Concussion

[Slippery Pete]

I’m sure you would’ve all been saying the same if it was 1998 and the player in question was Andrew McLeod

Andrew Mcleod

Age

49

Ht

181cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.8

5star

K

13.1

5star

HB

6.7

4star

M

3.1

3star

T

2.2

4star

No current season stats available

D

10.8

3star

K

6.8

3star

HB

4.0

3star

M

1.0

1star

T

1.6

4star

or Darren Jarman

 

[Sanders]

You can’t have personal responsibility without sufficient knowledge to be properly informed.

a professional sporting body, with its resources and its ability to affect the shape of play through rules is the obvious counterpart to hold liable

Consider:https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...ms-former-nfl-player-killed-five-examined-cte

There is lots of space to criticise the 12 day protocol, to critique the decisions and approaches; the detail of what is being done & its efficacy & sincerity

but not whether the league should do anything

 

[Scorpus]

Was the 12 day protocol based on actual evidence? Or was it designed specifically so players would arbitrarily miss one game but not two games, to make it look like they were doing something?

 

[CrowInFiji]

Can we please stop pretending that contributory negligence, even when proven, negates a duty of care owed by one party to another and that it mitigates entirely potential damages?

At best you are going to reduce the size of the payout.

In the same way signing a waiver when you go skydiving doesn't eliminate the skydiving company's duty of care to you, neither would a player choosing to play remove the AFLs duty of care to a player. Puh-lease.

 

[jackster83]

I think the concussion break should take into account on how many previous ones you've had.

Someone like Hamill - if he gets another one, should have an extended period on the sidelines.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Can we please stop pretending that contributory negligence, even when proven, mitigates a duty of care owed by one party to another and that it mitigates entirely potential damages?

At best you are going to reduce the size of the payout.

In the same way signing a waiver when you go skydiving doesn't eliminate the skydiving company's duty of care to you, neither would a player choosing to play remove the AFLs duty of care to a player. Puh-lease.

But the duty of care disappears after 12 days...apparently

 

[CrowInFiji]

But the duty of care disappears after 12 days...apparently

No it doesn't.

 

[Slippery Pete]

No it doesn't.

So why is it there?

 

[Slippery Pete]

Was the 12 day protocol based on actual evidence?

No, it was plucked out of their arse. It used to be six days.

 

[CrowInFiji]

So why is it there?

Duty of care doesn't have an expiry date whilst that duty is owed.

I don't claim to be the expert on how they selected 12 days, but what is clear is that the protocol is intended, presumably based on medical and legal advice, to be both meaningful medically and also taking reasonable steps to fulfil their duty of care.

My point is not about the appropriateness of 12 days, my point is that the AFL must do something, else be obliterated legally later on, and that the whole idea that grown adults should take responsibility for themselves is a load of rubbish that doesn't have a legal basis.

If you wanted to debate 12 days and say it should be 5 or 50, I don't care. The point is that this protocol is what the AFL is doing because they have a duty of care.

 

[Scorpus]

If the AFL were serious about preventing concussion they would suspend players that lead with the head, duck or drop the knees when tackled

 

[Slippery Pete]

Duty of care doesn't have an expiry date whilst that duty is owed.

I don't claim to be the expert on how they selected 12 days, but what is clear is that the protocol is intended, presumably based on medical and legal advice, to be both meaningful medically and also taking reasonable steps to fulfil their duty of care.

My point is not about the appropriateness of 12 days, my point is that the AFL must do something, else be obliterated legally later on, and that the whole idea that grown adults should take responsibility for themselves is a load of rubbish that doesn't have a legal basis.

If you wanted to debate 12 days and say it should be 5 or 50, I don't care. The point is that this protocol is what the AFL is doing because they have a duty of care.

But the entire issue is about the 12 days...that is what the controversy is about. If you’re gonna argue duty of care, at least have the hard evidence to back up the 12 day protocol.

There isn’t any, it’s an arbitrarily plucked figure based on nothing other than the appearance of doing something.

 

[Scorpus]

My point is not about the appropriateness of 12 days, my point is that the AFL must do something, else be obliterated legally later on, and that the whole idea that grown adults should take responsibility for themselves is a load of rubbish that doesn't have a legal basis.

But that's the whole point. There are many ways to fulfill a duty of care to players.

Doctors have a duty of care to their patients. That doesn't extend to forcing patients to follow their recommended advice, but does mean they are required to present the risks to any treatments and use evidence based practice.

The question is whether the concussion protocol as it currently stands actually helps the AFL fulfil their duty of care. They want it to appear that way, but does it actually do that?

My point is that if medical experts and the AFL fulfil their duty of care to players in telling them the risks of concussion and the doctors use evidence based practice to assess whether players are fit to play, then ultimately beyond that the responsibility falls to players to make the call whether they take the field. It shouldn't be up to arbitrarily written rules.

Then later if players have been given the best possible medical advice at the time and ignored it, why should the AFL be held liable? Why isn't it on the players?

 

[CrowInFiji]

But the entire issue is about the 12 days...that is what the controversy is about. If you’re gonna argue duty of care, at least have the hard evidence to back up the 12 day protocol.

There isn’t any, it’s an arbitrarily plucked figure based on nothing other than the appearance of doing something.

I don't actually think you know what a duty of care is.

The 12 day protocol is one way to uphold a duty of care. It is not the duty of care itself nor is it the sum total of that duty.

The controversy to me seems to be less about 12 days and more about some people thinking they should be allowed to decide for themselves and/or supporting other people to decide for themselves, seemingly on the basis of them being old enough to decide for themselves. If that had legs legally then the AFL would do that.

Presumably the 12 day thing is both a reaction medically and legally. Concussion and CTE are still being learned about. As are the legal ramifications. Just because it was six, doesn't mean for one moment that was the ideal number. At one stage it was zero.

 

[CrowInFiji]

But that's the whole point. There are many ways to fulfill a duty of care to players.

Doctors have a duty of care to their patients. That doesn't extend to forcing patients to follow their recommended advice, but does mean they are required to present the risks to any treatments and use evidence based practice.

The question is whether the concussion protocol as it currently stands actually helps the AFL fulfil their duty of care. They want it to appear that way, but does it actually do that?

My point is that if medical experts and the AFL fulfil their duty of care to players in telling them the risks of concussion and the doctors use evidence based practice to assess whether players are fit to play, then ultimately beyond that the responsibility falls to players to make the call whether they take the field. It shouldn't be up to arbitrarily written rules

Right, but the doctor can't force a patient because they neither follow that patient into their 'normal' life nor do they have the right to force people to consume medicines.

But the AFL aren't asking you to consume something. They are merely saying that you must not play a game they govern for a specified period if you suffer a particular injury.

If a player wants to go and test that in a court and sees how it stands up fine. Go test it and maybe they win. The point is clear though and I feel i have made my point clearly. Good day to you all.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Presumably the 12 day thing is both a reaction medically and legally.

No it’s only one of those things

 

[Sanders]

Duty of care owed
Duty of care breached

that’s the legal test

 

[Red mist]

3 or 4 articles today on adelaidenow. I'm sick of hearing about it. The AFL seems to bear the brunt for what is a total personal choice. I was concussed half a dozen times during my time playing footy, plus shoulder dislocations and other injuries that cause my 49 year old body ongoing discomfort. Why does nobody point fingers at Woodville South, Rosewater, St Peters, Pooraka etc? Why does the AFL bear the brunt of what is a personal choice to play a sport that feeds our need for combat or desire for $? It's pure bullshit.

It’s a gold mine for Litigation more than anything. Take too many hits then there will be a line up for representatives to take one to the promise land while lining their pocket.

 

[Red mist]

No, it was plucked out of their arse. It used to be six days.

So they doubled up. It’s to keep future litigation a bay as while keeping the company viable. The class action for those before hasn’t happened yet but it will.

 

[CrowInFiji]

No it’s only one of those things

Well the fact remains that concussion is a medical issue and whether you think 12 days is too long, you are really just accusing them of being too cautious. Not sure you'll get too many apologies for that.

 

[Red mist]

Well the fact remains that concussion is a medical issue and whether you think 12 days is too long, you are really just accusing them of being too cautious. Not sure you'll get too many apologies for that.

Concussion is dead set serious. Mandating a time is covering their ass.
People recover at different rates. No one wants to put their hand up now to clear as the gold diggers are hovering like blue arsed flies.

 

[Sanders]

Concussion is dead set serious. Mandating a time is covering their ass.
People recover at different rates. No one wants to put their hand up now to clear as the gold diggers are hovering like blue arsed flies.

whoa. That’s heavy man.

 

[Red mist]

whoa. That’s heavy man.

Well yeah ok. Say I’m a club doctor and I clear a player to play and they breeze through the next game unscathed yet the following week they don’t feel great.

 

[WetCrow1991]

I’m sure you would’ve all been saying the same if it was 1998 and the player in question was Andrew McLeod or Darren Jarman

Warrior for freedom, but only has hypothetical scenarios, sad.

 

[WetCrow1991]

The Randall thing is ridiculous. It should be up to her, and the club’s medical staff.

I get that the AFL is trying to avoid class actions, but this dive down the rabbit hole of health collectivism is just perverse and is not going to end well for anybody.

The AFL and the players need to come to an agreement that individual players are responsible for their own health decisions and risk management.

Yeah ok Pete Evans, keep activating those almonds.