The way the game is heading, the AFL is trying to minimise the risks of concussions and the dreaded potential long-term impacts. Of course this is a serious issue, but I would like to discuss that it can be unfair on the players being penalised for causing concussions, particularly the players who have no intent to cause concussions with their bumps/tackles.
First of all, what is a concussion?
- when the brain is traumatised either by direct forces to the head, or indirect forces in sudden head jolts (eg. in whiplash).
- from the trauma impact, it then causes the brain to become temporarily dysfunctional with a combination of common symptoms such as drowsiness, unsteady gait, weakness, erratic speech patterns, poor memory/concentration, headache, insomnia.
- the effects of concussion varies depending on the site of trauma, the severity of the blow, as well as the indiviudal's brain resilience to such trauma.
So back to the main point, why judging purely on concussions as a guide for the severity of the penalty, is unfair:
- a smaller player would more likely be concussed against a bigger/more powerful opponent or vice versa.
- depending on whether an incident happens in the 1st quarter (players usually are at maximal game strength, and are more likely to be able to cope with body/head blows) or the 4th quarter (players have usually ran out of "gas" and brain functioning would be much less than in the first quarter)
- depends if the injured player had a good sleep or poor sleep the night before the game (the brain functions optimally when it gets good sleep and therefore more resilient to becoming concussed)
- depends if the player has a current virus or recovering from recent virus (more likely to feel drowsy prior to being concussed, or the effects of concussion might become magnified).
Concussions can be serious, make no mistake. Though I feel at times the perpetrators of the concussions need to be assessed depending on who their opponents are and other varying factors. Further thoughts?
First of all, what is a concussion?
- when the brain is traumatised either by direct forces to the head, or indirect forces in sudden head jolts (eg. in whiplash).
- from the trauma impact, it then causes the brain to become temporarily dysfunctional with a combination of common symptoms such as drowsiness, unsteady gait, weakness, erratic speech patterns, poor memory/concentration, headache, insomnia.
- the effects of concussion varies depending on the site of trauma, the severity of the blow, as well as the indiviudal's brain resilience to such trauma.
So back to the main point, why judging purely on concussions as a guide for the severity of the penalty, is unfair:
- a smaller player would more likely be concussed against a bigger/more powerful opponent or vice versa.
- depending on whether an incident happens in the 1st quarter (players usually are at maximal game strength, and are more likely to be able to cope with body/head blows) or the 4th quarter (players have usually ran out of "gas" and brain functioning would be much less than in the first quarter)
- depends if the injured player had a good sleep or poor sleep the night before the game (the brain functions optimally when it gets good sleep and therefore more resilient to becoming concussed)
- depends if the player has a current virus or recovering from recent virus (more likely to feel drowsy prior to being concussed, or the effects of concussion might become magnified).
Concussions can be serious, make no mistake. Though I feel at times the perpetrators of the concussions need to be assessed depending on who their opponents are and other varying factors. Further thoughts?
