- Feb 12, 2010
- 16,063
- 21,914
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Central Districts, Detroit Pistons
Isn't the issue that historically players have been sent back on when they shouldn't have been, and made to play subsequently when they probably shouldn't have been?Problem is they have to be seen as being proactive as far as head injury goes or the will be in danger of a continuous stream of count cases.
This leads to what we have now.
In the "olden days", from memory, very few guys were concussed in a tackle. It was mostly bump related whether it be a shirt front, attacking the footy or in a marking contest. Why are so many of the issues now related to tackles? How are we tackling now compared to the 80's for example, or is the issue that so many more tackles are made per game that the issue is more prevalent?
It is a high risk combative sport. Players need to recognise that, and recognise that the league is doing what they can to try and minimise the number of occurrences of head knocks. It's leading to confusion but for clubs to say they're not going to show the vision to the players then there's an onus that shifts from the AFL to the clubs in terms of duty of care.
Ignoring the MRO, post head knock the AFL has locked down and is doing it right (HIA tests, mandatory time off etc). It becomes about finding a balancing act between what players can and are allowed to do on the field vs what the MRO decides is naughty (because it's not against the rules).