Autopsy JLT Community Series - Game 2, 2019: Western Bulldogs v St.Kilda

[StCicatriz]

Can't comment on Robbo, but with Paddy if concussion is an issue then that statement is not right. With concussion and TBI's symptoms can be up and down and be slower or faster. Sometimes people are initially ok, but then get worse. Yes if Paddy had a brain bleed or something immediately serious they would know by now and if that was suspected it is why hospitalisation is recommended just in case major intervention is required. (Wife survived her TBI, nephew died after being king hit and going to bed rather than hospital). However the micro damage that can be done to the brain by concussion can be such that scans do not show it and so real long-term harm may have been done that only time will reveal.

Paddy may be ok, or he may not be. But with concussion no one will this quickly know if he is ok or not. They will keep re-testing him throughout the week and let us all hope that he recovers ok and that this incident was nothing much. But it is only Monday, and if he was concussed during the game he will go through the tests this week till his results keep showing he is ok.

Statement was on Robbo not paddy.

 

[StCicatriz]

And does your wife just tell anyone? I agree with what you say on Robbo. Completely different on paddy. Also if they know it’s good news why didn’t leathlean tell us. Seems strange. I’m guessing there is more testing than one night. He maybe fine to not get very sick. Doubt they have any idea if he is ok footy wise. That’s the difference

I should have been clearer that statement was on Robbo not paddy. Concussion is a bit of an unknown where as heart issues are more easily diagnosed and assessed.

 

[StCicatriz]

Missus said there are some tests that take longer. Basically you need an extended period of monitoring but you would have a pretty damn good idea on if he's ok or not. So I think we'd know about Robbo.

Paddy no idea.

 

[ScrappyDo]

Not sure you're right from a legal perspective, if that's what you're getting at. Once Robbo is fully informed of the risks (which he would be) and voluntarily assumes those risks by agreeing to play, then the club is 'safe' legally.

Not sure about that. Employers still have an overarching duty of care and negligence can never be dispelled regardless of contract terms or players assuming the risks. It Robbo, or Paddy have issues down the track then they could claim the club and league should have acted to protect their health and were negligent in not doing so.

 

[The_Snake26]

I’m definitely not an itk but know one of our recent ex players. Was having a beer with him last week and asked him about jack. Without going into details I’d be surprised if he didn’t line up round 1. Obviously has some issues but nothing i would say would keep him out long term. Unless there’s something he omitted

Great hit out for us on the weekend. We were obviously missing a lot more than them with only jj the notable absentee. Thought Joyce was fantastic. Has a few kinks to iron out but will come with game time. Same with battle. He’s only played 8 games yet i think a few are expecting Sicily like performances. Let’s get him to 40-50 games. Whilst he may not have been the attacking weapon we hoped, his first job is to defend. I think it was a confidence thing to put him in the best.
Patty needs to stop showing dumb courage. Running back with the flight is courageous, but not at the expense of your career. He’s proven he’s courageous, needs to stop putting himself in those situations. Long should really be hitting that pack at ground level as well.
Got sick of watching us bomb the ball to the top of the goal square. But we were limited with options cause the dogs flooded something shocking.
Thought Marshall was very serviceable. Excellent around the ground but lacks a bit in the ruck. Will be monstered by the likes of Gawn, Grundy etc we need to pump games into him and get him to 60-70
Definitely looks like a change in attitude and intensity compared to last year. Hopefully we carry that momentum into round 1 and 2!

 

[Joffaboy]

If you think my response didn’t make sense then that’s your problem. The club said more tests were required so I trust them. I am adding to the board because I’m giving logical reasons why no one would no if the players are ok yet. As for being itk well I’m not. Saying what the girl said is illogical doesn’t is make me itk. It makes me logical. I’m certainly not itk I have no doubt many on here want to believe people are itk but when they look in the mirror they see that sometimes what was said makes no sense at all. Stave said they will play round one. Lethers said they need more tests. Either lethers is lying for no logical reason or they really do need more tests. I’m going with logic of lethers. You can choose the illogical. And I love attention because I’m an unknown name on a board. Maybe I like attention but it’s usually from mates who know who I am.

When did this thread descend into a Vulcan mind meld of logic.

This is the Bigfooty Saints forum, logic here is redundant

But one thing, cant they have more tests AND also play R1?

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SaintersUnite]

We finished third in the JLT boys, top 4 for this season confirmed! Someone post the “It’s happening” GIF, quick.


St Kilda and proud.

 

[Joffaboy]

Just need someone to say Hanners is playing a praccy match this weekend and we’ll be back to being flag favourites.

Hannners is playing a praccy match this weekend, Jake is better than expected and will be ready directly after the bye and Stuv is raring to go.

Only one of those three statements is accurate though.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SaintersUnite]

Also, Rankine has a hammy injury so we won’t have to play him in round 1.


St Kilda and proud.

 

[Tommy Wigs]

Hannners is playing a praccy match this weekend, Jake is better than expected and will be ready directly after the bye and Stuv is raring to go.

Only one of those three statements is accurate though.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Now you’re just being silly Joff

 

[FinBar19]

Hannners is playing a praccy match this weekend, Jake is better than expected and will be ready directly after the bye and Stuv is raring to go.

Only one of those three statements is accurate though.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Far out you got me excited for a second there

 

[SaintersUnite]

Hannners is playing a praccy match this weekend, Jake is better than expected and will be ready directly after the bye and Stuv is raring to go.

Only one of those three statements is accurate though.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Actually, one and a half of the statements are accurate.


St Kilda and proud.

 

[plugger66]

When did this thread descend into a Vulcan mind meld of logic.

This is the Bigfooty Saints forum, logic here is redundant

But one thing, cant they have more tests AND also play R1?

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Why would they if the comment was they will play. It’s a head and heart not a sore leg. And yes sorry forgot about logic.

 

[SaintersUnite]

Lets not forget that it isn’t actually confirmed to be Robbos heart again. He just said he felt off. It could honestly be the heat exhaustion from last week getting to him considering he hasn’t played continuously for almost a year. Or he could just be getting sick in general.


St Kilda and proud.

 

[sunny3193]

No the decision to play is surely made by the player. The club provide all the information they can. Obviously if the information says he will end up in a wheel chair if he plays they wouldn’t pick him but if everything points to being ok then the player says yes or no. That’s why some retire and others don’t.

I understand where you are coming from but again, the legal obligation rests with the employer.
That's why the AFL is scared of post-career common law actions from injured players against both the them and the clubs.
That, given the circumstances, a decision to delist was not made earlier (and so prevent damage and injury).
At some point, the club will be faced with a decision to persist with the player, or to delist.
And that is irrespective of how the player feels about the decision.
Even the medical opinion, if the club feels that the risk of persisting with the player is too great.
(For example; if the medical opinion states that the player is okay to play but is unable to make a judgement on the long term implications of continuing to play).

It is simply a risk/reward decision.

It would be a difficult conversation for both player and club.
Glad I do not have that responsibility because I can see that conversation occurring with both Paddy and Robbo sometime this year.

 

[_Maximus_12]

I think it’s actually a positive that Gresh played such a poor game (by his standards), because it showed we could win without his usual impact.


St Kilda and proud.

Gresh is the kind of arrogant campaigner that doesn't give a crap about JLT and would rather preserve himself for the real stuff. It's great.

 

[Premium]

Gresh is the kind of arrogant campaigner that doesn't give a crap about JLT and would rather preserve himself for the real stuff. It's great.

Gresham will surely be used in short bursts in the middle with Hunter until they can show they can dominate a game.

 

[StCicatriz]

I understand where you are coming from but again, the legal obligation rests with the employer.
That's why the AFL is scared of post-career common law actions from injured players against both the them and the clubs.
That, given the circumstances, a decision to delist was not made earlier (and so prevent damage and injury).
At some point, the club will be faced with a decision to persist with the player, or to delist.
And that is irrespective of how the player feels about the decision.
Even the medical opinion, if the club feels that the risk of persisting with the player is too great.
(For example; if the medical opinion states that the player is okay to play but is unable to make a judgement on the long term implications of continuing to play).

It is simply a risk/reward decision.

It would be a difficult conversation for both player and club.
Glad I do not have that responsibility because I can see that conversation occurring with both Paddy and Robbo sometime this year.

Why Robbo?

 

[bird_man]

Missus said there are some tests that take longer. Basically you need an extended period of monitoring but you would have a pretty damn good idea on if he's ok or not. So I think we'd know about Robbo.

Paddy no idea.

Nick Riewoldt was talking about Robbo this morning and he had no idea what was going on and sounded worried about him.

 

[gringo2011]

I’m not doubting that they could be fine but the club do not know that. Lethers said it and if knew they were fine he would have told us to put the supporter at ease. That’s logical

Stavro seems to have someone well connected at the club. He's got a good record and can't see why they would make it up

 

[stavro#4]

I think it’s actually a positive that Gresh played such a poor game (by his standards), because it showed we could win without his usual impact.


St Kilda and proud.

The thing that has stood out to me over the 2 games is the defensive side of the game plan. I actually felt very comfortable defending for the first time in a long time in these two JLT games. Very good pressure on the ball carrier and the ball once it hit the deck. Made me feel comfortable that we wouldn’t be giving the opposition as many 1:1s or long bombs to advantage.

Early days but I enjoyed it

 

[plugger66]

Stavro seems to have someone well connected at the club. He's got a good record and can't see why they would make it up

Ok if you say so. Can I ask why lethers would lie

 

[stavro#4]

Stavro seems to have someone well connected at the club. He's got a good record and can't see why they would make it up

I’m still confident. As touched on, Robbo will always have extensive testing for anything going forward due to the nature of the injury.

But I think if it was a major issue it would of shown up during the initial hospital visit and I back the source that those tests came back clear.

 

[majortinkle]

I understand where you are coming from but again, the legal obligation rests with the employer.
That's why the AFL is scared of post-career common law actions from injured players against both the them and the clubs.
That, given the circumstances, a decision to delist was not made earlier (and so prevent damage and injury).
At some point, the club will be faced with a decision to persist with the player, or to delist.
And that is irrespective of how the player feels about the decision.
Even the medical opinion, if the club feels that the risk of persisting with the player is too great.
(For example; if the medical opinion states that the player is okay to play but is unable to make a judgement on the long term implications of continuing to play).

It is simply a risk/reward decision.

It would be a difficult conversation for both player and club.
Glad I do not have that responsibility because I can see that conversation occurring with both Paddy and Robbo sometime this year.

The Club's insurers may effectively have a say in it as well (take action or premiums will sky-rocket type discussion - hopefully an AFL policy tbh) - it's crazy really

 

[stavro#4]

Ok if you say so. Can I ask why lethers would lie

I didn’t think he lied.

I think he did the 100% correct PR thing and that was play a straight bat due to the nature of the injury. I still believe the initial testing was all positive and Robbo alluded to that today. He obviously still has to complete a few more specialist tests but I believe an issue would of been picked up by now.