and AFLW that have been released today, the AFL has also made a number of further changes to further protect players.

• In the event of “probable motor incoordination/no protective action”, the ARC Medical Spotter (an independent doctor) can now compel that the player be removed for a SCAT;
• The integration of the SCOAT6 (being the Sport Concussion Office Assessment Tool) (ie “Office” as opposed to “Sideline”) which is used to assess a player’s recovery from concussion from 72 hours after the concussion;
• Changes to the content of the Stage 2 Recovery phase of the return to play protocol which provides Clubs with some more flexibility in the activity that the recovering player may undertake in that period whilst still symptomatic (noting that the Amsterdam Consensus Statement permits more controlled activity for a player recovering from a concussion and still experiencing some symptoms)
• Expansion of the section relating to the management of difficult or complicated cases which, amongst other things, makes it clear that repeated concussions must be reported to the AFL Chief Medical Officer;
• Expansion of the section re the work of AFL Concussion Panels to clarify the process and purpose of Concussion Panels to assist players in clubs in dealing with complex cases of concussion.

The 2024 AFL and AFLW Concussion Guidelines and the minimum 12-day protocol will apply to all AFL and AFLW players, including 18 year old players. Whilst the AIS Statement does provide that players under 19 years of age at all levels (including in elite level sport) abide by a minimum 21-day return to play protocol, the AFL has determined that it is impractical to have different mandatory return to play protocol for different age groups in our elite football competitions.

Having said that, the 2024 AFL and AFLW Concussion Guidelines make it very clear that younger players sustaining a concussion must be treated more carefully and conservatively than older teammates and competitors.

AFL General Counsel Stephen Meade said the AFL takes very seriously the issue of concussion and the updated community football guidelines reflect the AFL’s ongoing commitment to the health and safety of all present, past and future players.

“The AFL’s concussion guidelines are the most stringent concussion protocols in Australian sport both at a community and elite level and we are committed to continuing to take action to protect the safety of players at all levels of the game.” Mr Meade said.

“The updated community guidelines represent a significant step in the AFL’s existing record of ongoing improvements to its concussion management strategy that reflect medical research and other learnings over time.

“We play a contact sport and there is always going to be risk, however over recent years we have continued to take action to strengthen match-day protocols and amend the Laws of the Game to discourage high contact, and we will continue to do so,

“We continue to listen and learn from the medical and scientific professionals and take action to deal with the important topic of concussion and player safety.

“While there are risks of injury in our sport, we will continue to act to reduce and manage those risks, and there are also many very significant physical and mental health benefits of playing our great game.”

Please note that AFL and AFLW listed players that are playing in lower competitions (e.g. VFL and VFLW) that suffer a concussion will be managed under the AFL and AFLW Concussion Guidelines and the minimum 12-day protocol, whether they are returning to play following the concussion in the AFL/AFLW or in a lower competition, provided their recovery from concussion has been managed under the Advanced Care Settings of the AFL/AFLW team.

The 2024 AFL and AFLW Concussion Guidelines have been released today and will take effect from the start of the 2024 Toyota AFL Premiership Season which begins this week with Opening Round matches from Thursday, 7 March 2024.

Under the new community guidelines, the earliest that a player can return to play after a concussion is on the 21st day after the day on which the concussion was sustained and provided that the player has safely progressed through each phase of the return-to-play program.

The example being if a player suffers the concussion playing in a match on a Saturday (for ease of the
example, let’s assume that the match in which the concussion is sustained is on Saturday 1 June and
all subsequent matches in the competition are also played on a Saturday;

The day on which the concussion is sustained is Day 0. Day 1 of the minimum 21-day protocol is the
day after the match, namely Sunday 2 June.

The player will, at a minimum, miss the next 2 Saturday fixtures (i.e. the match on Saturday 7 June
and the match on Saturday 14 June).

However, as Saturday 21 June is the 21st day after the day on which the player suffered the
concussion, the player may potentially return to play in the match on Saturday 21 June, assuming that the player has safely progressed through the 3 stages of the protocol and been approved by their medical practitioner to return to play.

The return-to-play program consists of three distinct stages – rest, recovery and graded return to training and play. The updated guidelines insist on a minimum period of 24 hours (or longer) for each Step of the progression and, if any symptoms recur during the graded return to training and play stage, the player athlete must go back to the previous symptom-free step.

The guidelines also insist on an individualised approach to return to play where factors such as young age (i.e., 18 years or younger), where there is a history of learning disorders or mood disturbance that may impact on monitoring of recovery, or a history of multiple concussions, may necessitate a more cautious and conservative approach.

The player must have medical assessment prior to being cleared to return to full contact training with the group and then a further medical assessment before being cleared to return to play.

Im sure the concussion protocols in lower grades across the country are just as rigid and enforced...