News Emma Grant files lawsuit against Collingwood over concussion

[Vicky Park]

When it comes to concussions, I've never understood why it's a mandatory 12 day break. I don't believe there is any research to show that after suffering a concussion, 12 days is the optimum break. I have read 4 weeks is more appropriate. So, why don't we make it a mandatory 4 weeks? I wonder how the players would react to that? It would be half a season in the AFLW.

I think it’s more likely how the clubs would react. Potentially losing one of their best players due to a 4 week concussion break on the eve of the finals.

If anything, our understanding of this is in its infancy. And it may be that some who are concussed need a long break, and others a lesser one.

The AFL’s recent record on this isn’t exactly convincing either. Their ‘concussion expert’ had to resign in 2022 under a cloud, accused of plagiarism.

For me, the head should be protected at all costs, and the concussion treatment should be the best available. And at no time should it be ‘left up to’ the player to decide on playing after a head hit. The doctors who assess these injuries should also have no connection to the clubs.

We could be consigning some of these kids - who come to us as teenagers - to lifelong problems.

 

[TradeDraft]

The issue with lawsuits like this, is if clubs are held accountable, they’ll just be even more cautious. Anyone with any concussion history won’t be allowed to play at all. The afl needs a fund, no issue there. But to sue your own club, i leaves a bad taste in my mouth

and be lot more Players suing the AFL and Clubs

 

[TradeDraft]

hopefully judges rule you knowingly participated in a sport that has a high risk of concussion and accepted the risks

Spot On. You play a Contact Sport so the player should know what Risks in Playing AFL

 

[JB1975]

I think it’s more likely how the clubs would react. Potentially losing one of their best players due to a 4 week concussion break on the eve of the finals.

If anything, our understanding of this is in its infancy. And it may be that some who are concussed need a long break, and others a lesser one.

The AFL’s recent record on this isn’t exactly convincing either. Their ‘concussion expert’ had to resign in 2022 under a cloud, accused of plagiarism.

For me, the head should be protected at all costs, and the concussion treatment should be the best available. And at no time should it be ‘left up to’ the player to decide on playing after a head hit. The doctors who assess these injuries should also have no connection to the clubs.

We could be consigning some of these kids - who come to us as teenagers - to lifelong problems.

I think it was more than 'a cloud' of suspicion. The AFL concussion expert was an expert plagiarist.

I don't know where the Grant case ends up, but (further) opportunity to explore the issues should probably be welcomed, especially because it is a relatively small case.

 

[sideswipe]

I think it was more than 'a cloud' of suspicion. The AFL concussion expert was an expert plagiarist.

I don't know where the Grant case ends up, but (further) opportunity to explore the issues should probably be welcomed, especially because it is a relatively small case.

Sometimes plagiarism is just an unacknowledged acknowledgment of a good idea.

Don’t be a hater.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[TradeDraft]

The real issue here is that if we don't get to watch footballers brawling and getting smacked in the head, we'll be stuck with the lesser entertainment of brawling bigfooty posters smacking each other down.

It be Touch Footy soon

 

[sr36]

It be Touch Footy soon

Maybe we could compensate by making bigfooty stoushes full contact events.

 

[VinnieB]

I think it’s more likely how the clubs would react. Potentially losing one of their best players due to a 4 week concussion break on the eve of the finals.

If anything, our understanding of this is in its infancy. And it may be that some who are concussed need a long break, and others a lesser one.

The AFL’s recent record on this isn’t exactly convincing either. Their ‘concussion expert’ had to resign in 2022 under a cloud, accused of plagiarism.

For me, the head should be protected at all costs, and the concussion treatment should be the best available. And at no time should it be ‘left up to’ the player to decide on playing after a head hit. The doctors who assess these injuries should also have no connection to the clubs.

We could be consigning some of these kids - who come to us as teenagers - to lifelong problems.

I disagree that it would be more of an issue for the club than the player. We have even seen players waive away doctors/trainers after a hit probably concerned about the prospect fo being subbed and missing the following week.

Buckley during the week was asked the question of whether players would sign a waiver in order to play AFL. He was of the opinion that 95% would.

I don't know how you could possibly assess that some need a longer break than others after a concussion. We wouldn't know until years later what the impact would be on each individual.

I still think if we want to be serious about this, there is little doubt more time on the sidelines would give players the best possible opportunity to avoid long lasting impacts. I think also the fact is, player, club, and supporter would not want this to happen. But, I wouldn't blame the afl for implementing this to reduce the risk of being sued in the long term. It shouldn't be about having adequate compensation. It should be about health and avoiding the need to apply for compensation.

If the experts came out and said for the players' health, an 8 week stint on the sidelines is appropriate to avoid long term impacts, would we all agree and support it? Maybe not. But it shouldn't even be debateable.

It's not an easy one.

 

[VinnieB]

Just on Emma Grant's lawsuit, it points out she had a severe concussion in a pre-season game and the Pies allowed her to resume training less than 3 weeks after the incident. That showed the Pies were negligent. She didn't play a game, it was allowing her to train. ANd since then, the AFL has brought in a 12 day policy to resume playing.

 

[sr36]

I think it’s more likely how the clubs would react. Potentially losing one of their best players due to a 4 week concussion break on the eve of the finals.

If anything, our understanding of this is in its infancy. And it may be that some who are concussed need a long break, and others a lesser one.

The AFL’s recent record on this isn’t exactly convincing either. Their ‘concussion expert’ had to resign in 2022 under a cloud, accused of plagiarism.

For me, the head should be protected at all costs, and the concussion treatment should be the best available. And at no time should it be ‘left up to’ the player to decide on playing after a head hit. The doctors who assess these injuries should also have no connection to the clubs.

We could be consigning some of these kids - who come to us as teenagers - to lifelong problems.

Agree with most of that. I think it'd be advisable forthe club's sake to have decisions on right to play out-outsourced, as assumedly it'd offer them a bit more protection against litigation. Although not sure how workable the bolded is. At the end of the day -once standard protocols are set and adhered to- surely it's got to be the player's choice one way or the other. Particularly when not enough is yet known and all future concussions are potentially a risk for all players.

 

[sr36]

Just on Emma Grant's lawsuit, it points out she had a severe concussion in a pre-season game and the Pies allowed her to resume training less than 3 weeks after the incident. That showed the Pies were negligent. She didn't play a game, it was allowing her to train. ANd since then, the AFL has brought in a 12 day policy to resume playing.

I don't think any of us know enough details. The time frames are a protocol for players without symptoms - it could very well be that she was still experiencing symptoms.

 

[jathanas]

I think it’s more likely how the clubs would react. Potentially losing one of their best players due to a 4 week concussion break on the eve of the finals.

If anything, our understanding of this is in its infancy. And it may be that some who are concussed need a long break, and others a lesser one.

The AFL’s recent record on this isn’t exactly convincing either. Their ‘concussion expert’ had to resign in 2022 under a cloud, accused of plagiarism.

For me, the head should be protected at all costs, and the concussion treatment should be the best available. And at no time should it be ‘left up to’ the player to decide on playing after a head hit. The doctors who assess these injuries should also have no connection to the clubs.

We could be consigning some of these kids - who come to us as teenagers - to lifelong problems.

I have a good test for consussion. Simple but effective.

Any player who suffers a head impact should be asked if they want a Hawaian pizza. If the response is in the affirmative, then they are not OK to play and should be sent for further tests.

 

[sr36]

I have a good test for consussion. Simple but effective.

Any player who suffers a head impact should be asked if they want a Hawaian pizza. If the response is in the affirmative, then they are not OK to play and should be sent for further tests.

That makes sense and would explain my desire to give you a smack to the head so you come to your senses regarding the effectiveness of combining sweetness and acidity with savoury flavours.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

When it comes to concussions, I've never understood why it's a mandatory 12 day break. I don't believe there is any research to show that after suffering a concussion, 12 days is the optimum break. I have read 4 weeks is more appropriate.

You are correct on this, there was a recent-ish study conducted in NZ which showed more than half of those suffering a sport related concussion had not returned to baseline neurological testing by 14 days, whereas (from memory) more than 80% had by 28 days.

I posted it on this board back when it was published, but am having access issues right now.

 

[sideswipe]

I have a good test for consussion. Simple but effective.

Any player who suffers a head impact should be asked if they want a Hawaian pizza. If the response is in the affirmative, then they are not OK to play and should be sent for further tests.

Only problem is that Greeks will just give the answer they think will get them workers’ comp.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Just on Emma Grant's lawsuit, it points out she had a severe concussion in a pre-season game and the Pies allowed her to resume training less than 3 weeks after the incident. That showed the Pies were negligent. She didn't play a game, it was allowing her to train. ANd since then, the AFL has brought in a 12 day policy to resume playing.

There is more that goes into return-to-sport decisions post-concussion than “severe = x weeks”. We on this board don’t have nearly enough information.

 

[jathanas]

Only problem is that Greeks will just give the answer they think will get them workers’ comp.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Or a date with your sister.

Hugs

 

[sideswipe]

Or a date with your sister.

Hugs

That’s what you’d say, “I thought he was his sister!”


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Fat Jesus]

When it comes to concussions, I've never understood why it's a mandatory 12 day break. I don't believe there is any research to show that after suffering a concussion, 12 days is the optimum break. I have read 4 weeks is more appropriate. So, why don't we make it a mandatory 4 weeks? I wonder how the players would react to that? It would be half a season in the AFLW.

I'm not disputing players' welfare, and I do believe the AFL should be contributing a % of revenue into a 'welfare' trust for the support of ex-players to assist in situations like this. However, 12 days between games is insufficient. And players need to accept possibly being forced to watch for 28 days, because the AFL has a duty to do all it can to protect the welfare of the player (and they should accept it), and of course, it's own future liabilities.

It's not like Collingwood showed negligence after a 3 week break.
Must be more to this story.
Or a nothing burger

 

[sr36]

It's not like Collingwood showed negligence after a 3 week break.
Must be more to this story.
Or a nothing burger

Jesus, Jesus, you just liked TRS's post and then followed up with the bolded.

 

[Fat Jesus]

Jesus, Jesus, you just liked TRS's post and then followed up with the bolded.

I agree with TRS. More needs to be done.
Isn't 3 weeks long enough in our current rules for concussion?
This is if the player isn't showing any symptoms and clear to play.
We change the rules to 4 weeks?
May as well make it 4 months.

 

[Vicky Park]

I have a good test for consussion. Simple but effective.

Any player who suffers a head impact should be asked if they want a Hawaian pizza. If the response is in the affirmative, then they are not OK to play and should be sent for further tests.

 

[Kirby]

I agree with TRS. More needs to be done.
Isn't 3 weeks long enough in our current rules for concussion?
This is if the player isn't showing any symptoms and clear to play.
We change the rules to 4 weeks?
May as well make it 4 months.

What if the doctor said he doesn’t think she’s ready to come back and the the club told her “it’s up to you”?

Do you think that’s negligence by the club if they knew the doctor’s opinion (which they would)?

I can tell you what a court would find and that’s “yes”.

So, we don’t know the details but there can easily be a case that the club is negligent.

Obviously the opposite is also true.

We don’t know the facts to know either way.

 

[Fat Jesus]

What if the doctor said he doesn’t think she’s ready to come back and the the club told her “it’s up to you”?

Do you think that’s negligence by the club if they knew the doctor’s opinion (which they would)?

I can tell you what a court would find and that’s “yes”.

So, we don’t know the details but there can easily be a case that the club is negligent.

Obviously the opposite is also true.

We don’t know the facts to know either way.

Agree to an extent with what you're saying brother. A proper football organisation would have to go with the doctors analysis.

"Up to you" would be her problem but doubting it is like this.

Doctor says no means no.

Doctor says cleared and than up to the player.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I find it very hard to believe that the club would attempt to overrule a doctor on a matter of concussion. It’s an interesting situation.

I believe most elite or sub-elite sporting organizations these days, would use something like the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test to guide return to sport decisions post concussion, it at least gives some sort of objective data to work from.

https://cdn-links.lww.com/permalink/jsm/a/jsm_2020_01_28_haider_19-313_sdc1.pdf