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

Remove this Banner Ad

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
9,701
14,120
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Head knocks are a funny think in that often innocuous ones can KO you or do some damage (hit the temple or the right point around the jaw and its lights out) but in reality anything with that much force has absolutely rattled your brain.

Its nuts to me that THAT level of force didnt immediately require the concussion protocol, regardless of if they displayed immediate symptoms or not (we also know that delayed concussion is absolutely a thing).

The AFL signing it off means nothing to me personally, they are trying to improve processes but only out of an abundance of concern about their long term legal position.
That's the silly thing with the AFL protocols.

You don't need to actually suffer concussion, to suffer brain injury.

We all know this. Yet the protocols seem to disregard it.
 

Jim Prideaux

Club Legend
Mar 21, 2016
1,907
2,285
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
ColoradoAvalancheLiverpoolFCGrenobl
WTF are you talking about? Holmes wouldn't shut up about it for several minutes. The call almost certainly came from a producer as Hamish almost apologized after a break completely unrelated to the play at the time as it was clearly pointed out to them that if they didn't STFU and they turned out to be wrong, they would all be getting sued.
No one is getting sued. At least not from the commentary team….
 

HairyO

Hall of Famer
Jul 13, 2015
30,723
33,265
AFL Club
Hawthorn
That's the silly thing with the AFL protocols.

You don't need to actually suffer concussion, to suffer brain injury.

We all know this. Yet the protocols seem to disregard it.

So how do you do it? The AFL is following the best medical science recommendations. What is a better way?

Compulsory testing of all players after each game?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
9,701
14,120
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
So how do you do it? The AFL is following the best medical science recommendations. What is a better way?

Compulsory testing of all players after each game?
The question should be 'why are they doing it?'

What are the AFL trying to achieve? If they're trying to reduce brain trauma, then their current protocol will fail.

If they're trying to reduce lawsuits, then maybe it's fine.
 

HairyO

Hall of Famer
Jul 13, 2015
30,723
33,265
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The question should be 'why are they doing it?'

What are the AFL trying to achieve? If they're trying to reduce brain trauma, then their current protocol will fail.

If they're trying to reduce lawsuits, then maybe it's fine.

So how do they reduce brain trauma without impacting on the vast majority of players who wont suffer brain trauma from playing football?
 

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
9,701
14,120
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
So how do they reduce brain trauma without impacting on the vast majority of players who wont suffer brain trauma from playing football?

Ok, so now you're asking a different question. And it's a fair one.

But IMO this is clearly the crux of the matter, and why this bullshit about the head being sacrosanct is just such nonsense.

Is it sacrosanct or not? If it is, then it doesn't matter if there if there are some cases where guys miss time on the ground because the AFL is playing it safe.

If it really is sacrosanct - then that's irrelevant.
 

HairyO

Hall of Famer
Jul 13, 2015
30,723
33,265
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Ok, so now you're asking a different question. And it's a fair one.

But IMO this is clearly the crux of the matter, and why this bullshit about the head being sacrosanct is just such nonsense.

Is it sacrosanct or not? If it is, then it doesn't matter if there if there are some cases where guys miss time on the ground because the AFL is playing it safe.

If it really is sacrosanct - then that's irrelevant.

I think its sacrosanct in the sense that non-football actions which involve the head should always be punished. There is always going to be a level of accepted risk on football actions.

We dont ban cars because every year cars are involved in tens of thousands of crashes leading to thousands of deaths and critical injuries. We have seatbelts, safe roads, speed limits, etc. to reduce the risk.

The AFL is simply doing this. The problem is they still refuse to properly enforce the penalties because they are more scared of a Brownlow winner getting rubbed out than someone getting CTE. Hopefully the next CEO changes this..
 

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
9,701
14,120
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
I think its sacrosanct in the sense that non-football actions which involve the head should always be punished. There is always going to be a level of accepted risk on football actions.

We dont ban cars because every year cars are involved in tens of thousands of crashes leading to thousands of deaths and critical injuries. We have seatbelts, safe roads, speed limits, etc. to reduce the risk.

The AFL is simply doing this. The problem is they still refuse to properly enforce the penalties because they are more scared of a Brownlow winner getting rubbed out than someone getting CTE. Hopefully the next CEO changes this..

You've changed your tune --> Paddy Ryder bump on Will Day

Your concern previously has been about head injuries. You've been campaigning for collisions to be illegal if they mean people suffer head injuries as a result, which they do. I don't know why you've softened that position so drastically in this thread. Now you're Ok with head trauma, because there needs to be acceptable risk on the football field. You're kind of arguing directly the opposite to what you were in the other thread.

If the head is sacrosanct, you must ban anything that can cause brain trauma. What you're saying is that the game is sacrosanct, and head injury is a side issue. That's fine, a lot of people believe that. I'm 100% certain that the AFL believe that.

My issue is though, that the AFL hide behind this myth about the head being sacrosanct when they feel like it, and make rule changes accordingly. They remove aspects of the game that have been part of it for a long time under the guise of the head being sacrosanct, which is ruining the game for a lot of people. But then in the same breath they allow Tom Lynch to cannon into the heads of defenders with his knees and forearms, give Bailey Smith the same penalty for headbutting someone behind play as they do for a bloke giving someone a Chinese burn, and allow players to run back on the ground without a concussion test after smashing heads with someone at full speed and lying on the ground dazed for 2 minutes.

I repeat, if the head is sacrosanct, why is the penalty for headbutting someone behind play with Medium impact (your own head hitting another head, that's Medium impact to two heads), the same as someone twisting someone's arm?? WTF?

You get a Free Kick against you for pushing and shoving with someone if your hand slips up and makes contact with their neck or face. Because the head is sacrosanct. A guy drops his knees to draw head high contact - and you get penalised for getting him high!! How the f**K does that work? If the head is sacrosanct, surely the guy purposely drawing contact to the head is at fault?

It's just perplexing.
 

HairyO

Hall of Famer
Jul 13, 2015
30,723
33,265
AFL Club
Hawthorn
You've changed your tune --> Paddy Ryder bump on Will Day

Your concern previously has been about head injuries. You've been campaigning for collisions to be illegal if they mean people suffer head injuries as a result, which they do. I don't know why you've softened that position so drastically in this thread. Now you're Ok with head trauma, because there needs to be acceptable risk on the football field. You're kind of arguing directly the opposite to what you were in the other thread.

If the head is sacrosanct, you must ban anything that can cause brain trauma. What you're saying is that the game is sacrosanct, and head injury is a side issue. That's fine, a lot of people believe that. I'm 100% certain that the AFL believe that.

My issue is though, that the AFL hide behind this myth about the head being sacrosanct when they feel like it, and make rule changes accordingly. They remove aspects of the game that have been part of it for a long time under the guise of the head being sacrosanct, which is ruining the game for a lot of people. But then in the same breath they allow Tom Lynch to cannon into the heads of defenders with his knees and forearms, give Bailey Smith the same penalty for headbutting someone behind play as they do for a bloke giving someone a Chinese burn, and allow players to run back on the ground without a concussion test after smashing heads with someone at full speed and lying on the ground dazed for 2 minutes.

I repeat, if the head is sacrosanct, why is the penalty for headbutting someone behind play with Medium impact (your own head hitting another head, that's Medium impact to two heads), the same as someone twisting someone's arm?? WTF?

You get a Free Kick against you for pushing and shoving with someone if your hand slips up and makes contact with their neck or face. Because the head is sacrosanct. A guy drops his knees to draw head high contact - and you get penalised for getting him high!! How the f**K does that work? If the head is sacrosanct, surely the guy purposely drawing contact to the head is at fault?

It's just perplexing.

Bumps arent considered football actions. So I havent changed anything.

If 2 players are going for the ball and collide that is a football action. I havent ever said collisions need to be outlawed. Primarily because I dont know how you can.

I suspect I only used the word "collision" because that poster I was responding to was referring to a bump as a collision. I assume to make it seem like Ryder didnt do anything wrong - when he clearly did. He chose to step in to Day and bump him and got him high.

I am quite happy for the AFL to remove the grey area of "potential to cause injury" as well, and just go with 1 week minimum for any illegal act involving the head and ramp it up from there based on injury. But they wont do that because it removes wriggle room for them to excuse some bad behaviour by some players.

I also agree on the players who duck getting rewarded needing to end. The AFL has a rule which says that if the player with the ball does something to cause the tackler to go high then its play on. The problem is umpires rarely enforce it. Its much easier to just call a high tackle. I dare say because deep down they are worried that if they call play on and it turns out the player with the ball didnt duck and does get injured they will look bad. So they play it safe.
 

Duckimus Prime

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 26, 2008
5,652
8,526
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
No I don’t think the supporter of the OP matters at all.

The issue here is very clear and as a club with form, questions must be asked.
"With form"

The example being Hamish Hartlett returning to the field after being cleared of concussion 6 years ago.

The entire year, we have had people complaining about Port's doctor being too willing to sub players off for medical reasons.
 

ThePhreshOne

Premium Gold
Apr 5, 2016
5,126
11,249
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Boston Celtics
"With form"

The example being Hamish Hartlett returning to the field after being cleared of concussion 6 years ago.

The entire year, we have had people complaining about Port's doctor being too willing to sub players off for medical reasons.
Ok.
 

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
9,701
14,120
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
"After returning to Melbourne with the team on Sunday, English displayed signs consistent with delayed concussion and has since entered the protocols."


And yet the AFL protocol allows experienced doctors to give the green light for guys to go straight back on the ground, because they spent 3 minutes looking for a few obvious signs of concussion.

Fair dinkum. What a farce this is.
 

phantom13

Moderator
Sep 12, 2007
25,235
35,354
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
"After returning to Melbourne with the team on Sunday, English displayed signs consistent with delayed concussion and has since entered the protocols."


And yet the AFL protocol allows experienced doctors to give the green light for guys to go straight back on the ground, because they spent 3 minutes looking for a few obvious signs of concussion.

Fair dinkum. What a farce this is.
To be fair delayed concussion symptoms manifest very very differently for everyone, im not too sure what else the AFL could do short of having every player get a CT scan after a bump.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
9,701
14,120
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
To be fair delayed concussion symptoms manifest very very differently for everyone, im not too sure what else the AFL could do short of having every player get a CT scan after a bump.

They may manifest differently, but they're all caused by the same thing - head trauma.

When it is blatantly obvious that there has been high level head trauma, then you must assume there is a risk of concussion, and wait to be convinced otherwise. Not the other way around.
 

phantom13

Moderator
Sep 12, 2007
25,235
35,354
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
They may manifest differently, but they're all caused by the same thing - head trauma.

When it is blatantly obvious that there has been high level head trauma, then you must assume there is a risk of concussion, and wait to be convinced otherwise. Not the other way around.
Truthfully, having had concussion from footy and combat sports the things that can give you a concussion can look quite innocuous at times. The worst lingering concussion effects ive ever had were from a pretty benign looking hit.

I havent actually seen the English one but if there wasnt a huge amount of force (liek the Butters Jonas one) then it might not look severe (happy to stand corrected if someone has the footage of the English incident)
 

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
9,701
14,120
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Truthfully, having had concussion from footy and combat sports the things that can give you a concussion can look quite innocuous at times. The worst lingering concussion effects ive ever had were from a pretty benign looking hit.

I havent actually seen the English one but if there wasnt a huge amount of force (liek the Butters Jonas one) then it might not look severe (happy to stand corrected if someone has the footage of the English incident)

This is what I find so baffling about it.

Repeated head trauma is the worst. The big hits are obviously really bad, but lots of small ones are what lead to significant problems, especially in later life. You don't need a massive head trauma to get concussion, and you don't need to demonstrate the major symptons to actually have concussion either. This is common knowledge.

From the UFC Concussion Protocol: “Resuming activity too quickly, especially in contact sports like MMA, not only increases the risk of subsequent musculoskeletal injuries and longer recovery times but also further concussions (e.g., second-impact syndrome) which can lead to chronic neurological conditions, permanent disability and death.”


From the Weill Cornell Concussion and Brain Injury Clinic, the very first sign of a concussion they talk about is listed as "a temporary disruption of neurologic functioning and awareness, such as a sense of confusion or disorientation, or feeling “foggy” or “out of it” for a few seconds to minutes"


For a few seconds!! So two AFL players lie on the ground dazed and holding their heads after a massive head clash, and that isn't considered being out of it for a few seconds??


Quote from Dana White, UFC president: "If they take any damage to the head, they're put on a three-month suspension," said Dana White. "These guys are on a three-month medical suspension and cannot return until they're seen by a doctor.

"These guys don't take the damage that NFL players or boxers or guys from the NHL. And guys in the NFL and the NHL can't miss three months. If guys missed three months for a concussion, there'd be no football, there'd be no NHL. That's the difference and this sport is a million times safer than both of them."


And there is the crux of it. This is what annoys me - the head is NOT sacrosanct. That's bullshit. The sport is sacrosanct.

The AFL know this, which is why they let guys like Jonas and Butters, and English return to the field each week. And they wouldn't allow Tom Lynch and Charlie Dixon to crash into the back of defenders heads with their knees and elbows. If the head was really sacrosanct, they'd do what the UFC do, and sit players out when they take damage to the head. But they don't.

Now that's fine, that's the AFL's position. But why then, do we have to tolerate bullshit rule changes and tiggy touchwood free kicks every week under the guise of the head being sacrosanct?
 
Last edited:

HairyO

Hall of Famer
Jul 13, 2015
30,723
33,265
AFL Club
Hawthorn
"After returning to Melbourne with the team on Sunday, English displayed signs consistent with delayed concussion and has since entered the protocols."


And yet the AFL protocol allows experienced doctors to give the green light for guys to go straight back on the ground, because they spent 3 minutes looking for a few obvious signs of concussion.

Fair dinkum. What a farce this is.

So every player needs to play alternate weeks because of one case of late onset concussion per year out of 500 player games a year.

What are the changes you would make which would make concussions go away completely?
 

Remove this Banner Ad