Jonas and Butters subbed back on after head clash - with no concussion protocol undertaken

Remove this Banner Ad

PrisonBars4life said:
How would you? If the concussion symptoms are delayed then they wouldn't be taken off. I would assume the protocol would be to have a look at them and talk to them and if there are any concerns, perform the tests. If they were lucid and displaying no signs of concussion whatsoever, then further testing wouldn't be required. That is what Port seem to be claiming here and to eb frank, looking at the incident they clearly have zero to worry about on the Butters front (he is up within 10 seconds and is more interested in the giant hole in his face). I assume the AFL will ask the question about Jonas.
Click to expand...

Mate, sleep on it, you are embarrassing yourself
 
Cyclonus said:
Lol what a nerd, talking about lawyers going after forum posters haha
Click to expand...

Not talking about the posters, talking about the media and Holmes especially. Btw, if you don't think you can get sued for posts on a football forum, think again. It just normally doesn't happen because of the 'Streisand effect'.
 
Watching it, I straight away thought Jonas looked dazed and would not come back on. Butters I think I could let slide.

That neither of them were sent for the proper protocol testing was bizarre and a really suspicious "we don't want to lose the game here" decision making process.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

was a terrible decision by Port. Clearly both players needed to be examined more than that& required to sit out,. if the AFL does not enforce a fine then what the F are we making all these strict rules for?

Dylan Shiel had to leave a prelim in 2017 over the concussion rule, he more than likely required it - but i doubt he would have gone off if what happened tonight is apparently "ok"
 
matthew_s said:
My uncle is a QC

Anyone who puts forwards this rubbish should be Insta-banned for being a moron
Click to expand...

I have got a law degree mate. You reckon you can ramble on for upto 5 minutes on national television about the incident without having so much as having spoken to the doctor about it without being at risk of defaming someone' Literally every word would be analysed and if it comes back that any one of them implied the doctor acted improperly, the onus would then fall on the person alleging impropriety to prove that in court.

That's the entire point. It was clear Holmes wanted to continue on with the 'controversy' rather than just highlight the issue and get back to the (very close) game. Then Hamish said a minute or 2 later that 'we would never second guess' the doctor, which appears to be a clear instruction from the producer.

My friend from high school that I haven't seen in 15 years is a doctor. I must know something about medicine. See how that works.
 
PrisonBars4life said:
I have got a law degree mate. You reckon you can ramble on for upto 5 minutes on national television about the incident without having so much as having spoken to the doctor about it without being at risk of defaming someone' Literally every word would be analysed and if it comes back that any one of them implied the doctor acted improperly, the onus would then fall on the person alleging impropriety to prove that in court.

That's the entire point. It was clear Holmes wanted to continue on with the 'controversy' rather than just highlight the issue and get back to the (very close) game. Then Hamish said a minute or 2 later that 'we would never second guess' the doctor, which appears to be a clear instruction from the producer.

My friend from high school that I haven't seen in 15 years is a doctor. I must know something about medicine. See how that works.
Click to expand...

I've got 12 law degrees. If you want, I can sell you some, they are really cheap to pick up at estate sales.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

PrisonBars4life said:
I have got a law degree mate. You reckon you can ramble on for upto 5 minutes on national television about the incident without having so much as having spoken to the doctor about it without being at risk of defaming someone' Literally every word would be analysed and if it comes back that any one of them implied the doctor acted improperly, the onus would then fall on the person alleging impropriety to prove that in court.

That's the entire point. It was clear Holmes wanted to continue on with the 'controversy' rather than just highlight the issue and get back to the (very close) game. Then Hamish said a minute or 2 later that 'we would never second guess' the doctor, which appears to be a clear instruction from the producer.

My friend from high school that I haven't seen in 15 years is a doctor. I must know something about medicine. See how that works.
Click to expand...

Can you let me know which law firm you end up at? So i know not to go there
 
Hope the players are ok. Looked sickening. This is first and foremost

kane cornes provided his take on the situation and questioning from journos, who he stresses did their job to perfection in questioning hinkley. Cornes provides some personal experience to vouch for the doctor of 25 years, and therefore supports the decision he made.

(1) one night he had a stomach pain and called the doctor, who attended to him.
(2) Kanes son broke his arm on a sunday, doctor called who got him into hospital straightaway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gaspard
Concussion protocols and finals
Replies
5
Views
572
juss
juss
Milux
Ginnivan subbed on for Bobby Hill
Replies
6
Views
896
Milux
Milux
sobrave
MRP / Trib. Jonas gets a week for a HTB tackle
Replies
24
Views
889
carloss
carloss
Grand Uncle Horace
Duncan cleared, Fox concussed
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Nebular
Nebular
D
Score review and ball coming back into play.
Replies
1
Views
548
Randomizor
Randomizor
B
Time to do away with the health and safety protocol?
Replies
4
Views
638
OnTheRocks
OnTheRocks
Obeanie1
Umpiring Whats with umpires not knowing or forgetting the rules of the game?
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Hoops
Hoops

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top