Roast Our Medical Staff

[BRWB]

If the Doctor's priority was the health and wellbeing of players and it was completely uncompromised then they'd advise every player against taking the field ever. I'd strongly advise my son against it and if he wants to play sport I'd prefer it to be tennis. But I also hold libertarian values regarding how people treat their own bodies. If a player is willing to sacrifice their future health for the pay, glory, memories etc. then I'm glad that they have that option.

In my opinion the role of the Doctors in sport should be to advise the players and coaching staff of the risks involved but ultimately they shouldn't be dictating many decisions. It shouldn't function like a Doctor/patient relationship because their duty of care is too compromised. We all know that under normal circumstances Dale Morris shouldn't have been playing with a broken back. Is a Doctor supposed to factor in whether it's a Grand Final when signing off on a player returning to the field? The way I think it should play out is the Doctors should be providing accurate information to players and coaches and leaving the decision making to others. However, I can see merit to Doctors having the authority to stop a player from taking the field but it should only be used in extreme circumstances of gross negligence.

There is an unspoken agreement that we have to allow players to be exposed to harm. The players welfare is not the AFL's ultimate priority and this is demonstrably true. If you need evidence of that consider the fact that the "speccy" is legal in the game. It goes against every platitude we hear about protecting heads but because it provides tremendous spectacle we make an exception.

Ultimately it's a balancing act between protecting players welfare when practical with ensuring the product is viable. These two considerations are almost always in conflict with each other. The best case scenario is that everyone is well informed of any risks they consent to and the costs later in life. If they deem that the money and other considerations are adequate compensation then that's their decision to make.

Excellent post.

Legally there is a duty of care for dr, club and code to the player. Where that line is drawn will change as knowledge grows and society changes. Society already makes allowances for pro sport, for instance pro athletes are excluded from claiming workers compensation

A great example is Dusty Martin not playing this week due to new concussion protocols. It reduces the spectacle and I have no doubt that the public,, club and player would prefer he played. He would have been allowed to play even 2 years ago. He won't. And that is an example of the code protecting player. Although in reality the code is protecting itself form a massive legal suit.

I would say that it would take the code similarly enforcing the non return of players to the ground after major joint injuries or dislocations. Club Drs may not as they are compromised. But that doesn't mean drs should not be questioned about their decisions to allow players to play on. And it doesn't matter if those people questioning are medically trained, the jurors and judges deciding negligence cases on drs won't be either.

 

[DelRe]

If the Doctor's priority was the health and wellbeing of players and it was completely uncompromised then they'd advise every player against taking the field ever. I'd strongly advise my son against it and if he wants to play sport I'd prefer it to be tennis. But I also hold libertarian values regarding how people treat their own bodies. If a player is willing to sacrifice their future health for the pay, glory, memories etc. then I'm glad that they have that option.

In my opinion the role of the Doctors in sport should be to advise the players and coaching staff of the risks involved but ultimately they shouldn't be dictating many decisions. It shouldn't function like a Doctor/patient relationship because their duty of care is too compromised. We all know that under normal circumstances Dale Morris shouldn't have been playing with a broken back. Is a Doctor supposed to factor in whether it's a Grand Final when signing off on a player returning to the field? The way I think it should play out is the Doctors should be providing accurate information to players and coaches and leaving the decision making to others. However, I can see merit to Doctors having the authority to stop a player from taking the field but it should only be used in extreme circumstances of gross negligence.

There is an unspoken agreement that we have to allow players to be exposed to harm. The players welfare is not the AFL's ultimate priority and this is demonstrably true. If you need evidence of that consider the fact that the "speccy" is legal in the game. It goes against every platitude we hear about protecting heads but because it provides tremendous spectacle we make an exception.

Ultimately it's a balancing act between protecting players welfare when practical with ensuring the product is viable. These two considerations are almost always in conflict with each other. The best case scenario is that everyone is well informed of any risks they consent to and the costs later in life. If they deem that the money and other considerations are adequate compensation then that's their decision to make.

So it out my account still active. Just wandered back in and have to say this is a terrible take that completely misses the point. Sending a fit Dunkley to play a full game is no comparison with allowing an injured Dunkley back on with five minutes left in a game already won with zero benefit to an important player or the team or the spectacle of the game.

Don’t need a medical degree to work out it was just a dumb decision that lacked common sense.

Who cares if it was the doctor or some other staff - not really interested in the blame game - just explain the advantage of going back on the field in that scenario? That’s the only real question - whether your kids would play footy or not or whether it is an inherently risky game is irrelevant to this issue.

 

[Sentinel]

I understand there's been a fair amount of criticism from some in this thread about the decision to send Dunkley back on, but do we actually know if surgery only became necessary after he popped it out the second time? Of course it won't have helped, but my uneducated take is that it was already damaged from the first dislocation and therefore not much changed from doing it again?

 

[DelRe]

I understand there's been a fair amount of criticism from some in this thread about the decision to send Dunkley back on, but do we actually know if surgery only became necessary after he popped it out the second time? Of course it won't have helped, but my uneducated take is that it was already damaged from the first dislocation and therefore not much changed from doing it again?

To me this is irrelevant. Forget about generalizing about other scenarios and players playing injured etc. We are talking about a game where the result was settled, little time left, a known significant injury to an important player.

All you’re saying is ‘maybe’ it didn’t make it medically worse. That’s not the question - the question is what was the possible intention or benefit in sending someone out in that scenario? How did it benefit the team, the player or the game?

It’s not even a medical question it’s just basic risk evaluation and common sense.

It was a dumb decision. Football clubs make them - just look at Adelaide and their emergency - don’t know why we need to rationalize otherwise.

 

[Mantis Toboggan]

To me this is irrelevant. Forget about generalizing about other scenarios and players playing injured etc. We are talking about a game where the result was settled, little time left, a known significant injury to an important player.

All you’re saying is ‘maybe’ it didn’t make it medically worse. That’s not the question - the question is what was the possible intention or benefit in sending someone out in that scenario? How did it benefit the team, the player or the game?

It’s not even a medical question it’s just basic risk evaluation and common sense.

It was a dumb decision. Football clubs make them - just look at Adelaide and their emergency - don’t know why we need to rationalize otherwise.

The result was not settled - let’s get that one straight. There was 15 points in it and 8 minutes left when he first went off.

 

[DelRe]

The result was not settled - let’s get that one straight. There was 15 points in it and 8 minutes left when he first went off.

Look if that’s enough to convince you it wasn’t a dumb decision, or that the game wasn’t over, that’s your opinion.

My response would be he left the field with 5 mins to go when 27 points up just after Libba’s goal, so why would he be on the field at that point?

Even if you think the game wasn’t over (don’t agree given the state of the game at that point) - why do you need him back out within 2 minutes of playing time of first injuring it? We couldn’t say, hang on, let’s see how we’re going before we worry about you needing to be on the field?

 

[Mantis Toboggan]

Look if that’s enough to convince you it wasn’t a dumb decision, or that the game wasn’t over, that’s your opinion.

My response would be he left the field with 5 mins to go when 27 points up just after Libba’s goal, so why would he be on the field at that point?

Even if you think the game wasn’t over (don’t agree given the state of the game at that point) - why do you need him back out within 2 minutes of playing time of first injuring it? We couldn’t say, hang on, let’s see how we’re going before we worry about you needing to be on the field?

I’m not offering my opinion because I don’t have all the facts. Just about the only fact we do have is that the game wasn’t settled - so let’s not state the opposite because it suits our argument.

 

[DelRe]

I’m not offering my opinion because I don’t have all the facts. Just about the only fact we do have is that the game wasn’t settled - so let’s not state the opposite because it suits our argument.

Two things. One, when he went off the first time is irrelevant. It’s about when he went back. So you’re tweaking the facts for your own argument. Second you are offering an opinion that the game wasn’t settled (while passing it off as a fact).

If you think that enough reason to send him back out that’s your opinion and you’d end up making the same dumb decision that was made.

No one seems capable of answering the question of what the benefit of him being back on the field was. Which means there was zero benefit and only potential cost. Hence dumb decision.

An argument it saved the game somehow is just clutching at straws or desperate to avoid saying the team made an error of judgment.

 

[ScragCity]

Just to make it clear:

Dunkley came back on with exactly 7:00 left on the clock and the margin was 14 points. He came on while the game was paused for English to come off.

 

[Bald]

Just to make it clear:

Dunkley came back on with exactly 7:00 left on the clock and the margin was 14 points. He came on while the game was paused for English to come off.

I was at the game. Josh wanted to come back on and my understanding is that surgery was inevitable even after it popped out the first time.

I don't have an issue with him coming back on.

 

[ScragCity]

I was at the game. Josh wanted to come back on and my understanding is that surgery was inevitable even after it popped out the first time.

I don't have an issue with him coming back on.

I know probably less than the average punter about dislocated shoulders but considering how easily it popped out the second time then it's reasonable to assume the shoulder was screwed after the first incident.

 

[Bald]

I know probably less than the average punter about dislocated shoulders but considering how easily it popped out the second time then it's reasonable to assume the shoulder was screwed after the first incident.

Precisely.

 

[DelRe]

Just to make it clear:

Dunkley came back on with exactly 7:00 left on the clock and the margin was 14 points. He came on while the game was paused for English to come off.

40 seconds later the “game is over” to quote the commentator.

I love the idea that debating whether the game had been genuinely won or not at that point is somehow a determinative factor and central to my point and not just a distraction from answering what the benefit of being on the field was.

I get it’s just your schtick to troll and stir in your posts without ever adding anything though.

 

[Bald]

40 seconds later the “game is over” to quote the commentator.

I love the idea that debating whether the game had been genuinely won or not at that point is somehow a determinative factor and central to my point and not just a distraction from answering what the benefit of being on the field was.

I get it’s just your schtick to troll and stir in your posts without ever adding anything though.

Nothing I saw in Scrag's post that you quoted suggested to me he was trolling?

The margin was 14 points with 7 minutes to go. Dunkley was on the bench and saw English go down which would've been our third significant injury of the night and he felt like he could go back on to help out as he knew the damage to his shoulder wouldn't be any worse whether it popped out again or not.

You've answered your own question though. 40 seconds later the game was over. So prior to Dunkley going back on the game wasn't over and was very much alive given how close it had been to that point. Dunkley also had a part to play in the clearance that led to that goal being kicked, which led to the commentator's comments so I'd suggest he achieved exactly what he wanted to achieve by going back on injured.

 

[immortalmike]

In no part of society are doctors able to overrule a person's decision about their own health unless they are cognitively compromised.
The doctor can give them all the relevant information available and an opinion but it is the individual's decision what they do.
Dunkley would've made the decision to come back on.

 

[DelRe]

Nothing I saw in Scrag's post that you quoted suggested to me he was trolling?

The margin was 14 points with 7 minutes to go. Dunkley was on the bench and saw English go down which would've been our third significant injury of the night and he felt like he could go back on to help out as he knew the damage to his shoulder wouldn't be any worse whether it popped out again or not.

You've answered your own question though. 40 seconds later the game was over. So prior to Dunkley going back on the game wasn't over and was very much alive given how close it had been to that point. Dunkley also had a part to play in the clearance that led to that goal being kicked, which led to the commentator's comments so I'd suggest he achieved exactly what he wanted to achieve by going back on injured.

No, Dunkley literally had no involvement in McNeils goal or the clearance preceding it. Could’ve easily sent out an uninjured VDM.

Could’ve easily taken Dunkley straight off as well after the goal on your logic if it was all about saving the game.

So does nothing to answer my question at all as I can’t see any benefit to having sent him out and it was a dumb decision.

So the only counter argument was ‘couldn’t make it worse’ and ‘this is a really critical moment in the game that it’s worth sending him out in front of an injured player’. If that’s it I’m out and off BF for another 5 months.

 

[maddog37]

No, Dunkley literally had no involvement in McNeils goal or the clearance preceding it. Could’ve easily sent out an uninjured VDM.

Could’ve easily taken Dunkley straight off as well after the goal on your logic if it was all about saving the game.

So does nothing to answer my question at all as I can’t see any benefit to having sent him out and it was a dumb decision.

So the only counter argument was ‘couldn’t make it worse’ and ‘this is a really critical moment in the game that it’s worth sending him out in front of an injured player’. If that’s it I’m out and off BF for another 5 months.

We get your point. You’ve made up your mind. All is ok.

 

[Mantis Toboggan]

Second you are offering an opinion that the game wasn’t settled (while passing it off as a fact).

It’s not my opinion though is it. With 7 or 8 minutes to go, the game wasn’t settled. Fact.

I haven’t even offered my opinion so you’re doing incredibly well to generate an argument with me here.

 

[Bald]

No, Dunkley literally had no involvement in McNeils goal or the clearance preceding it. Could’ve easily sent out an uninjured VDM.

Could’ve easily taken Dunkley straight off as well after the goal on your logic if it was all about saving the game.

So does nothing to answer my question at all as I can’t see any benefit to having sent him out and it was a dumb decision.

So the only counter argument was ‘couldn’t make it worse’ and ‘this is a really critical moment in the game that it’s worth sending him out in front of an injured player’. If that’s it I’m out and off BF for another 5 months.

Except he put an attempted smother on the bloke handballing it which definitely could've been a factor in the fact that said handball went to ground which resulted in a goal.

 

[ScragCity]

No, Dunkley literally had no involvement in McNeils goal or the clearance preceding it. Could’ve easily sent out an uninjured VDM.

Could’ve easily taken Dunkley straight off as well after the goal on your logic if it was all about saving the game.

So does nothing to answer my question at all as I can’t see any benefit to having sent him out and it was a dumb decision.

So the only counter argument was ‘couldn’t make it worse’ and ‘this is a really critical moment in the game that it’s worth sending him out in front of an injured player’. If that’s it I’m out and off BF for another 5 months.

 

[Doggies1972]

And here I was when I woke up this morning thinking.... What can I whinge and get upset about today.