QFA Div 2 North

[LaggingBehind]

AFL really good at introducing new mandatory rules and poor old club volunteers have to work out how to impose them.

Why don’t AFL pay for people from local community that can be independent and do the role of ground Marshall and concussion assessment.

Give them some training and they come with umpires? Surely we have retired umpires/players or just retired football people that could do with extra cash.

Maybe AFL start funding some of their mandates.

Good idea but you’re dreaming if you think that running community footy is a priority for the AFL ahead of the woke moral mandate. Exhibit A is how the PlayHq platform was delivered.

 

[StillGotIt]

you have a 'woke moral' objection to playhq?

 

[LaggingBehind]

you have a 'woke moral' objection to playhq?

I was suggesting that their woke agenda gets priority to a clean roll out of PlayHq, their main operating platform.

 

[smy1305]

I don’t disagree but you need to be very careful how much is put on volunteers at local level to be the judge of medical issues when the elite level have experienced & qualified persons on hand for immediate & referral decision making plus education sessions for the players. At times you’re lucky to get some local players to training let alone getting them educated.

I think as a coach it will come down to what your medics on hand say and the player getting a clearance from a medical professional. Now if they can do this then good luck to them and not much anyone can do about it. Same as if a player decides to lie about symptoms. But if a bloke is obviously knocked out for anyone to see and saddles up the next week then all hell should break loose.

 

[smy1305]

Again I don’t disagree but imo there are plenty more old guys limping around with knees etc so is the local coach now going to tell players when they have to stop playing the game at a certain age, fitness level or injury?

The association needs to set up a clear path process to subsidized medical assessment from the appropriate physicians.(I know there exists a loose outline now)

BTW how come the elite stay at 12 days off and local is 3 weeks?

Not sure a bung knee for life sits in the same category as a brain condition that leads down the mental health route.

 

[smy1305]

at what point does personal responsibility come into play?

mandatory 21 days will make (some) players fearful of even being checked for a concussion if they know the outcome is 3 weeks on the sideline, even moreso for teenage boys who are prone to silly decisions

Thats where hopefully responsible parents step in Miller. And if they don't get a medical clearance from a doctor after being removed from the field of play due to a head knock then they can't play. It's actually fairly b&w I think.

 

[smy1305]

there is nothing more certain that some players won't get checked out just before finals if they cop a head knock that isn't an immediately obvious concussion. not saying it'd be bright to do so, but when a flag is in the offing - even at community level - the long term can often be set aside

100% lensen - but if a guy has been removed from the ground due to a head knock it doesn't become a choice thing - it's mandatory to get a check up. The loop hole is local club medics can be hard to find and therefore who is going to manage these situations.
TBH this is no different to any other year except there is a definite figure in place.
No doubt there will be people getting around it - my point initially was that an AFL player removed himself from the ground during a GF in Q1 - unbelievable tbh. Then another guy retires in his prime. This is the sort of stuff that might make the local bloke seriously consider what is more important to them?

 

[LaggingBehind]

Not sure a bung knee for life sits in the same category as a brain condition that leads down the mental health route.

Do you automatically get a brain condition and mental heath issues with concussions?

 

[freddyfudrucker]

The bloke in his prime gets a $3 mil payout.

Hopefully clubs stop these ridiculous 5, 7, year contracts

 

[Longy_Zillmere]

How’s the irony of Gary Ablett Snr suing the AFL etc for his concussions, while he dished out probably more of them than any other bloke in the 90’s.

 

[smy1305]

How’s the irony of Gary Ablett Snr suing the AFL etc for his concussions, while he dished out probably more of them than any other bloke in the 90’s.

He won't have a chance of winning either - can't go boxing post career and say my head knocks during AFL career were the cause.

It's also pre the times when much of this info was known therefore duty of care isn't diminished by asking players to play on so to speak. It's not dissimilar to James hardie and asbestos - once it was known what impact asbestos had JH was responsible for every person post these studies. It is really the players who played from approx mid 90's onwards who will have any chance of winning a claim and even then only if the league can show that they didn't act appropriately with treatment.

 

[smy1305]

The bloke in his prime gets a $3 mil payout.

Hopefully clubs stop these ridiculous 5, 7, year contracts

Yea thats true but all the same he would be preferring to play I think.

 

[smy1305]

Do you automatically get a brain condition and mental heath issues with concussions?

No - but its like saying do you automatically get cancer from smoking. Basically the odds of obtaining a mental health condition or worse is significantly higher.

 

[smy1305]

Obviously not every person is going to be protected under whatever rules / restrictions are put in place. I suppose the code is trying to spread the net as far as possible with this mandate. Legally I imagine as well that they now abrogate some responsibility for whatever condition a person suffers from in 10 years time by putting it back on clubs / doctors to say "well did you have a 21 day rest period as mandated"??? If not then no case to answer I think.

 

[freddyfudrucker]

So then it goes back on to the clubs and the volunteers to be sued next

 

[Backpocket101]

See Moreton Bay and Redcliffe played in their yearly pre season cup. Moreton reserves won by about a 100. However Moreton just got over the line in the seniors by 3 points I think.

 

[Pugs]

Great contest out at MB. Always a good day. Congratulations to the Lions on their 11th straight victory. For the 2nd time in 3 outings I reckon there were some nervous moments late in the game.

I know theres a trophy up for grabs, but as far as a trial game goes we take a lot of learnings out of the game against a Div 1 club.

 

[stilloutandabout]

Watched a bit of Zillmere and Wynnum today.
Hoping they both had a lot unavailable.


On CPH2483 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[smy1305]

So then it goes back on to the clubs and the volunteers to be sued next

Nup - that wouldn't happen bc they are covered by AFLQ jurisdiction. Can't successfully sue someone if they are doing the right thing too.

 

[LaggingBehind]

Nup - that wouldn't happen bc they are covered by AFLQ jurisdiction. Can't successfully sue someone if they are doing the right thing too.

Not sure that’s 100% accurate & fail proof. Whilst I agree that most will act in best intentions your suggestion is that everyone will be across the matter perfectly and that is simply not possible in all cases.

All the education and pamphlets/emails from Head Office is about ensuring head office doesn’t get sued and ensuring their lawyers can stand in court to say “Your honour, we did all we could do”. Head office shows the evidence they’ve provided all the information & protocols to the club nominated persons & committees and therefore opens up the club to potential negligence. Then the club does the same and suddenly the volunteer needs to demonstrate that they’re qualified, educated & acted perfectly.

I'd be out sourcing that function if I was on a committee. Just another cost.

 

[smy1305]

Not sure that’s 100% accurate & fail proof. Whilst I agree that most will act in best intentions your suggestion is that everyone will be across the matter perfectly and that is simply not possible in all cases.

All the education and pamphlets/emails from Head Office is about ensuring head office doesn’t get sued and ensuring their lawyers can stand in court to say “Your honour, we did all we could do”. Head office shows the evidence they’ve provided all the information & protocols to the club nominated persons & committees and therefore opens up the club to potential negligence. Then the club does the same and suddenly the volunteer needs to demonstrate that they’re qualified, educated & acted perfectly.

I'd be out sourcing that function if I was on a committee. Just another cost.

Nah to me it's no different to 1st aid and the good samaritan law - as long as the volunteer has acted to the best of their knowledge and abilities then no recourse. Look I might be wrong but I think we are jumping to worst case scenario here.

Taking last years Div 3 GF where maroochydore played a bloke who was allegedly wobbly as the preceding week but somehow managed to get a medical clearance - well thats on the doctor, not a club person.

I think you are mistaking that a club volunteer will be responsible for deciding whether a player has had a concussion or not. The symptoms and signs will decide this and the player him/herself. All a club will have to do is ensure that the player has 21 days off IF they are diagnosed with a concussion.

 

[LaggingBehind]

Nah to me it's no different to 1st aid and the good samaritan law - as long as the volunteer has acted to the best of their knowledge and abilities then no recourse. Look I might be wrong but I think we are jumping to worst case scenario here.

Taking last years Div 3 GF where maroochydore played a bloke who was allegedly wobbly as the preceding week but somehow managed to get a medical clearance - well thats on the doctor, not a club person.

Not sure that example is that straight forward any more SMY. It goes beyond 1st aid who just identify and refer. It’s the decision to play the following week by the club. As you’ve now moved the discussion to who has liability then consider this:

For starters, I highly doubt that any doctor fudges their diagnosis and can’t produce meticulous records, if ever called upon, to support that their analysis was on all the information they were provided by the patient. I dare say they’re not covered by their insurance for dodgy diagnosis and have serious disciplinary consequences if they did. So I doubt they submit as easily as you suggest. Suddenly there is the requirement to produce the 1st aid analysis report.

Secondly you argued a few comments back how super serious all this was for player welfare as priority. So if that player does have those further serious issues as you outlined and that prevents their work and livelihood then they surely chase someone for money. If the doctor is squeaky clean, then they’ll come knocking at the club.

They potentially engage a lawyer who gets some eyewitnesses to say that the player had obvious symptoms in the preceding game (friends will sign to ensure he gets $) and potentially he even states that he was sent by the club volunteer to get the doctors clearance even though he had all the symptoms. Not sure that looks good on the club.

The lawyer identifies Marsh/JLT for public liability as the cash cow. Not sure you’d want to be that club volunteer being interviewed by insurance claim assessor on what occurred and that prevented the Marsh/JLT payment.

Either this is the super serious issue that you said earlier, or it’s not.

 

[Baz]

The extremely challenging position for clubs / AFLQ to manage is the player who had all the signs or symptoms of a concussion, yet presents to training with a letter from a doctor saying the player has no symptoms of having incurred a concussive event and therefore is medically cleared to play! Very challenging for a club to say to a player we are overriding a doctors professional assessment and not allowing you to play the next two games!

 

[Chucky_23]

i can't recall ever seeing a water carrier do anything wrong other than perhaps the occasional 'coaching' which is a no no, but really - who gives a s**t?

Actually saw an Aspley water carrier (older brother) try and punch a kid in a game last season and he got suspended for a few weeks. But, agree not usually an issue. Also though, kids don't really need water or can run to their water bottle
on the sideline if needed as most did during peak covid. If it reduces the load on team managers trying to fill volunteer roles then worth it I think. I run out there after every goal offering water and most don't take it anyway

 

[smy1305]

The extremely challenging position for clubs / AFLQ to manage is the player who had all the signs or symptoms of a concussion, yet presents to training with a letter from a doctor saying the player has no symptoms of having incurred a concussive event and therefore is medically cleared to play! Very challenging for a club to say to a player we are overriding a doctors professional assessment and not allowing you to play the next two games!

Yes indeed that could be an issue - but if a doctor has signed it off, the player wants to play, then unless the club itself has a doctor who the player presented to on the day, they are in the clear. Some clubs I am sure will tell the player "don't be ridiculous, and give us the name of your doctor" but bottom line is once a doctor signs away to say clear to play then that's that. Goes for all medical situations in life, not sure why local community AFL footy is any different.