Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion Non-Crows AFL 12: It's the confectionery with 1000 uses

Do you think the Tasmanian AFL team will ever happen?

  • Yes and will be on schedule

  • Yes but will be a delayed entry

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Is this tweet accurate? It was a recommendation wasn’t it… they can’t actually force him surely.

I'm pretty sure it's a recommendation, yes. He gets to make the final decision - although his club could of course decide "sorry, we're not taking on the liability" and delist him.

I have no idea how accurate it is, but this page claims to describe the process and has a bit specifically about the AFL:

https://theconversation.com/what-is...ng-medically-retired-due-to-concussion-229710


In 2019, the AFL adopted a process in which a panel of three medical specialists assesses a player and makes a recommendation to assist decision-making about future participation.

Triggered by a referral from the club doctor, each panel member examines and assesses the athlete. They see the player, review all notes from the team doctor, along with the player’s medical history, reports and records, including scans and test results.

If required, further testing is done.

The panel aims to reach a medical consensus – all experts agreeing on the outcome, either recommending retirement or a follow-up. A consensus is important as it reduces the risk of an athlete “shopping around” to get a favourable result if they want to continue playing.

.....

The AFL’s medical expert panel provides a recommendation to the player, but the ultimate decision rests with the athlete.

If the athlete chooses to ignore medical advice and continue to play, then there could be legal factors to consider for the player, their club and the club doctor.

As an employee of a club, an athlete is bound to comply with the legal obligations under the player’s employment contract and the collective bargaining agreement.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Also, that news sucks. He was a great player, and it's always good to see a rookie list success story.

It will suck not getting to see him play anymore, but mostly I just worry that he could be another Seedsman situation, where the damage is already done.
Thanks for one of the greatest memories by an oppo player

 
There we go. A textbook example of a Murdoch owned property putting out a story which misrepresents what actually happened, for the purpose of casting doubt on science as a whole (not to mention the notion of government regulation and oversight). A "quote" presented as a headline, which if you dig into it is actually a quote from someone else (a partisan politician no less) paraphrasing what he says Fauci said. The actual transcript wasn't released until months after the article came out, which put what he actually said into context.

But of course, most people just see the headline, and think "huh, I guess those kooky scientists were just wrong after all". And from there, it only depends how far down the conspiracy rabbit hole they are whether they attribute that to incompetency or malice.

The reality is that there is a strong relationship between the likelihood of transmission, and proximity to an infected person. This is the case for Covid, as it is for all viruses transmitted by aerosolised particles. This is undisputed. The further away from people you are, the less likely you are to become infected. Is six feet a magic number? No. But it's more effective than five feet, and less effective than seven feet.

The so-called "six foot rule" has nothing to do with Covid. It wasn't invented for Covid, it wasn't a result of study into Covid transmission. It is a general rule of thumb for viruses which has been around for more than a century. It's a sensible starting point which can then be modified as needed as more data is analysed for a given virus.

What actually happened here is that those people who were tasked with making public policy recommendations, quite rightly, recognised that the Covid pandemic, which was in the middle of becoming a global catastrophe, was being transmitted by aerosolised particles, and recommended that we all try to distance from other people to help limit the rate of infection. This was unquestionably correct advice to give, and the fact that I even need to make that argument is testament to the job the Murdoch press (and others) have done at casting doubt on science as a whole.

It was then the job of a policy maker to decide what to do with that advice. If you think the "punishments" (to the extent they existed at all) for not distancing sufficiently well were too harsh, that's where you should direct your ire. The scientists did their job extremely well, and should be lauded for it, rather than treated with scorn and suspicion.
The laugh reacts shows the emotional maturity of some.
 
No problem with Dangerfield. Champion over a long time. Gave his all while here.

The issue is we received inadequate compensation for him leaving (and this was known at the time). Can’t really blame Danger for that though, that’s on Geelong and Crows.

It was a flaw in the system at the time which has kind of been rectified now that you can trade multiple years of picks, just sucks that we were the Guinea pig for it.

Our options were hold him to his contract as a restricted free agent, and then go through the mess which would have eventuated, which likely would have been a worse outcome for us anyway, or trade him to the Cats.

At the time, you could only trade one year’s picks, so the Cats first rounder and a player who had promise at the time, albeit went nowhere, was really the best we could get. Had that happened now we would have received multiple first round picks.
 
Got to say, I am still a big Dangerfield fan.

He was always going home, and he gave our club his all. He is a thorough professional.

350 games is a great achievement, he has earnt all the accolades.
I wonder if Sloane and Tex (fortunately we have the bye, so he should have the night off) are over there for the game?

They were all pretty tight, so it seems appropriate. :thumbsu:
 

Remove this Banner Ad

It was a flaw in the system at the time which has kind of been rectified now that you can trade multiple years of picks, just sucks that we were the Guinea pig for it.

Our options were hold him to his contract as a restricted free agent, and then go through the mess which would have eventuated, which likely would have been a worse outcome for us anyway, or trade him to the Cats.

At the time, you could only trade one year’s picks, so the Cats first rounder and a player who had promise at the time, albeit went nowhere, was really the best we could get. Had that happened now we would have received multiple first round picks.
From memory Hawthorn didn't get fair compo for Buddy Franklin either?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion Non-Crows AFL 12: It's the confectionery with 1000 uses


Write your reply...

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top