Injury Polly Farmer Had CTE

Remove this Banner Ad

Max Milburn said:
Helmets are not the best protection for CTE.
They can make it worse.
That was my one and only point.
Click to expand...
Note my quotes here...'protection' in inverted commas....
The best that people can come up with was also mentioned
I then went on to say that gel integrated sports gear was in the pipeline in an attempt to minimise effects of impact.
No one debates the 'sloshing around' effect This debate is not new, especially in NFL . Certainly headgear is still worn by people who are, one would assume, receiving advice from people who still consider the protection afforded by their headgear is better than nothing.
Also worth mentioning that those articles are mainly orientated towards American football where people deliberately line each other up for hits on a bone jarringly regular basis.
Much of the contact in our game is incidental so I can't see the effect of players perceived 'invulnerability' having a huge effect .
Hard nuts who go in hard, will always go in hard.
As I said, for our game, changes in the rules and interpretation will probably be how it plays out.
 
pollywaffle said:
Note my quotes here...'protection' in inverted commas....
The best that people can come up with was also mentioned
I then went on to say that gel integrated sports gear was in the pipeline in an attempt to minimise effects of impact.
No one debates the 'sloshing around' effect This debate is not new, especially in NFL . Certainly headgear is still worn by people who are, one would assume, receiving advice from people who still consider the protection afforded by their headgear is better than nothing.
Also worth mentioning that those articles are mainly orientated towards American football where people deliberately line each other up for hits on a bone jarringly regular basis.
Much of the contact in our game is incidental so I can't see the effect of players perceived 'invulnerability' having a huge effect .
Hard nuts who go in hard, will always go in hard.
As I said, for our game, changes in the rules and interpretation will probably be how it plays out.
Click to expand...
Once again, I don't dispute anything you have said about potential changes to our game EXCEPT the idea that helmets are effective protection for CTE.
It's not better than nothing, and several studies from the only sport similar to ours that have been wearing helmets for decades show this.
 
I played football through high school. I had my bell rung a couple of times, mostly from helmet on helmet contact. IMO they are not much more than crash helmets. They protect against direct, blunt force contact to the skull. Your neck absorbs much of the force, or your spine if it's lined up through the top of the helmet. Your head still feels impact force, much like boxers feel through the thickest of sparring gloves(I've done martial arts with live sparring). The head moves violently from the impact. Football players get some kind of impact to the head many times a game and they are not all high speed. Mike Webster, whose story was an impetus for the initial studies, played center. Not a lot of running at that position, but every play there was some contact as he blocked opponents, head slaps included.
The only helmet that can truly protect against CTE is one that would absorb and dissipate the force enough for the head not to feel any of it and move in reaction to that force. Can't see that technology happening.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Spearman said:
I played football through high school. I had my bell rung a couple of times, mostly from helmet on helmet contact. IMO they are not much more than crash helmets. They protect against direct, blunt force contact to the skull. Your neck absorbs much of the force, or your spine if it's lined up through the top of the helmet. Your head still feels impact force, much like boxers feel through the thickest of sparring gloves(I've done martial arts with live sparring). The head moves violently from the impact. Football players get some kind of impact to the head many times a game and they are not all high speed. Mike Webster, whose story was an impetus for the initial studies, played center. Not a lot of running at that position, but every play there was some contact as he blocked opponents, head slaps included.
The only helmet that can truly protect against CTE is one that would absorb and dissipate the force enough for the head not to feel any of it and move in reaction to that force. Can't see that technology happening.
Click to expand...
In SF books, they fill the skull cavity with gel to prevent the brain crashing against the skull.
It seems to work OK in the books, don't know why they don't try it.
 
Max Milburn said:
Once again, I don't dispute anything you have said about potential changes to our game EXCEPT the idea that helmets are effective protection for CTE.
It's not better than nothing, and several studies from the only sport similar to ours that have been wearing helmets for decades show this.
Click to expand...
I agree. I am no defender of helmets, especially the type seen in American football. My argument at the start was more about how impending law suits and research will push inexorably towards player protection, or at least the appearance of the 'employers' (ie AFL ) doing their best to minimise harm.. just what that entails is yet to be seen. Some form of headgear may indeed be part of that unless developing research definitively rules it out.
Seeing as you are obviously a 'nit picker' I think that saying grid iron is a sport similar to ours is a stretch. Lets start a long to and fro about that if you like.
 
This has made the radio unbearable for the last couple of days.
If you get hit in the head heaps it can f**k up your brain.
Sort of had this one figured out already.
 
m2XaTJq.jpg


:thumbsu:
 
pollywaffle said:
I agree. I am no defender of helmets, especially the type seen in American football. My argument at the start was more about how impending law suits and research will push inexorably towards player protection, or at least the appearance of the 'employers' (ie AFL ) doing their best to minimise harm.. just what that entails is yet to be seen. Some form of headgear may indeed be part of that unless developing research definitively rules it out.
Seeing as you are obviously a 'nit picker' I think that saying grid iron is a sport similar to ours is a stretch. Lets start a long to and fro about that if you like.
Click to expand...
The nits are on the front line of this war. I fear for their safety!:)
 
frggr said:
The AFL will probably tip toe around these sorts of things, given some of the rumoured class action stuff in the offing.

John Barnes is another player who's struggled big time post-football with head injury repercussions
Click to expand...
In Barnes case, there are likely several "other" factors that affect brain function
 
Turbocat said:
The callous part of footy doesnt want to think about injuries that do not fix with a few weeks off, traditionally if you could hurt a player to see him not play out the game then you would see it done, no one would to hurt anyone long term but out of commisshion for a couple of hours, Perfect.

Now, we are seeing plenty of injuries do not heal. There is something insidious about head knocks. A sore leg or a back or whatever..its to some degree still the same person... but head injuries changes people. There is something particularly sad look at guys like Ali etc near the end. Plenty of people see it every day , one does not have to have had football knocks for people to have issues like Parkinsons or Dementia , I can hardly think getting whack in the head would be good for you. Accident knocks will happen but the days big hist should just about be done. The history like Picket or Ablett are gone, but even a normal hip and should has to be questioned. Perhaps we have leave some element of physical to that for some other sports like mixed arts or boxing.

Now there would be some who would say , don't change the game or it will be become a weak game, I wonder if we have no choice. Some of this is self inflicted, contributions to these injuries football players drinking and who knows what else but the game has to be responsible for its own contributions.
Denial sounds only like the 7 dwarfs of the Tobacco industry , denying issues it caused.

It appears lot of players have paid the price for making the game what it is. Im not one for mixing social issues with football but this is one area I think the game is duty bound to ensure a safe work environment , "as much as possible". It will never be totally safe, and most accept that but one should aim and strife for as safe as we can get it. Just like F1 drivers do not rely on haybales or what ever to hopefully soften their crashes, they make the tracks safer, made the cars safer..... the game has to look at the trying to keep 95% of the game , if that means certain changes then thats what they will have to look at.

I loved the old era of big hits and crunchs as much as anyone but one has to start to thinking about those hits in a differnt a manor. Once it was just a laugh about driving home full as a goose, no longer. A mindset change on the actions on field must occur. Just what are we barrackng for? Yes hit him into some brain damage? It should be looked down on as irresponsible.

Only those who saw Polly may know , did he get taken out with bumps?. It would not surprise me that his issues relate to normal ruck contests in that era were methods were used to reduce his talent.

I think the game has to be duty bound to take care of its ex players ..and at the same time it has to look at players now. Women are playing the game in higher numbers than era. We could be looking huge issues if changes are not made in the way players respect each other in play.

Personally, the way to change on field behaviour is to punish on field. Dangerious hits that give the other side a shot goal would see all players be hesitant to not take extra care of their fellow players. That would be drastic but it would show a level of intent from administration.
Click to expand...
Friday night's game was a great spectacle, and zero injuries.
THAT should be how the game is played, a spectacle with high scoring, bruise free, minimal risk of injury footy.
The coaches want the contact, the defensive mindset, the win at all costs.
That comes with all sorts of injuries, survival of the fittest, plenty of attrition.
 
Vdubs said:
Friday night's game was a great spectacle, and zero injuries.
THAT should be how the game is played, a spectacle with high scoring, bruise free, minimal risk of injury footy.
The coaches want the contact, the defensive mindset, the win at all costs.
That comes with all sorts of injuries, survival of the fittest, plenty of attrition.
Click to expand...

I don't want players getting injured, but that sort of bruise free footy would get very boring very quickly if you ask me. I was honestly bored in the last quarter on Friday night.

Personally I like where the game is at, where the AFL is trying to keep the head protected but none of that bruise free stuff.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Vdubs said:
Friday night's game was a great spectacle, and zero injuries.
THAT should be how the game is played, a spectacle with high scoring, bruise free, minimal risk of injury footy.
The coaches want the contact, the defensive mindset, the win at all costs.
That comes with all sorts of injuries, survival of the fittest, plenty of attrition.
Click to expand...
It use to be a mans game.
 
Vdubs said:
Friday night's game was a great spectacle, and zero injuries.
THAT should be how the game is played, a spectacle with high scoring, bruise free, minimal risk of injury footy.
The coaches want the contact, the defensive mindset, the win at all costs.
That comes with all sorts of injuries, survival of the fittest, plenty of attrition.
Click to expand...

WE have to find a way to be more than Fri night yet not have head hits. Fri night was going to the circus to watch the trapeze act ride the bike , juggle , do flips , triple summersaults ..all the tricks... its just the cable they were walking on was only a foot off the ground. Not quite the same without the danger part.
 
Last edited:
Vdubs said:
Friday night's game was a great spectacle, and zero injuries.
THAT should be how the game is played, a spectacle with high scoring, bruise free, minimal risk of injury footy.
The coaches want the contact, the defensive mindset, the win at all costs.
That comes with all sorts of injuries, survival of the fittest, plenty of attrition.
Click to expand...
Not sure how many would support the bruise free comment, Vdubs. Certainly there needs to be more protection for the head.

Enormous credit to the Farmer family for allowing the autopsy. Possibly has done more to focus attention on head trauma than any other single act.
 
AM said:
Not sure how many would support the bruise free comment, Vdubs. Certainly there needs to be more protection for the head.

Enormous credit to the Farmer family for allowing the autopsy. Possibly has done more to focus attention on head trauma than any other single act.
Click to expand...
I want to see fast, skilful, tough football, of the sort we played in 2007/2008.

I think most people would say the same.

But I don't want to see people die prematurely for it; and I don't want to see players suffering from the premature "living death" of dementia or of the similar/associated CTE either.

And I don't know what the solution is.
 
FredLeDeux said:
I want to see fast, skilful, tough football, of the sort we played in 2007/2008.

I think most people would say the same.

But I don't want to see people die prematurely for it; and I don't want to see players suffering from the premature "living death" of dementia or of the similar/associated CTE either.

And I don't know what the solution is.
Click to expand...
Sort of what I was getting at Frederick.
 
Last edited:
FredLeDeux said:
I want to see fast, skilful, tough football, of the sort we played in 2007/2008.

I think most people would say the same.

But I don't want to see people die prematurely for it; and I don't want to see players suffering from the premature "living death" of dementia or of the similar/associated CTE either.

And I don't know what the solution is.
Click to expand...
I know it'll come as surprise to you but I got a fair few head knocks playing footy.
The best thing they've done is ban sling tackles IMO. They hurt! the most & you really are rattled for a couple of weeks.
Maybe longer bans for that.
Another thing is if say, you elbow a blokes head into a point post while he's bent over you get more than a couple of weeks.
Big name or not.
Marking contests and that I dunno. They're not gonna ban speccies. Not much you can do.
 
Last edited:
Vdubs said:
Friday night's game was a great spectacle, and zero injuries.
THAT should be how the game is played, a spectacle with high scoring, bruise free, minimal risk of injury footy.
The coaches want the contact, the defensive mindset, the win at all costs.
That comes with all sorts of injuries, survival of the fittest, plenty of attrition.
Click to expand...
I agree. Tackling is boring as batshit. Tackle numbers really only became a thing after Sydney in 2005.
A good run down is great to see but bar that it's dull and slow.
 
Spazz Cat said:
I know it'll come as surprise to you but I got a fair few head knocks playing footy.
The best thing they've done is ban sling tackles IMO. They hurt! the most & you really are rattled for a couple of weeks.
Maybe longer bans for that.
Another thing is if say, you elbow a blokes head into a point post while he's bent over you get more than a couple of weeks.
Big name or not.
Marking contests and that I dunno. They're not gonna speccies. Not much you can do.
Click to expand...
I had a couple of cases of concussion, both from whiplash after being barrelled from behind.
It must have jerked things around a bit, because I was generally regarded as a bit slow previously.
 
Spazz Cat said:
I agree. Tackling is boring as batshit. Tackle numbers really only became a thing after Sydney in 2005.
A good run down is great to see but bar that it's dull and slow.
Click to expand...
Tackling is fine, none better than Danger on Friday.
It's the shirtfronts that fracture collar bones or cause head high tackles.
Our players are not protected like the Grid- Iron players, and our injury rates continue to escalate as the speed of the game increases.
Spoke to many A League people this weekend who ordinarily don't love AFL, but so many were super impressed by the display of gut running, speed, skills and goal scoring on Friday night.
It was easy to watch.
The only negative comments were how ridiculously long that game was. Finished by about 11 pm. Unnecessary 32 minute quarters for a display game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top