The obvious solution to concussions in AFL that no want's to say

[Hoop1888]

Gaelic football is like this and it's fine.

Nah, it's played at a high pace, you can shoulder (to shoulder) someone blindsided and they can still hit their head on the surface. Also when contesting for a high ball you can accidentally on purpose swing arm someone.

Have read a neurologist state if you've had one concussion, you've had one concussion too many. Athletes are getting faster and stronger than they were 15-20 years ago, as will the hits in contact sports.

 

[deck]

Helmets don’t prevent concussions.

They’re been wearing them for decades in the NFL and that sport has as many concussions as any.

Interesting that the NFL now have Guardian Caps that is a soft shell cap that attaches to the normal helmet. They have been mandated for certain positions for practice for years now. And as of last year were allowed to be worn in games.

There is data over 3 years that shows players of a certain position who did and didn't wear one. And the players who did have shown a 50% less likely to get concussion.

But obviously this is worn over a hard shell helmet on not worn directly on your head.

 

[nipst@r]

Does anyone think the current bs suspensions and protocols will stop any players suing and receiving settlements.

I just think its going to make very little difference to actual future litigation and instead just ruin the game.

Like do any of the actions prevent afl from concussion lawsuits?

Anyone know how the ufc/boxing commission get around it?

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Those soft helmets aren’t for concussions, they stop cuts and bruises. As a former number 7 trust me, they’ll save your ears and eyebrows but not much else

 

[IamKeyserSoze]

Does anyone think the current bs suspensions and protocols will stop any players suing and receiving settlements.

I just think its going to make very little difference to actual future litigation and instead just ruin the game.

Like do any of the actions prevent afl from concussion lawsuits?

Anyone know how the ufc/boxing commission get around it?

Have thought about this as well and the only thing I could think of maybe it's mitigation on lowering the $ of a possible payout.

 

[DocSholl]

Why does Xerri wear one?

Xerri said he would continue to wear a helmet after adopting the headgear following a nasty blow to his face during a January training session which required surgery.

“I didn’t actually play juniors with it – I had an incident in the pre-season where I sort of broke my face a bit,” he said.

“Not that a helmet would’ve (prevented) it but I thought I’d give it a crack and as long as it didn’t annoy me, I thought why not just keep it?

“I get hit in the head a fair bit during the game, so if that helps a little bit, why not.”

 

[sutto]

Helmets will most likely make it worse as it will give the players a false sense of security, meaning they'll engage in riskier behaviour.

 

[HairyO]

Helmets don’t prevent concussions.

They’re been wearing them for decades in the NFL and that sport has as many concussions as any.

NFL has a new helmet design which is meant to reduce risk. Unsure of the stats, though its still early days.

 

[falcons2]

Looked to me like the Sinn concussion from the Curtis tackle was caused by the ground!
That said, if you pin a guys arms, match sure his head doesn't hit the ground - Radical hey.

 

[DocSholl]

Looked to me like the Sinn concussion from the Curtis tackle was caused by the ground!
That said, if you pin a guys arms, match sure his head doesn't hit the ground - Radical hey.

You can't always control that though as a tackler. The AFL should just make pinning both arms an illegal technique if they're going to cite that as a reason to suspend someone.

They won't though, as they still want the spectacle of chase down tackles. They just dont want to deal with the potential consequences

 

[M Malice]

Helmets will most likely make it worse as it will give the players a false sense of security, meaning they'll engage in riskier behaviour.

That's what happened in cricket when they introduced helmets.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

There’s hundreds of thousands of footballers in Australia?

The AFL couldn’t ever afford to sign up to that

Not to mention - who the hell is going to sign up to say “yep I might get brain damage, all good”?

Every player already does that stepping out onto the field every week.

You do the same getting into your car.

What are we talking about here.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Does anyone think the current bs suspensions and protocols will stop any players suing and receiving settlements.

I just think its going to make very little difference to actual future litigation and instead just ruin the game.

Like do any of the actions prevent afl from concussion lawsuits?

Anyone know how the ufc/boxing commission get around it?

They clearly have some advice on it. It doesn't make sense to me, how does how long of a suspension you give a player impact your negligence in regard to head injuries. Does giving a player 3 weeks rather than 1 week suspension make the game safer? Why give 3 and not 9? Why not ban players entirely who cause concussion? It's clearly arbitrary and meaningless and it still baffles me that that is what they take from whatever advice they have re concussion.

Regarding ufc boxing? I'm not sure, maybe in boxing they get away with on the basis the fighters are independent contractors? UFC maybe is just taking the risk given their fighters are contracted.

AFL needs to get better advice or adopt a less conservative approach. It's ruining the fabric of the game.

 

[DocSholl]

I'd say the intention is to deincentivise players from doing certain things because of the risk.of a longer suspension. Which is fine with acts like slinging and dumping, but once that line extends to pretty reasonable footy acts then the AFL is basically requiring players to carry out governance, which isn't reasonable.

If pinning arms increases the risk of concussion, then ban pinning the arms. Telling a player "you can pin the arms, but if you do you may get suspended" is crap if it's not being accompanied by an illegal action.

None of the things the tribunal found Curtis should have done were in breach of the game's laws. So they just use "duty of care" as a kind of subjective catch all.

 

[Dee Train]

The solution is for everyone to wear a bib, the umpires to yell obstruction every time a player touches another player, and call it netball. Save everyone the frustration.

 

[HairyO]

Does anyone think the current bs suspensions and protocols will stop any players suing and receiving settlements.

I doubt it because they arent banning dangerous tackles, they are penalising tackles which cause injury.

Watson's tackle on Reid was every bit as dangerous but Reid got back up. So zero penalty.

Sicily got 3 weeks for a tackle which didnt meet any of the criteria for dangerous, but did cause injury.

0 or 3 weeks is, Im pretty sure, seen as a farce by everyone with half a brain.

 

[Senor Ed]

Tell me how a helmet is going to stop the brain from colliding with the skull please.

The players will wear a helmet, and one of those Orb ball things.

 

[Lsta062]

Helmets can help prevent skull fractures, superficial cuts and bruises. However, they don't prevent concussions from happening because concussions relate to the head movement upon impact rather than the impact itself. Helmets won't prevent the brain from being shaken

 

[Sttew]

If we are at a point where players like Curtis ... are getting 3 weeks for "incidental concussions"

Incidental? Pin both arms and the player cannot use his arms to break his fall thereby smashing his head into the turf.

Maybe pinning arms in tackles should be outlawed

 

[The Feeder Club]

Incidental? Pin both arms and the player cannot use his arms to break his fall thereby smashing his head into the turf.

Maybe pinning arms in tackles should be outlawed

Would it be reasonable to discourage pinning of the arms as part of a reform where they become much stricter on the interpretation, and pay many more, holding the ball decisions? Players only pin arms because it's seemingly the only way to win a holding the ball nowadays. Even then, some umpire pets (we all know the ones) are still allowed to just drop it and it's play on.

If HTB became that a guy that had prior opportunity was caught, even if his arms are free and he can dispose of it AFTER he's tackled, it might reduce arm pinning and so concussions.

But the AFL doesn't want that, it seems to think too may frees ruin the spectacle

 

[LongSerong]

Only thing helmets will do is make players go in harder because they feel like they're protected better which will result in higher speeds and higher forces when colliding - it's not a good idea

 

[falcons2]

You can't always control that though as a tackler. The AFL should just make pinning both arms an illegal technique if they're going to cite that as a reason to suspend someone.

They won't though, as they still want the spectacle of chase down tackles. They just dont want to deal with the potential consequences

I'd argue it's not about control, it's accountability. You can pin the arms just keep the head off the ground. It's a technique.

 

[L_W_P]

Everyone playing AFL now (and ever, although much more detail these days) know that they might get brain damage.

The same way builders knew they could fall off before scaffolding became mandatory? Or PPE for jobs like doctors and firefighters?

The harsh reality is that sports like Aussie Rules and Rugby can be played with rules that disincentivize players from making contact with their opponent's heads. We might not like what that sport looks like but from the player protection POV the league is bound to try everything it can rather than throw it's hads up and say "Well that's what you signed up for!"

Even combat sports like MMA and Boxing are consistently moving towards tighter and tighter regulations around head injuries and brain damage. I could absolutely see a future where the UFC slowly phases out strikes to the head. It might be something as simple as a limit on the number of direct hits a fighter can take before getting a TKO call but somewhere along the line there's going to be cases that force evolution.

 

[DocSholl]

I'd argue it's not about control, it's accountability. You can pin the arms just keep the head off the ground. It's a technique.

But then it goes back to outcome. Watson pinned the arms of Reid and drove him into the ground. It was a more reckless tackle than Curtis, but is not only ticked off but actively promoted.

I thought Buckley's comments on radio were very good. He made the point that players all have different levels of strength and tolerance, and may react differently to being tackled, so making the tackler responsible for that is difficult.

I just think if pinning the arms is a dominant cause of a tackle going wrong, then you ban that action. Curtis could.make exactly the same tackle on someone else, whose core strength or own playing style means he doesn't immediately drop knees, and it's a completely fair tackle.

I dont think you can ever say the tackler is 100% responsible for how a tackle ends up, given the amount of variables and pace of the game. So really you should only be suspending someone if they commit an act that is definable as being illegal, such as slinging or dumping. Saying a player should have released an arm when the rules don't prohibit pinning the arms in a tackle and it all happens in a split second is not reasonable.

 

[Sttew]

Would it be reasonable to discourage pinning of the arms as part of a reform where they become much stricter on the interpretation, and pay many more, holding the ball decisions? Players only pin arms because it's seemingly the only way to win a holding the ball nowadays. Even then, some umpire pets (we all know the ones) are still allowed to just drop it and it's play on.

If HTB became that a guy that had prior opportunity was caught, even if his arms are free and he can dispose of it AFTER he's tackled, it might reduce arm pinning and so concussions.

But the AFL doesn't want that, it seems to think too may frees ruin the spectacle

Its a tough one. Maybe the stance ought to be you can pin the players arms to draw HTB, but if the player falls to the ground while his arms are pinned, slams his head into the turf and suffers concussion then the tackler will be strictly liable, i.e., no defence available?