Concussion Rule

[Ron The Bear]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy

Sobering reading.

 

[davis_756]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

I don't know why they didn't just introduce a Cap on interchanges, that way at least teams who suffer injuries are not effected as much since they can still rest just as many players.

How hard is it to have people count interchanges? Do we have to use electronic tags and a gate to make sure its counted correctly.

 

[glenn_ox]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

I completely agree with the rule but why is it only being announced now?

 

[legend166]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

I don't know why they didn't just introduce a Cap on interchanges, that way at least teams who suffer injuries are not effected as much since they can still rest just as many players.

How hard is it to have people count interchanges? Do we have to use electronic tags and a gate to make sure its counted correctly.

Yeah, I really don't understand why they went the sub idea.

I guess they saw a chance to get two birds with one stone - limit interchanges by bringing it down to three, as well as dealing with the whole "if a player gets injured we are heavily disadvantaged" thing (which I think is overblown).

If they really wanted to do something, they should have just said, 15 interchanges a quarter. Deal with it.

 

[Smoky]

This will just increase the incentive for knocking opposition players out.

Half way through the third quarter... Sub already been used and someone lands on his head after attempting a huge mark... 2 on the bench... One head high bump that might cost a player 4 weeks on the sidelines... but one on the bench!

Not a bad plan to win granny.

 

[hotpie]

In regard to a knockout are convulsions actually a sign of something more sinister? The reason I ask is because I train in BJJ (Submission grappling) and its not uncommon for someone to convulse when theyre choked unconscious (which is basically a more gentle way of being knocked out, one the brain shorts due to an impact, the other the brain 'shuts down' due to lack of oxygen), however this isnt an indication of something bad, its just nerve endings firing causing the body to twitch and so on.

Perhaps you should have been asking those questions BEFORE engaging in such an activity.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Perhaps you should have been asking those questions BEFORE engaging in such an activity.

It was less of a question, more pointing out convulsions arent NECESSARILY a sign of something bad in the example I gave, however whether that translates over to AFL (from a sharp blow rather than being choked) i dont know.

 

[Khan]

Half way through the third quarter... Sub already been used and someone lands on his head after attempting a huge mark... 2 on the bench... One head high bump that might cost a player 4 weeks on the sidelines... but one on the bench!

Not a bad plan to win granny.

This is one of the only reason I would agree to a send off card. Anything deemed deliberate on GF day could be sent off. The other consequence team A doing something, like using a retiring player as a hitman, would occur the same number of games/points as the hitman would get a the tribunal.

Khan

 

[Alfonz]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

This rule is absolutely the right thing to do, but also makes even more of a mockery of the stupid substitute rules the AFL has brought in.

I don't think everyone understands the severity of concussion. For example, Sidney Crosby has been out since early January. He is the best player in the NHL, so it isn't like his team wouldn't be doing everything to get him out there. Sure he could have had a "more serious" concussion than we might see in our game, but it is staggering that AFL players are even allowed to play the following week, let alone in the same game.

 

[Father Jack]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

'innocent' (for want of a better word) parties are dragged into lawsuits all the time - for most litigators it is simply a matter of 'following the money' - so the docs got some, the clubs got some, the AFL is drowning in it.

certainly this rule will work in the AFL's favour in the future but implementing the rule now is not the equivalent of waving a magic wand & exempting them from liability, it may well help to reduce said liability but i wouldnt be counting on it.

The AFL is also drowning in lawyers, meaning that 'following the money' doesn't mean that 'the money' is ripe for the plucking. There are such things as precedents, and from what little I've studied the whole issue of sports organisations and injury liability has been very well tested. Have a look at rugby union and the issues they've had with collapsing scrums, for example.

This rule is absolutely the right thing to do, but also makes even more of a mockery of the stupid substitute rules the AFL has brought in.

I don't think everyone understands the severity of concussion. For example, Sidney Crosby has been out since early January. He is the best player in the NHL, so it isn't like his team wouldn't be doing everything to get him out there. Sure he could have had a "more serious" concussion than we might see in our game, but it is staggering that AFL players are even allowed to play the following week, let alone in the same game.

Please don't just state something as fact without an argument. How does it make 'more' of a mockery of the sub rule?

 

[stugots]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

The AFL is also drowning in lawyers, meaning that 'following the money' doesn't mean that 'the money' is ripe for the plucking. There are such things as precedents, and from what little I've studied the whole issue of sports organisations and injury liability has been very well tested. Have a look at rugby union and the issues they've had with collapsing scrums, for example.

well I agree with you here, however I contend we will be moving into a new era re litigation of brain injury cases etc, those issues that do not show up until well after a player hangs up his boots.

the ambulance chasers will be lined up around the block to take on a, lets say for example, Joel Selwood case if he's wandering around punch drunk at 45, touch wood he's not of course.

currently a huge issue for the NFL & like most things American, we follow sooner or later.

 

[The_Gambler]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

This rule change is utopian at best and not based on scientific evidence.

The only possible way this can work is with independent doctors determining concussion state. No way in hell this will happen.

 

[MarcusP2]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

Look at soccer - only 11 on the field but nearly as many on the sidelines - for what seems to be a less dangerous sport

You're only allowed to use 3 of them for the game. If someone gets injured and you've used your 3 up, you're playing the rest of the game with 10 men.

 

[SebastianVettel]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

I don't think everyone understands the severity of concussion. For example, Sidney Crosby has been out since early January. He is the best player in the NHL, so it isn't like his team wouldn't be doing everything to get him out there. Sure he could have had a "more serious" concussion than we might see in our game, but it is staggering that AFL players are even allowed to play the following week, let alone in the same game.

This.

The way concussions have been dealt with in the AFL, and the lack of understanding about them is quite startling. Startling, and very dangerous.

Other more professional codes generally treat them with the care they require. I shake my head at guys that come back a couple of days, or a week later after a concussion. It's grossly negligent player management at best. It's an injury to the brain, and it should be taken seriously. You're always at far greater risk of concussions after you've already had them, particularly if you haven't spent the required time out of action healing.

Re: Crosby, it's only now that he's started to skate again, by the time he takes the ice, he will have missed at least 3 months. He was the victim of negligence as well - playing 4 days after being concussed once, then got rocked again, and he's missed 3 months.

 

[Father Jack]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

This rule change is utopian at best and not based on scientific evidence.

The only possible way this can work is with independent doctors determining concussion state. No way in hell this will happen.

Would you care to elaborate why it isn't based on scientific knowledge, and why it needs an independent doctor?

 

[The_Gambler]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

Re: the myths, this article provides a good discussion, written by neurologist and ex-Collingwood team doctor:

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/33/2/136.extract

Re: Utopian at best. It's the last quarter of last years grand final. Gardiner is already subbed off with an injured hammy. Goddard cops a whack to the head and appears groggy but tells the team doctor that he's OK to stay on. Do you really think the team doctor would sub him off too? Sure it's black and white when when Richard Osborne ends up convulsing on the SCG, but concussion is not a black and white topic. Further, as the above article states, how do you objectively define concussion? You can't.

Re: Independent team doctor. Scenario above, team doctor speaks to Ross Lyon: "Goddard's concussed, he has to be subbed off". Lyon: "he's not %#%^$ concussed".

 

[WCE_phil]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

This rule change is a good one but it also proves the afl are ****ing morons imo. They cocked up and took the wrong path with the interchange ruling. It was dead simple and easy to fix.

A max of 20 interchanges per quarter.

Even still i like the idea of subs as well but lets face it the sub rule and the interchange had seven shades of **** all to do with injuries. Personally would stick like the 20 per quarter cap introduced and have a team list of 18 + 2 interchange players + 2 subs. You then get to bank on having a tactical sub and one for injuries.

 

[Father Jack]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

Re: the myths, this article provides a good discussion, written by neurologist and ex-Collingwood team doctor:

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/33/2/136.extract

Re: Utopian at best. It's the last quarter of last years grand final. Gardiner is already subbed off with an injured hammy. Goddard cops a whack to the head and appears groggy but tells the team doctor that he's OK to stay on. Do you really think the team doctor would sub him off too? Sure it's black and white when when Richard Osborne ends up convulsing on the SCG, but concussion is not a black and white topic. Further, as the above article states, how do you objectively define concussion? You can't.

Re: Independent team doctor. Scenario above, team doctor speaks to Ross Lyon: "Goddard's concussed, he has to be subbed off". Lyon: "he's not %#%^$ concussed".

Still doesn't tell me that the AFL's approach isn't scientific as that is only one article that explains the difficulty of diagnosing concussion (and it seems to treat each symptom separately, if all those things are present, for example, what does that mean? I don't know, I only read the bit on that page in the link). I tend to think that if there is an obvious head-impact incident, then the doctors will err on the side of caution, ie have a process that is more likely to return a false positive rather than a false negative. The fact remains that concussion happens, and can have serious long-term ramifications if not handled properly.

Either way, it won't matter if it is a club doctor or an independent doctor, they will face the same difficulty of diagnosis. In fact, assuming the club doctor is more familiar with the player, the club doctor would have the advantage.

As for your 'utopian at best' scenario, I don't know for certain, but I doubt that doctors would allow themselves to be coerced so easily as all that. They are doctors after all, they are not simpletons.

 

[Peck]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

There goes Beau Water's career. :S

And Tommy Logan's

 

[pazza]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

I keep thinking back to the 1989 Second Semi-Final.

The vision of seeing Van Der Haar getting basically knocked out by Brereton (and getting off at the Tribunal) was sickening. Doc Reid, unwisely sent him back on and he got reported (thankfully the Tribunal let him off).

There is a way that this rule and the sub rule could work hand in hand. IF you have an injury, only then can you use a substitute player and not before. Concussion is considered to be a genuine injury.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

I don't pretend to know the validity of the rule change rationale in this instance. Unless you are a medical preoffesional - most won't. I can see it will add a lot of pressure to club doctors - but aside from tha the intention of the law is to protect players from themselves.

I don't like a lot of the rule changes - but if a rule change is being brought in for player safety - i don't really care if it's brought in the week before a grand final or in this case 3 days before the season proper.

 

[SirJimi05]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

Teams don't put concussed players back out there unless they clear a safety check.

Competition is becoming a farce.

What's the problem then? Seems to me like this is just another excuse to have a whinge at the AFL.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

Hmmmm is the motivation genuinally player welfare or to prevent litigation.

Also leaving it to the 11th hour is very strange and pretty poor on the part of the AFL.

Lastly I am worried that teams will exploit this rule by targeting the oppositions playmakers in crucial games.

 

[pazza]

Re: Now the AFL decides to change rules 3 days before round 1

Hmmmm is the motivation genuinally player welfare or to prevent litigation.

Also leaving it to the 11th hour is very strange and pretty poor on the part of the AFL.

Lastly I am worried that teams will exploit this rule by targeting the oppositions playmakers in crucial games.

There has always been targeting of champion players. And for the most part, they've been ok, as there has been a team-mate of them keen to ping anyone trying to do it.

I think the whole rule was reviewed over the summer and that the club doctors themselves may have brought it up in discussions with the AFL also.

 

[chargers 09]

I like this new rule by the AFL, whats the general consensus yay or nay? I doubt many coaches would encourage players to do a head high bump or something along the lines of this to cause a player a concussion in finals or a grand final. What do you all think?