Injury Injury update thread

[Bucksboys]

What does any of this shit matter? It's all guesswork until the scans and doesn't change the 6 week outcome one iota

Fans demand to know and the club tries to accommodate them as fast as possible and if any info is incorrect it's incompetence

And if the club says nothing and waits until it knows absolutely for sure the fans scream conspiracy

On a hiding to nothing the club

 

[ClaytonM]

The diagnosis of the medical staff was "COLLINGWOOD is confident young midfielder Tim Broomhead has escaped serious damage to his shoulder, although he is in doubt for the Magpies' next assignment against West Coast in round 16. "He's a bit sore in the shoulder but we're not that concerned that it's a long-term injury," Magpies football manager Neil Balme told AFL.com.au. "There's some chance he won't play next week but we're pretty confident he'll be OK."
He did the injury with 10 minutes to go in the first quarter. They treated it as a pinched tendon and I even observed the physio "massaging" his shoulder in what I assume was an attempt to loosen up his shoulder on the bench in the first quarter. They then put him back out there for the second quarter and he then came out with the shoulder strapped up after half time. They then continued to treat it as a pinched tendon as they saw no need to get it scanned in Adelaide on Friday morning (amazingly enough Adelaide does have scanning clinics!)


Yes they let him stay in Adelaide rather than "rushing him for scans" as they believed there was nothing wrong with it - which was entirely based on a doctor / physio and rehab coordinator GUESSING! Is that world's best practice? I think not. So after being encouraged to keep the injury mobile over the weekend in Adelaide they finally get it scanned on Monday when he gets back to find out there is serious damage and it's a minimum 6 week injury. The massive part is it's gone from maybe missing one week to missing a minimum of 6 with a possibility of needing surgery at some stage going forward.

Maybe instead of guessing, go and get the player checked out and find out what is wrong with him before making sweeping statements! Not only putting him back out on the field but then the follow up movement over the weekend may have caused further damage to the injury as a result of nothing but GUESS WORK from the medical department. Amateur hour at best from supposedly the "best medical staff in the country"!

So what is the alternative? Every player that gets a heavy bump and comes of sore should sit the rest of the game on the bench or go off to hospital for tests before returning to play. Just not practical.

Medical staff are placed in a difficult situation. They only have limited tools available to them and must make decisions based on limited information. They are also making decisions based on feedback from players who no doubt are keen to get back on the field and often down play the injury.

In this environment mistakes are inevitable. The alternative is to end up with 10 players on the park after every other player cops a heavy whack.

The club can't win on injuries. People either complain when no information is given, or complain when information is given early which later turns out to be incorrect.

I believe that there is no benefit in the club lying to fans about injuries. They provide the best information based on what they know at the time. But it is an imprecise science, particularly early on and I accept that.

When this change in advice occurs I am disappointed, but I am not angry or immediately jump to conclusions of incompetents.

 

[Anzacday]

What does any of this shit matter? It's all guesswork until the scans and doesn't change the 6 week outcome one iota

Fans demand to know and the club tries to accommodate them as fast as possible and if any info is incorrect it's incompetence

And if the club says nothing and waits until it knows absolutely for sure the fans scream conspiracy

On a hiding to nothing the club

What about just trotting out the standard line; we will have to wait for the scans to come back.
I'm assuming from what drafted hawk says Broomy was in a fair bit of pain.
Makes sense to send him for a scan I reckon - the old better safe than sorry.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Drafted hawk, we appreciate that you provide inside information in relation to Broomy, and the club. Clearly the club erred here, and potentially to Broomy's detriment, and indeed that of the team. But surely the medical team are not so inept as to always make mistakes, and those involved should be reviewed and reprimanded, or whatever the club thinks is the correct means of redressing this.

But your posts about the club are nearly always negative, if not outright angry. In your view, and in the time you've been associated with the club (presumably through your Broomy connection) has the club ever done anything right?

But we don't actually know that, we have no information other than it appears to be a medium term injury
Everything else is just fanciful uniformed speculation

 

[Anzacday]

Guess the proof will be in the pudding if/when they, (him and Billy) have extended absences.
If they do have long layoffs and we're still being fed the short term, (couple of weeks) stuff then it's either they're feeding us BS or guesswork.
Out of the two I'd prefer BS, although given a third I'd rather transparency.

 

[Good_Old]

So what is the alternative? Every player that gets a heavy bump and comes of sore should sit the rest of the game on the bench or go off to hospital for tests before returning to play. Just not practical.

Medical staff are placed in a difficult situation. They only have limited tools available to them and must make decisions based on limited information. They are also making decisions based on feedback from players who no doubt are keen to get back on the field and often down play the injury.

In this environment mistakes are inevitable. The alternative is to end up with 10 players on the park after every other player cops a heavy wack.

The club can't win on injuries. People either complain when no information is given, or complain when information is given early which later turns out to be incorrect.

I believe that there is no benefit in the club lying to fans about injuries. They provide the best information based on what they know at the time. But it is an imprecise science, particularly early on and I accept that.

When this change I am disappointed, but I am not angry or immediately jump to conclusions of incompetents.

#SackDonovan

 

[Kirby]

Wonder what's up with Sinkers?

 

[unplugged]

So what is the alternative? Every player that gets a heavy bump and comes of sore should sit the rest of the game on the bench or go off to hospital for tests before returning to play. Just not practical.

Medical staff are placed in a difficult situation. They only have limited tools available to them and must make decisions based on limited information. They are also making decisions based on feedback from players who no doubt are keen to get back on the field and often down play the injury.

In this environment mistakes are inevitable. The alternative is to end up with 10 players on the park after every other player cops a heavy wack.

The club can't win on injuries. People either complain when no information is given, or complain when information is given early which later turns out to be incorrect.

I believe that there is no benefit in the club lying to fans about injuries. They provide the best information based on what they know at the time. But it is an imprecise science, particularly early on and I accept that.

When this change I am disappointed, but I am not angry or immediately jump to conclusions of incompetents.

Could not have said that any better.

Anyone who has ever played footy and isn't an absolute sheep dog knows that the coaching staff, trainers etc. asking the question "Are you right to go back on?" is almost always answered with a yes. Unless they've done something to a leg which eliminates the ability to run without a limp, which wasn't the case with this one.

 

[Rorzza]

They are playing afl football which is a contact sport. I would expect a player to play through injury if required, and I will leave what is required up to the club and it's staff and back them to make the right decision with the information they have at the time.
The Port game like the next couple are must win games if we are to make finals. I would expect that a number of players are playing through injuries or will get knocks and be asked to continue that is the nature of our sport.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I'm not at all bothered about the way we handled Broomy (pun fully intended).

A small fracture in that area is going to feel very similar to bruising. Structurally the shoulder was ok meaning they weren't concerned about a labral tear, subluxation or rotator cuff tendon injury. No step deformity means no major AC issue.

He had ongoing pain that was severe enough that they subbed him. When the pain hadn't improved a couple of days later they x-rayed him to exclude a fracture and found a fracture.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, what am I missing?

 

[Mame]

Guess the proof will be in the pudding if/when they, (him and Billy) have extended absences.
If they do have long layoffs and we're still being fed the short term, (couple of weeks) stuff then it's either they're feeding us BS or guesswork.
Out of the two I'd prefer BS, although given a third I'd rather transparency.

Do some people not have the capacity to factor this in as soon as they hear an estimated return date? Don't know why people get so hung up on it.

 

[Good_Old]

Seriously, it should be compulsory to teach anatomy and physiology in school.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Seriously, it should be compolsory to teach anatomy and physiology in school.

Can't afford to take the time away from English.

Zing!

 

[Good_Old]

Can't afford to take the time away from English.

Zing!

Know eyedea wut ur talking aboute.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, what am I missing?

Someone needs to be held accountable for Broomy getting the injury.
Clearly its a sackable offence

 

[Apex36]

Could not have said that any better.

Anyone who has ever played footy and isn't an absolute sheep dog knows that the coaching staff, trainers etc. asking the question "Are you right to go back on?" is almost always answered with a yes. Unless they've done something to a leg which eliminates the ability to run without a limp, which wasn't the case with this one.

Finally, someone said it. It's all well and good to criticise the medical staff, but when Tim was asked this question in the first quarter, take a guess at his response?

Players are willing to play through a fair amount of pain, and a doctor will never send them back on the field if they say they aren't right to go. They rely on a players honest feedback to make their diagnosis, and when a player comes out with "It's not too bad, I can still play", wtf are they meant to do? Say, "I don't believe you, here's the red vest"?

Lumping the blame completely on the doctors is horse shit. They can only make a correct diagnosis immediately if they get all the relevant info, and even then sometimes symptoms can be misleading.

Tim going back on the field after his initial injury is nobody's fault but his. If he said he is right to go the doctor has to take his word for it.

 

[Good_Old]

Finally, someone said it. It's all well and good to criticise the medical staff, but when Tim was asked this question in the first quarter, take a guess at his response?

Players are willing to play through a fair amount of pain, and a doctor will never send them back on the field if they say they aren't right to go. They rely on a players honest feedback to make their diagnosis, and when a player comes out with "It's not too bad, I can still play", wtf are they meant to do? Say, "I don't believe you, here's the red vest"?

Lumping the blame completely on the doctors is horse shit. They can only make a correct diagnosis immediately if they get all the relevant info, and even then sometimes symptoms can be misleading.

Tim going back on the field after his initial injury is nobody's fault but his. If he said he is right to go the doctor has to take his word for it.

Especially when they're trying to cement a spot on the list.

 

[left at home]

any one who has played at a reasonable level will not go off unless they and the doctors think its serious
you can have a crack in a bone that is like any over soreness but only over a bit of time as it get worse shows its self properly
long time ago played with some ex vfl-afl players and the levels of pain they could play with was amazing

 

[ClaytonM]

I'm not at all bothered about the way we handled Broomy (pun fully intended).

A small fracture in that area is going to feel very similar to bruising. Structurally the shoulder was ok meaning they weren't concerned about a labral tear, subluxation or rotator cuff tendon injury. No step deformity means no major AC issue.

He had ongoing pain that was severe enough that they subbed him. When the pain hadn't improved a couple of days later they x-rayed him to exclude a fracture and found a fracture.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, what am I missing?

You are missing the irrational hysteria that some people experience every time we have an injury that turns out worse than first thought or reported by the club.

 

[unplugged]

Especially when they're trying to cement a spot on the list.

Exactly. This is the sort of thing which will also drive a player to try and rush back from injury before they are ready as well.

 

[Lefthanded]

Finally, someone said it. It's all well and good to criticise the medical staff, but when Tim was asked this question in the first quarter, take a guess at his response?

Players are willing to play through a fair amount of pain, and a doctor will never send them back on the field if they say they aren't right to go. They rely on a players honest feedback to make their diagnosis, and when a player comes out with "It's not too bad, I can still play", wtf are they meant to do? Say, "I don't believe you, here's the red vest"?

Lumping the blame completely on the doctors is horse shit. They can only make a correct diagnosis immediately if they get all the relevant info, and even then sometimes symptoms can be misleading.

Tim going back on the field after his initial injury is nobody's fault but his. If he said he is right to go the doctor has to take his word for it.

I largely agree, only point of clarification is your comments seem like the doctors are relying too much on verbal feedback. Given any decent physio should be able to get some idea of potential issues through basic range of motion tests, a diagnosis shouldn't be reliant on just verbal from the player (which may not have been your intention anyway.)

 

[Lefthanded]

Not sure it's the best indicator but it's probably one of the earlier ones - Doc Larkins saying Cloke will miss 2-4 weeks.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-07-20/doc-larkins-injury-update-round-16

 

[BoxMatrix]

Not sure it's the best indicator but it's probably one of the earlier ones - Doc Larkins saying Cloke will miss 2-4 weeks.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-07-20/doc-larkins-injury-update-round-16

2014 2.0

 

[Apex36]

I largely agree, only point of clarification is your comments seem like the doctors are relying too much on verbal feedback. Given any decent physio should be able to get some idea of potential issues through basic range of motion tests, a diagnosis shouldn't be reliant on just verbal from the player (which may not have been your intention anyway.)

Yeah, I wasn't trying to imply that the players word is the be al or end all, but at the end of the day, a player may be right on the edge of the doctor saying yes or no to them continuing. In that case the players word is going to be the catalyst.

One would assume that Tim would have initially told the physio's he was right to keep going, but realised after going back on that he couldn't continue.

 

[Lefthanded]

2014 2.0

bit harsh! Yes we are picking up a few injuries but we are still better placed than last year.