Injury 2023 injury thread

[you pick one]

The AFL will next year mandate club injury lists with specific return dates for sidelined stars to give fans greater clarity on the health of their team.

Would that include Neale if it were in force today who categorises players standing in the game for this mandate.

 

[cats_09]

Fines and soft cap

Is that only for not providing specific information or for the player not returning by the providing time?

Wonder if more clubs will start to take the lead of the likes of GWS - half their injured players last week were test or TBC:
Player A: Season
Player B: Test
Player C: TBC
Player D: TBC
Player E: TBC
Player F: Test

I know not all are happy with our injury reporting of short, medium & long term, but there's other teams that are reportedly pushing things listing half their injured players as either Test or TBC - will those be permitted next year or will it need to be more definite even if it's unknown?

I highly doubt the AFL will be able to do much in terms of fines, as clubs will rightly argue that injuries rarely have a finite return period and they need flexibility when reporting possible return to play times

Thinking we'll see similar to a couple of Richmond's current listed injuries which have a return period of 7 - 12 weeks; teams will give themselves an out by using extended time frames for return from injuries and if a player returns early then all good, but if they take a bit longer than that's also covered

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Is that only for not providing specific information or for the player not returning by the providing time?

Wonder if more clubs will start to take the lead of the likes of GWS - half their injured players last week were test or TBC:
Player A: Season
Player B: Test
Player C: TBC
Player D: TBC
Player E: TBC
Player F: Test

I know not all are happy with our injury reporting of short, medium & long term, but there's other teams that are reportedly pushing things listing half their injured players as either Test or TBC - will those be permitted next year or will it need to be more definite even if it's unknown?

I highly doubt the AFL will be able to do much in terms of fines, as clubs will rightly argue that injuries rarely have a finite return period and they need flexibility when reporting possible return to play times

Thinking we'll see similar to a couple of Richmond's current listed injuries which have a return period of 7 - 12 weeks; teams will give themselves an out by using extended time frames for return from injuries and if a player returns early then all good, but if they take a bit longer than that's also covered

Geelong will simply use;

1-4 weeks - short term
3-6 weeks - medium term
4-10 weeks - longer term

Or something similar.

 

[Mr Meow]

Is that only for not providing specific information or for the player not returning by the providing time?

Wonder if more clubs will start to take the lead of the likes of GWS - half their injured players last week were test or TBC:
Player A: Season
Player B: Test
Player C: TBC
Player D: TBC
Player E: TBC
Player F: Test

I know not all are happy with our injury reporting of short, medium & long term, but there's other teams that are reportedly pushing things listing half their injured players as either Test or TBC - will those be permitted next year or will it need to be more definite even if it's unknown?

I highly doubt the AFL will be able to do much in terms of fines, as clubs will rightly argue that injuries rarely have a finite return period and they need flexibility when reporting possible return to play times

Thinking we'll see similar to a couple of Richmond's current listed injuries which have a return period of 7 - 12 weeks; teams will give themselves an out by using extended time frames for return from injuries and if a player returns early then all good, but if they take a bit longer than that's also covered

Yep. We're losing "medium term", but trust me there will be a new "medium term". Could appease a few fans. We'll see how folks react.

 

[catempire]

Is that only for not providing specific information or for the player not returning by the providing time?

Wonder if more clubs will start to take the lead of the likes of GWS - half their injured players last week were test or TBC:
Player A: Season
Player B: Test
Player C: TBC
Player D: TBC
Player E: TBC
Player F: Test

I know not all are happy with our injury reporting of short, medium & long term, but there's other teams that are reportedly pushing things listing half their injured players as either Test or TBC - will those be permitted next year or will it need to be more definite even if it's unknown?

I highly doubt the AFL will be able to do much in terms of fines, as clubs will rightly argue that injuries rarely have a finite return period and they need flexibility when reporting possible return to play times

Thinking we'll see similar to a couple of Richmond's current listed injuries which have a return period of 7 - 12 weeks; teams will give themselves an out by using extended time frames for return from injuries and if a player returns early then all good, but if they take a bit longer than that's also covered

I’m pretty sure it won’t take much to get clubs to fall into line. It’s straightforward to provide a weeks estimate in each case. A GWS approach in calling most cases TBC would not meet the requirement. Nor would providing excessive ranges. Fines would only be necessary for clubs egregiously and repeatedly avoiding the requirements.

Clubs will quickly realise any claimed benefit in trying to hide this info is not worth the attention of the AFL. The media will be quick to name and shame too.

It’s got nothing to do with getting the estimate right and everything to do with being transparent about the information clubs possess and are choosing not to publish currently.

 

[catempire]

Geelong will simply use;

1-4 weeks - short term
3-6 weeks - medium term
4-10 weeks - longer term

Or something similar.

That won’t cut it.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

That won’t cut it.

It's actually impossible to give a definitive number of weeks with certain injuries ... Some players heal quicker than others and some have minor setbacks.

The AFL simply can't police a definitive guideline for return.

 

[catempire]

It's actually impossible to give a definitive number of weeks with certain injuries ... Some players heal quicker than others and some have minor setbacks.

The AFL simply can't police a definitive guideline for return.

It’s not about being definitive. It’s about being transparent.

Most teams already do it.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

It’s not about being definitive. It’s about being transparent.

I get that but I don't think anything will change. The club will still be vague, they'll just be vague differently.

 

[Sttew]

I couldn't access the HUN story, but I hope that in mandating return dates / clearer injury timeframes the AFL isn't pandering to the betting agencies?

 

[Cattery]

Seems that lately there’s been more teams following Geeolong’s lead which is why the AFL has commented on the injury list reporting - GWS is one I’ve seen mentioned a few times regarding this

But what happens with the reporting of time frames & if a player doesn’t return within that time frame - are clubs punished if a players return is delayed or there’s set backs which sees a player miss longer than originally reported?

What about the opposite - a couple of years ago Sydney had Hickey as being out for 4+ weeks due to a PCL (?) injury, but then he missed only 1 match returning to face us - so is that deemed mis-representtion or just good fortune?

According to that graphic it states "AFL to mandate clubs provide return dates for injured players" which if true is total BS.

Could we have given a specific date for Henry's return when even the medical staff probably had no idea how long it would take for him to recover, and there are numerous similar examples where it would be impossible to provide accurate information.

Just my personal opinion, but I think the whole thing it just much ado about nothing

 

[kickazz]

So what happens if the player still isn't ready by the started return date?

Will the AFL force them to play?

Of course not.

What a waste of time this exercise is.

 

[Cattery]

I couldn't access the HUN story, but I hope that in mandating return dates / clearer injury timeframes the AFL isn't pandering to the betting agencies?

First thing that sprang to mind when I read the story.

So what happens if the player still isn't ready by the started return date?

Will the AFL force them to play?

Of course not.

What a waste of time this exercise is.

Or if they're ready before the stated return date, will they be forced to sit out games?

Couldn't agree more with the last line of your post.

 

[cats_09]

It’s not about being definitive. It’s about being transparent.

Most teams already do it.

Actually, most teams provide weeks range for the majority of players, it's less common to see a specific time range set such as 2 weeks, 4 weeks etc

Teams will continue to do as they currently do:
Player A: Test
Player B: TBC
Player C: 4 - 6 weeks
Player D: 2 - 4 weeks
Player E: 8 - 10 weeks

Teams will continue to report in that manner to allow flexibility with return from injuries

 

[cats_09]

I couldn't access the HUN story, but I hope that in mandating return dates / clearer injury timeframes the AFL isn't pandering to the betting agencies?

Add fantasy football comps to that - not betting per se but definitely good money involved

 

[cats_09]

First thing that sprang to mind when I read the story.



Or if they're ready before the stated return date, will they be forced to sit out games?

Couldn't agree more with the last line of your post.

2021, Tom Hickey suffered a torn PCL in round 5 and was expected to miss 6 -> 8 weeks

Instead he missed just one week and returned in round 7 to play us, and seemingly without issue

Would Sydney be in trouble for providing a "false" injury update because there's a slight difference between missing 6 - 8 weeks and then only missing 1

 

[Cataholic]

Honesty and transparency seem to be troublesome attributes.

 

[catempire]

I get that but I don't think anything will change. The club will still be vague, they'll just be vague differently.

I think they’ll be forced to say 2-4 weeks instead of short/medium term and that will be an improvement.

 

[catempire]

I couldn't access the HUN story, but I hope that in mandating return dates / clearer injury timeframes the AFL isn't pandering to the betting agencies?

Seems like it’s been more media pressure but no doubt the betting companies are aligned.

 

[catempire]

Actually, most teams provide weeks range for the majority of players, it's less common to see a specific time range set such as 2 weeks, 4 weeks etc

Teams will continue to do as they currently do:
Player A: Test
Player B: TBC
Player C: 4 - 6 weeks
Player D: 2 - 4 weeks
Player E: 8 - 10 weeks

Teams will continue to report in that manner to allow flexibility with return from injuries

Not sure why I get a condescending “actually” here.

Reasonable ranges will be fine. Someone was suggesting 8 week ranges which isn’t a common practice now and wouldn’t be acceptable under what is proposed.

 

[catempire]

A lot of people missing the point here. It’s not about successfully predicting the exact date a player will return. It’s about being transparent about what the club expects will happen. It’s information they currently possess. We see most clubs do that easily now by providing an estimated number of weeks - either a single number or a small range. There is absolutely no good reason not to have all clubs do that as best practice.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

I think they’ll be forced to say 2-4 weeks instead of short/medium term and that will be an improvement.

Which is what I was getting at in my original suggestion.

 

[Vdubs]

Any JC updates?

 

[fpm84]

Any JC updates?

Ch 7 said last night he had 'hurt his shoulder' and would have scans today. They interviewed JC arriving at the club and he looked ok, no arm in sling or anything, so hopefully any shoulder injury is only a one weeker and he's back once he exits concussion protocols.

 

[Cattery]

2021, Tom Hickey suffered a torn PCL in round 5 and was expected to miss 6 -> 8 weeks

Instead he missed just one week and returned in round 7 to play us, and seemingly without issue

Would Sydney be in trouble for providing a "false" injury update because there's a slight difference between missing 6 - 8 weeks and then only missing 1

Who could possibly know what their thinking is, to me it seems like another knee jerk reaction to a "problem" that doesn't really exist.

A lot of people missing the point here. It’s not about successfully predicting the exact date a player will return. It’s about being transparent about what the club expects will happen. It’s information they currently possess. We see most clubs do that easily now by providing an estimated number of weeks - either a single number or a small range. There is absolutely no good reason not to have all clubs do that as best practice.

So are you saying you'd be happy with 2-4 weeks but not short term, both of which are really nothing more then estimates and don't actually provide real clarity as far as I see.