Analysis How best to Improve Safety / Reduce Injuries while not losing the Game’s Charm

[dudusmaximus]

All these injuries are troubling. Anecdotally, they seem to be increasing?

Formula 1 impose new safety standards regularly (often designed to slow the cars down). Likewise, the AFL reduced the bench (then reversed it ), reduced interchanges etc. to slow down the game. It seems to have worked? We need more.

Head being sacrosanct (Too High etc.) and the mandatory Concussion Protocol (12-day return-to-play) are great.

The great thing of our game is we have airborne-markers and airborne-punchers all in the same small 3D space! Fans enjoy those speccies and fast end-to-end transitions. Can’t touch those. Zoning will destroy the game. Can’t stand helmets and body-armour (yet?). Reducing congestion (6-6-6, Stand / Protected Zone etc.) helps but also speeds-up the game. What else can be done to improve safety?

Soft-thuggery (it used to be hardcore, bordering on criminal, before) is part of our Game and stuff of folklore (e.g. Mark Yeates's hit on Dermott Brereton in the 1989 Grand Final). Needs more moderation? BTW, the AFL should trademark the Jumper-Punch and the Love-Tap (anything but!)

Tamping down on pushing players into traffic (which the AFL has begun) is a good start. Maybe clamp down on falling on players (the Toby Nankervis

25

Toby Nankervis

Age

30

Ht

199cm

Wt

102kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.2

4star

K

7.2

3star

HB

7.0

4star

CL

2.9

4star

HO

21.9

5star

D

12.0

3star

K

5.7

2star

HB

6.3

4star

CL

3.0

4star

HO

17.0

5star

D

7.8

2star

K

3.4

2star

HB

4.4

4star

CL

1.0

3star

HO

8.4

5star

Gravity rule?). I think it is just a free kick now.

New rules will make the Game more confusing and more difficult to officiate in-game. More umpires would look like a 3rd team out there. Not to mention that new rules can’t be introduced mid-season. It causes more confusion.

Maybe more fines/suspensions for playing dangerously (heck, we have fines/suspension for "Bringing the game to disrepute" like pretending to be a plane. I digress). Maybe even fining the club for kamikaze moves (planned hits)? Difficult to prove? Now that cases are increasing appealed to courts, they’ll need to meet higher Evidentiary/Intent standards.

I don’t have to remind anyone of the career-ending injuries, the disincentive for young kids taking up the game and the lawsuits (they will only increase).

How do we stop the game we love from becoming a danger onto itself? What parts of the game are sacrosanct to you? What would you tamp down? Would we enjoy teams full of Pendles (Pendleses?; read in Gollum's voice) or the occasional kamikaze Max Rooke? Disclaimer: I'm a big Fan of Max Rooke

What would you change? What would you leave unchanged? How would you reduce injuries and make the game safer?

 

[Gunf]

A big one would be blowing the whistle quickly in tackles no matter if it is htb or a ball up.

To many times player get dragged or slung to the ground due to the ump not blowing the whistle quick enough.

 

[iameviljez]

Honestly, I think the AFL has done a reasonable job here considering they are stuck very much between a rock and a hard place.

Concussion is the major issue here. Broken limbs, ACLs etc are all an accepted part of the game and have been since time began. IMO that's less of an issue because, well, people implicitly know what a broken limb is, what causes it, and what it means for the player.

Concussion and CTE on the other hand - very little is known, from what causes it, how to predict it, and how to prevent it in a contact sport. I don't have any strong answers, but I think that the players have changed their behaviour based on suspensions from the last few years and it has helped.

 

[dudusmaximus]

A big one would be blowing the whistle quickly in tackles no matter if it is htb or a ball up.

Great point! Tackles seem to a cause a lot of injuries.

Concussion and CTE on the other hand - very little is known, from what causes it, how to predict it, and how to prevent it in a contact sport.

Absolutely. As CTE is delayed-onset (sometimes post career), it is not causing an immediate furore.

I assume the AFL's 12-day mandatory Concussion Protocol has some solid research behind it.

While NFL style hard helmets might be hard to stomach, why are head-gears not more in vogue? Vanity? If anything, lesser numbers are wearing them now (Caleb Daniels only?).

I remember reading somewhere that Jimmy Bartel was advised to take it off when he was being scouted as it made him look shorter..

 

[dudusmaximus]

The AFL seems to be clamping down on Tunnelling

I know there was a lot of discussion about soccer-style yellow/red cards or rugby-style Sin Bin. Puts a lot more power in the Umps hands (human frailty).

Maybe we could have a 5-strikes (over however many games it takes) policy for dangerous tackles/tunnelling. The player is then suspended for a game?

I also think the AFL should donate all fines from dangerous tackles etc. to CTE research initiatives. To quote Mahatma Gandhi, "Be the change that you wish to see in the world"

 

[iameviljez]

I assume the AFL's 12-day mandatory Concussion Protocol has some solid research behind it.

It doesn't, because even leading neurologists have very little knowledge on CTE and its prevention.

While NFL style hard helmets might be hard to stomach, why are head-gears not more in vogue? Vanity? If anything, lesser numbers are wearing them now (Caleb Daniels only?).

I remember reading somewhere that Jimmy Bartel was advised to take it off when he was being scouted as it made him look shorter..

They aren't in-vogue because the main issue is the brain hitting the inside of the skull, not the impact to the outside of your head. NFL-style hard helmets in particular have limited use for CTE due to their hard shell, and the NFL is really the number one sport for giving yourself brain damage as it stands.

 

[standupand]

Honestly, I think the AFL has done a reasonable job here considering they are stuck very much between a rock and a hard place.

Concussion is the major issue here. Broken limbs, ACLs etc are all an accepted part of the game and have been since time began. IMO that's less of an issue because, well, people implicitly know what a broken limb is, what causes it, and what it means for the player.

Concussion and CTE on the other hand - very little is known, from what causes it, how to predict it, and how to prevent it in a contact sport. I don't have any strong answers, but I think that the players have changed their behaviour based on suspensions from the last few years and it has helped.

I notice that umpires seem more willing to pay frees for dangerous tackles in recent matches and for dangerous acts like tunnelling.

I like that approach more than dishing out suspensions because it makes it more about an umpires immediate intuition of what is reasonably safe in the circumstances rather than the insufferable post-game debate and scrutiny and treating "offenders" like victims.

Players are also good at adjusting to what helps/hurts the team in an immediate sense and will change the way the game is played organically without it having to lose anything in its DNA.

 

[standupand]

The AFL seems to be clamping down on Tunnelling

I know there was a lot of discussion about soccer-style yellow/red cards or rugby-style Sin Bin. Puts a lot more power in the Umps hands (human frailty).

Maybe we could have a 5-strikes (over however many games it takes) policy for dangerous tackles/tunnelling. The player is then suspended for a game?

I also think the AFL should donate all fines from dangerous tackles etc. to CTE research initiatives. To quote Mahatma Gandhi, "Be the change that you wish to see in the world"

Honestly I don't know why the AFL community is so reluctant to put more power in umpires hands. Most other sports have a send-off rule. Don't know it's so controversial for a game that has nearly twice the number of players on the field than soccer.

 

[Hamingja]

Honestly I don't know why the AFL community is so reluctant to put more power in umpires hands. Most other sports have a send-off rule. Don't know it's so controversial for a game that has nearly twice the number of players on the field than soccer.

People lose their minds over a free kick paid / free kick not paid that results in a goal at the end of the game.

Can you imagine the outrage if someone got incorrectly sent off 10 minutes into the first quarter.

And if you are sending someone off, that puts significant pressure on the other 17 players, which would increase the risk of injuries thus defeating the purpose.

 

[iameviljez]

Honestly I don't know why the AFL community is so reluctant to put more power in umpires hands. Most other sports have a send-off rule.

The AFL should have a send-off rule for the finals, for major reportable offences.

I'm sorry, but double demerits aren't enough to stop a player from really swinging for the fences in a Grand Final if a flag is on the line - and, as Alastair Lynch found out, they really don't matter if you plan on retiring anyway.

 

[iameviljez]

Can you imagine the outrage if someone got incorrectly sent off 10 minutes into the first quarter.

This is something where the ARC would actually be very useful.

 

[standupand]

People lose their minds over a free kick paid / free kick not paid that results in a goal at the end of the game.

Can you imagine the outrage if someone got incorrectly sent off 10 minutes into the first quarter.

And if you are sending someone off, that puts significant pressure on the other 17 players, which would increase the risk of injuries thus defeating the purpose.

People feel outrage about a lot of things.

But why should the AFL be different to virtually every other sport in this regard? Different even to aussie rules played at lower levels where a send-off rule is quite successful.

And also why would playing a player down increase risk of injury? Nobody makes such suggestions about soccer, ice-hockey, rugby, etc.

I guess this is maybe a bit off-topic, but it just surprises me that a player in an AFL match can theoretically commit a heinous act on the field and for the remainder of that match will still share the same field as everyone else.

 

[iameviljez]

I guess this is maybe a bit off-topic, but it just surprises me that a player in an AFL match can theoretically commit a heinous act on the field and for the remainder of that match will still share the same field as everyone else.

Dave Granger comes to mind.

 

[dudusmaximus]

I also think authorised Data companies like Campion Data should collect stats for Concussions, Concussion Frequency, Dangerous Tackles, Fines / Weeks lost due to resulting suspension etc.. While the AFL may be wary that it will increase their legal liability, so be it. That data is already there in public.

It gives the AFL measures to check against when they institute fresh safety measures.

What you cannot measure, you cannot control (paraphrasing Lord Kelvin & Peter Drucker)

 

[Spearman]

It doesn't, because even leading neurologists have very little knowledge on CTE and its prevention.

They aren't in-vogue because the main issue is the brain hitting the inside of the skull, not the impact to the outside of your head. NFL-style hard helmets in particular have limited use for CTE due to their hard shell, and the NFL is really the number one sport for giving yourself brain damage as it stands.

Correct. Even in the youngest NFL CTE cases, the players were wearing state of the art helmets. It can be argued that the helmets might increase the possibility of CTE because they promoted the head slaps and low speed helmet on helmet collisions that happen on every play with the subsequent sloshing around of the brain inside the skull.
There must be studies comparing rugby with gridiron. Maybe not enough CTE data yet, but but in general head trauma that might lead to it.
Helmets are not the answer.

 

[Hamingja]

And also why would playing a player down increase risk of injury? Nobody makes such suggestions about soccer, ice-hockey, rugby, etc.

I can only speak to soccer but if you go down to 10 players there it puts a big strain on the remaining players. Football is played on a bigger ground at a higher tempo. Being down a rotation on the bench is seen as a big deal in AFL, playing the game out with 17 on the ground would be 10x harder.

 

[dudusmaximus]

I can only speak to soccer but if you go down to 10 players there it puts a big strain on the remaining players. Football is played on a bigger ground at a higher tempo. Being down a rotation on the bench is seen as a big deal in AFL, playing the game out with 17 on the ground would be 10x harder.

I agree. A player short is a huge blow. I don't know what the evidence says when the sub is used up and another player gets injured (i.e. a rotation short). I suspect it's not good (just guessing).

 

[catswhiskers]

In response to the thread title..... My view is that the AFL has made very good responses to the threat/ likelihood of CTE causing injuries to players.

Its interesting to watch how quickly players adapt to the changes and the game remains just as enthralling as it has always been. Even the new attention to players {who should aware of possible consequences} pushing players into dangerous situations is a good move.

I hear some talk about the game being diminished as a spectacle as we remove the dangerous (avoidable) body contact stuff but I am not at all worried. Games like basketball are described as amazingly exciting in a low body contact context.

Our game will always maintain its unique position in world sport with its mix of speed, kicking , jumping, marking , team strategy, endurance .. .and I could go on. In fact it will continue to grow. A nephew living in the US reports back regularly that the interest in the AFL is growing considerably.

I am very pleased that this generation of AFL athletes will have a much lower risk of serious head injury than past generations.

As I said above ... good work AFL. Most of the hard yards are done, I hope.

 

[jim boy]

While NFL style hard helmets might be hard to stomach, why are head-gears not more in vogue? Vanity? If anything, lesser numbers are wearing them now (Caleb Daniels only?)

Another great helmet wearer was angus brayshaw - that didn't stop his career from being ended by concussion. The jury is very much out on helmets. They give some protection, but they also give the wearer more confidence which can lead to greater risk taking.

The talk on here about umpires having the power to send off (which I think they should be able to do) would nothelp much. They'll only do it for egregious and malicious actions, whcih are relatively rare now.

Perhaps a better approach would be that when a clash between two players results in a concussion, the player who was not concussed also has their game ended. Sure, there will plenty of occasions that the player removed from the match is just perhaps unlucky, but they are not as unlucky as the player who got concussed - and it reduces the disadvantage a team faces when a player gets concussed.

Which brings me on to the second thing I would change - the tribunal system. It was designed for egregious and unfair acts of yore. But it is being applied to acts of failure to upheld high standards of duty of care. The footy world needs to recognise that duty of care is its own thing and failures therein should be treated differently. Right now they are called 'carelessness' and are criminalized, for example by becoming ineligible for the brownlow. When players fail in their duty of care, they should be pulled up and made to better, whether that be through suspension or fines or something else. But it shouldn't be considered as 'punishment' and it shouldn't be outcome based either. A careless act is a careless act that could result in concussion. Players can be tempted into thinking that 19 times out of 20, an action wont result in injury meaning they will get off scott-free and therefore they are willing to take that risk. Lets make it that 19 times out 20, that careless action will result in a penalty.

 

[you pick one]

I'd support a send off rule under the right jury system, IE consensus by two field umpires + the third umpire, there would be plenty of time for this to occur as the injured play was receiving medical treatment and being taken off the ground.

 

[iameviljez]

And also why would playing a player down increase risk of injury? Nobody makes such suggestions about soccer, ice-hockey, rugby, etc.

I can only speak to soccer but if you go down to 10 players there it puts a big strain on the remaining players. Football is played on a bigger ground at a higher tempo. Being down a rotation on the bench is seen as a big deal in AFL, playing the game out with 17 on the ground would be 10x harder.

I'm a massive fan of soccer and ice hockey, and play soccer.

Playing one short in soccer is absolutely exhausting, and if a send-off happens in the first half-hour it's almost always a write off for the other team - you just flat-out run out of legs.

In ice hockey, when you go a player down, it's usually for two minutes at a time, and a 'special team' (i.e. four specialised players) are sent out to defend that - and if you can switch those players out at some point after a minute, you do that as well. The man advantage is huge - teams average roughly 1 goal per game from this, and only 0.07 goals per game from goals scored when a man down.

The main difference is that soccer and ice hockey don't have the same number of non-collision injuries as AFL does. In ice hockey, even your best players only play 40% of the game. Soccer, obviously they don't run quite as hard.

I agree. A player short is a huge blow. I don't know what the evidence says when the sub is used up and another player gets injured (i.e. a rotation short). I suspect it's not good (just guessing).

It can be really bad. I remember a game against StKilda in 2005 where StKilda led comfortably at half-time, only to run out of legs as they'd lost Aussie Jones and Robert Harvey by half-time. That was the game that convinced me that subs were a good idea. (Yes, I know one data point doesn't mean much.)

AFL Tables - Geelong v St Kilda - Sat, 7-May-2005 2:10 PM - Match Stats

 

[TheCattery2007]

This won’t be popular but I’d advocate that a player running towards the flight of the ball has a duty of care to the player running with the flight (or vice versa). Two examples stand out - Tyson Stengle

18

Tyson Stengle

Age

26

Ht

175cm

Wt

71kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.3

2star

K

5.8

2star

HB

3.5

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.4

4star

G

1.1

4star

D

10.3

3star

K

5.3

2star

HB

5.0

3star

M

1.3

1star

T

2.0

3star

G

0.5

4star

D

8.8

3star

K

5.6

3star

HB

3.2

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.6

4star

G

1.6

5star

and Maynard (I thought Maynard had killed Stengle but he got him on the shoulder, thankfully), and the recent one with Archer. In the first, example Maynard (running towards the ball) owed Stengle a duty of care and actually jumped into Stengle’s head region. In the second, Archer owed a duty of care (running with the flight). It’s not easy but the AFL need to think about a clear rule one away or the other. Someone is going to get seriously injured running back to a high ball soon. People will say that rule will mean the end of the J Brown type mark, but I think we need to move past that.

 

[dudusmaximus]

This won’t be popular but I’d advocate that a player running towards the flight of the ball has a duty of care to the player running with the flight (or vice versa). Two examples stand out - Tyson Stengle and Maynard (I thought Maynard had killed Stengle but he got him on the shoulder, thankfully), and the recent one with Archer. In the first, example Maynard (running towards the ball) owed Stengle a duty of care and actually jumped into Stengle’s head region. In the second, Archer owed a duty of care (running with the flight). It’s not easy but the AFL need to think about a clear rule one away or the other. Someone is going to get seriously injured running back to a high ball soon. People will say that rule will mean the end of the J Brown type mark, but I think we need to move past that.

We are talking split-second though. A lot of what happens then is instinctual rather than deliberate. We're all enamoured by a Pendles or Judd gliding through traffic. In practice however, Inertia is real.

 

[standupand]

This won’t be popular but I’d advocate that a player running towards the flight of the ball has a duty of care to the player running with the flight (or vice versa). Two examples stand out - Tyson Stengle and Maynard (I thought Maynard had killed Stengle but he got him on the shoulder, thankfully), and the recent one with Archer. In the first, example Maynard (running towards the ball) owed Stengle a duty of care and actually jumped into Stengle’s head region. In the second, Archer owed a duty of care (running with the flight). It’s not easy but the AFL need to think about a clear rule one away or the other. Someone is going to get seriously injured running back to a high ball soon. People will say that rule will mean the end of the J Brown type mark, but I think we need to move past that.

In most of these type of situations, I find myself wishing the player going with the flight would look after themselves a bit better, but your instinct just says keep your eye on the ball and go for it.

One thing I think they could do is be more willing to pay a free against a player running with the flight who makes contact (front on), or who even just blocks a player on a lead.

For decades it's been this idea that the only penalty for running into a forward's lead is that you're likely to get flattened. It does encourage courageous play, admittedly. But it also encourages the forward to make that player "earn it" in the sense of not backing out of a likely dangerous collision.

I think it could just be the player running with the flight who has to avoid contact. Therefore they actually run a big risk of giving away a free if they've got a tunnel vision on the ball. If you're running with the flight, you've actually got to have an awareness of what's around you and get out of the way of oncoming traffic.

It's similar to the way they adjudicate the "taking the legs" ones. It may seem a bit non-intuituve to begin with, but players will just adjust to playing the game in a way that just avoids a lot of those nasty accidents.

 

[dudusmaximus]

I also think the AFL should donate all fines from dangerous tackles etc. to CTE research initiatives. To quote Mahatma Gandhi, "Be the change that you wish to see in the world"

CS did say in his Round 7 Press Conference (~15 mins in) that the AFL says the money (from Fines) goes to Concussion Research. He passes a snide remark saying he wouldn't mind auditing that.