Player Watch #30 Tom McCartin

Remove this Banner Ad

Tom McCartin.jpg
Tom McCartin

Player Profile
In an indication of Tom McCartin’s rapid rise, the young Sydney Swans forward had played 34 AFL games by the end of his teenage years – and that was despite being the youngest player in the league in his debut 2018 season. The Geelong Falcons product has a brilliant marking ability and presents a tall target inside 50, although coach John Longmire has also used him as a key defender. McCartin is the younger brother of number one 2014 AFL Draft pick Paddy, who played 35 AFL games with St Kilda.

Tom McCartin

DOB: 30 December 1999
DRAFT: 2017
RECRUITED FROM: St Joseph's (Vic)/St Joseph's, Geel (Vic)/Geel Gram (Vic)/Geel U18

www.sydneyswans.com.au

Tom McCartin | AFL

Follow Tom McCartin's progress through AFL
www.sydneyswans.com.au www.sydneyswans.com.au
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Superstar swan said:
I still find it strange he is missing despite being fine. Head knocks arnt like strains, there's no real risk of re injuring like a strain if it's not 100%. Your either good or your not. It's not like a player is fully concussed one week and slightly the next.
Click to expand...
I think our knowledge of concussion is still fairly inexact.

Even if a player is symptom free. A 12 day break from playing contact sport might not be the precise time to rest the brain from a further head knock.
 
The risk factor of getting a concussion in any game is exactly the same - doesn't matter what happened 2 or 3 weeks ago.

It may be some are more prone to getting concussions than others, that's the issue here I think. Resetting the clock from two weeks to four doesn't do jack to lessen the chances of concussion events or concussion affects.

McCartin needs to wear a helmet if he wants to play at all from here on IMHO. Cushioning does lessen impact - and I don't care what studies say about American football helmets (irrelevent) or any helmets for that matter - it just does. For the same reason an air-bag is better to hit than a steering wheel - though obviously the benefit is lessened with the smaller thickness and cushioning of a helmet V an airbag.
 
dosser said:
This is all true, but can you imagine the storm from his coach, teammates and supporters if he pulled back? He couldn't win.
Click to expand...
You’ve hit the fundamental nail on the head right there. Footy is a team game and players are taught from an early age to put team first. If the coach, players and supporters are aware that a player risks handing a significant advantage to the other team if he doesn't pull back, players can be expected to think and act very differently.

Footy is a team game with players taught from an early age to put team first. If the AFL wants to effect change, they must penalise the team rather than the player. The strongest disincentives are penalties that directly punish the team of a would-be transgressor.

Here's my proposed solution;

Current game day scenario : When a transgressor concusses an opponent the victim's team is punished by being one man down, while the transgressor's team has the advantage of a full complement of players. That’s a bizarre outcome which needs to be flipped on its head.

Current outcome: Victim's team is penalised

Proposed game day scenario : When a player is forced into concussion protocols through the clear actions of an aggressor, the team may activate an emergency (in addition to the sub). The transgressor is red carded, leaving their team a player down.
Proposed Outcome: Aggressor's team is penalised

Current post-game scenario:
Best case, the victim cannot play for at least another week, possibly a lot more. Worst case they may never play again.

The transgressor is suspended for three or more rounds, providing no reparations for the victim or victim’s team. Best case, the transgressor is easily replaced and the offending club escapes punishment altogether. Worst case, the transgressor is a vital player and their suspension advantages subsequent opponents, who are competing for a ladder spot against the victim's team.

The offending player is punished with suspension, yet the victim may miss even more games, not to mention the longer term damage to his health. If the transgressor is easily replaceable, his team suffers no loss. If the transgressor is irreplaceable their team suffers, but so does the victim’s team when the loss of the transgressor gives subsequent opponents an advantage. The victim’s team may be without a key player for even longer, depending on the concussion history of the victim.

So while the AFL rightly seeks to penalise the offending player, the player’s careless actions stand to benefit their team. Coaches may tell their players one thing, but they know it’s not in the team’s interest to back off to protect an opponent. It certainly is in the player’s interest to protect their opponent, but when a player has to choose between their own interests and that of their team, they are taught to always put the latter’s interests first.

Proposed after game scenario:
A player found guilty of an offence that forces an opposing player into concussion protocols should receive a significant fine, say $20k. To ensure it’s also in their team’s interests to protect an opponent, the offender’s team should compensate the victim’s team directly, according to both the severity of the offence and the outcome, such as the number of weeks the victim is unable to play. Compensation could be in the form of draft points, ladder percentage or even game points for the most egregious examples.

Coaches, teammates and fans will go nuts at players who don’t back off as they risk taking their team down with them.

Conclusion :

AFL rules in place to prevent concussions misguidedly punish only the offending player. When combined with the “penalties” unwittingly placed on a victim and their team through mandatory adherence to AFL concussion protocols, there is no incentive for teams to coach players to back off rather than risk injury to an opponent. In fact, the incentive encourages quite the opposite.

A team stands to benefit on game day by risking the concussion of an opponent. Their opposition team may lose a key player on game day, leaving them a man down, and the team may escape without penalty altogether if their suspended player can be easily replaced. The rules provide an incentive for teams to coach players to go hard and never back off and, perversely, no real incentive to instruct their players otherwise.

The threat of suspension may make it in a player’s interest to protect an opponent, but since concussing an opponent gives their team an advantage and may not penalise their team at all, the greater incentive is to protect their team’s interest.

Also problematic is that even if the suspension were to hurt the offending team, suspension of a key player offers no reparations to the victim’s team. The only teams that can benefit from suspension are teams competing with the victim’s team for ladder position.

I doubt the AFL intended for their rules to act as an incentive for a team to concuss an opposition player. I wonder also if they foresaw the unintended consequences of suspending players, by handing an advantage to opponents of the victim’s team rather than compensating the victim’s team

By inadvertently motivating teams to act in quite the opposite way to what the AFL, presumably, intended. The AFL has put the health of the players in the AFL’s care at greater risk. The AFL has left itself wide open to a class action on behalf of all former and present players who have been or may be affected by head injuries.

The AFL cannot hope to change team cultures while it provides an incentive for teams to offend and penalises the victim’s team. Without a fresh approach to the rules and the penalties that are supposed to protect players’ heads, the AFL could find itself bankrupted by lawsuits.

The AFL can have my proposal for free, or perhaps they can pay a lawyer (with a grasp of game theory) to help them achieve the changes they seek, before it’s too late.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

RubbaDuck said:
You’ve hit the fundamental nail on the head right there. Footy is a team game and players are taught from an early age to put team first. If the coach, players and supporters are aware that a player risks handing a significant advantage to the other team if he doesn't pull back, players can be expected to think and act very differently.

Footy is a team game with players taught from an early age to put team first. If the AFL wants to effect change, they must penalise the team rather than the player. The strongest disincentives are penalties that directly punish the team of a would-be transgressor.

Here's my proposed solution;

Current game day scenario : When a transgressor concusses an opponent the victim's team is punished by being one man down, while the transgressor's team has the advantage of a full complement of players. That’s a bizarre outcome which needs to be flipped on its head.

Current outcome: Victim's team is penalised

Proposed game day scenario : When a player is forced into concussion protocols through the clear actions of an aggressor, the team may activate an emergency (in addition to the sub). The transgressor is red carded, leaving their team a player down.
Proposed Outcome: Aggressor's team is penalised

Current post-game scenario:
Best case, the victim cannot play for at least another week, possibly a lot more. Worst case they may never play again.

The transgressor is suspended for three or more rounds, providing no reparations for the victim or victim’s team. Best case, the transgressor is easily replaced and the offending club escapes punishment altogether. Worst case, the transgressor is a vital player and their suspension advantages subsequent opponents, who are competing for a ladder spot against the victim's team.

The offending player is punished with suspension, yet the victim may miss even more games, not to mention the longer term damage to his health. If the transgressor is easily replaceable, his team suffers no loss. If the transgressor is irreplaceable their team suffers, but so does the victim’s team when the loss of the transgressor gives subsequent opponents an advantage. The victim’s team may be without a key player for even longer, depending on the concussion history of the victim.

So while the AFL rightly seeks to penalise the offending player, the player’s careless actions stand to benefit their team. Coaches may tell their players one thing, but they know it’s not in the team’s interest to back off to protect an opponent. It certainly is in the player’s interest to protect their opponent, but when a player has to choose between their own interests and that of their team, they are taught to always put the latter’s interests first.

Proposed after game scenario:
A player found guilty of an offence that forces an opposing player into concussion protocols should receive a significant fine, say $20k. To ensure it’s also in their team’s interests to protect an opponent, the offender’s team should compensate the victim’s team directly, according to both the severity of the offence and the outcome, such as the number of weeks the victim is unable to play. Compensation could be in the form of draft points, ladder percentage or even game points for the most egregious examples.

Coaches, teammates and fans will go nuts at players who don’t back off as they risk taking their team down with them.

Conclusion :

AFL rules in place to prevent concussions misguidedly punish only the offending player. When combined with the “penalties” unwittingly placed on a victim and their team through mandatory adherence to AFL concussion protocols, there is no incentive for teams to coach players to back off rather than risk injury to an opponent. In fact, the incentive encourages quite the opposite.

A team stands to benefit on game day by risking the concussion of an opponent. Their opposition team may lose a key player on game day, leaving them a man down, and the team may escape without penalty altogether if their suspended player can be easily replaced. The rules provide an incentive for teams to coach players to go hard and never back off and, perversely, no real incentive to instruct their players otherwise.

The threat of suspension may make it in a player’s interest to protect an opponent, but since concussing an opponent gives their team an advantage and may not penalise their team at all, the greater incentive is to protect their team’s interest.

Also problematic is that even if the suspension were to hurt the offending team, suspension of a key player offers no reparations to the victim’s team. The only teams that can benefit from suspension are teams competing with the victim’s team for ladder position.

I doubt the AFL intended for their rules to act as an incentive for a team to concuss an opposition player. I wonder also if they foresaw the unintended consequences of suspending players, by handing an advantage to opponents of the victim’s team rather than compensating the victim’s team

By inadvertently motivating teams to act in quite the opposite way to what the AFL, presumably, intended. The AFL has put the health of the players in the AFL’s care at greater risk. The AFL has left itself wide open to a class action on behalf of all former and present players who have been or may be affected by head injuries.

The AFL cannot hope to change team cultures while it provides an incentive for teams to offend and penalises the victim’s team. Without a fresh approach to the rules and the penalties that are supposed to protect players’ heads, the AFL could find itself bankrupted by lawsuits.

The AFL can have my proposal for free, or perhaps they can pay a lawyer (with a grasp of game theory) to help them achieve the changes they seek, before it’s too late.
Click to expand...
How do you do it
 
RubbaDuck said:
You’ve hit the fundamental nail on the head right there. Footy is a team game and players are taught from an early age to put team first. If the coach, players and supporters are aware that a player risks handing a significant advantage to the other team if he doesn't pull back, players can be expected to think and act very differently.

Footy is a team game with players taught from an early age to put team first. If the AFL wants to effect change, they must penalise the team rather than the player. The strongest disincentives are penalties that directly punish the team of a would-be transgressor.

Here's my proposed solution;

Current game day scenario : When a transgressor concusses an opponent the victim's team is punished by being one man down, while the transgressor's team has the advantage of a full complement of players. That’s a bizarre outcome which needs to be flipped on its head.

Current outcome: Victim's team is penalised

Proposed game day scenario : When a player is forced into concussion protocols through the clear actions of an aggressor, the team may activate an emergency (in addition to the sub). The transgressor is red carded, leaving their team a player down.
Proposed Outcome: Aggressor's team is penalised

Current post-game scenario:
Best case, the victim cannot play for at least another week, possibly a lot more. Worst case they may never play again.

The transgressor is suspended for three or more rounds, providing no reparations for the victim or victim’s team. Best case, the transgressor is easily replaced and the offending club escapes punishment altogether. Worst case, the transgressor is a vital player and their suspension advantages subsequent opponents, who are competing for a ladder spot against the victim's team.

The offending player is punished with suspension, yet the victim may miss even more games, not to mention the longer term damage to his health. If the transgressor is easily replaceable, his team suffers no loss. If the transgressor is irreplaceable their team suffers, but so does the victim’s team when the loss of the transgressor gives subsequent opponents an advantage. The victim’s team may be without a key player for even longer, depending on the concussion history of the victim.

So while the AFL rightly seeks to penalise the offending player, the player’s careless actions stand to benefit their team. Coaches may tell their players one thing, but they know it’s not in the team’s interest to back off to protect an opponent. It certainly is in the player’s interest to protect their opponent, but when a player has to choose between their own interests and that of their team, they are taught to always put the latter’s interests first.

Proposed after game scenario:
A player found guilty of an offence that forces an opposing player into concussion protocols should receive a significant fine, say $20k. To ensure it’s also in their team’s interests to protect an opponent, the offender’s team should compensate the victim’s team directly, according to both the severity of the offence and the outcome, such as the number of weeks the victim is unable to play. Compensation could be in the form of draft points, ladder percentage or even game points for the most egregious examples.

Coaches, teammates and fans will go nuts at players who don’t back off as they risk taking their team down with them.

Conclusion :

AFL rules in place to prevent concussions misguidedly punish only the offending player. When combined with the “penalties” unwittingly placed on a victim and their team through mandatory adherence to AFL concussion protocols, there is no incentive for teams to coach players to back off rather than risk injury to an opponent. In fact, the incentive encourages quite the opposite.

A team stands to benefit on game day by risking the concussion of an opponent. Their opposition team may lose a key player on game day, leaving them a man down, and the team may escape without penalty altogether if their suspended player can be easily replaced. The rules provide an incentive for teams to coach players to go hard and never back off and, perversely, no real incentive to instruct their players otherwise.

The threat of suspension may make it in a player’s interest to protect an opponent, but since concussing an opponent gives their team an advantage and may not penalise their team at all, the greater incentive is to protect their team’s interest.

Also problematic is that even if the suspension were to hurt the offending team, suspension of a key player offers no reparations to the victim’s team. The only teams that can benefit from suspension are teams competing with the victim’s team for ladder position.

I doubt the AFL intended for their rules to act as an incentive for a team to concuss an opposition player. I wonder also if they foresaw the unintended consequences of suspending players, by handing an advantage to opponents of the victim’s team rather than compensating the victim’s team

By inadvertently motivating teams to act in quite the opposite way to what the AFL, presumably, intended. The AFL has put the health of the players in the AFL’s care at greater risk. The AFL has left itself wide open to a class action on behalf of all former and present players who have been or may be affected by head injuries.

The AFL cannot hope to change team cultures while it provides an incentive for teams to offend and penalises the victim’s team. Without a fresh approach to the rules and the penalties that are supposed to protect players’ heads, the AFL could find itself bankrupted by lawsuits.

The AFL can have my proposal for free, or perhaps they can pay a lawyer (with a grasp of game theory) to help them achieve the changes they seek, before it’s too late.
Click to expand...
The problem with the 'send off' is people choosing to not see the clarity of transgressors actions. They debate it in hours long tribunal hearings before a decision, let alone making it on the spot. All it would take is one transgressor being vindicated without suspension for there to be uproar over them being ejected from a game unlawfully.
 
zyzzbruh said:
The problem with the 'send off' is people choosing to not see the clarity of transgressors actions. They debate it in hours long tribunal hearings before a decision, let alone making it on the spot. All it would take is one transgressor being vindicated without suspension for there to be uproar over them being ejected from a game unlawfully.
Click to expand...

Yep, I have to say I'm not a fan of the send off rule at all and yes I know we were affected. What I'd propose is not a send off per se, but a replacement being enforced at the next break, aka the sub.

In other words I'll use a hypothetical

Richmond player takes out sydney's player

-Sydney's player subbed via HIA or whatever
  • Play is reviewed by an EXTERNAL 'bunker'
  • Next big break in play the club is notified it has met the threshold
  • Player removed from game and replaced by the sub

This means both teams are equal for the rest of the game, not a send off but a replacement
 
LukeParkerno1 said:
Yep, I have to say I'm not a fan of the send off rule at all and yes I know we were affected. What I'd propose is not a send off per se, but a replacement being enforced at the next break, aka the sub.

In other words I'll use a hypothetical

Richmond player takes out sydney's player

-Sydney's player subbed via HIA or whatever
  • Play is reviewed by an EXTERNAL 'bunker'
  • Next big break in play the club is notified it has met the threshold
  • Player removed from game and replaced by the sub

This means both teams are equal for the rest of the game, not a send off but a replacement
Click to expand...

What if they have already made a sub?
 
LukeParkerno1 said:
Then they play 1 down
Click to expand...
It's still essentially ejecting. I actually have no problems with ejections and harsh judgements handed down by the tribunal - but they have to simplify the rulings rather than trying to label every single aspect of an action. That's where the confusion comes in which then clubs try to exploit as loopholes.

If they simplify it to a point where - its ruled a suspension when a player moves there body in any way unnatural to winning the ball, that causes a hit to the head. That's it. None of this intent BS, timing, or direction of travel rubbish involved. And then just work out length based on velocity of impact.

That way you'd pretty much have a 99% hit rate when it comes to sending players off correctly. Did he move his body (either to brace or lay a bump) and hit the head? Yes, send him off. Done. And if media and fans want to complain about it and ask for please explains, AFL should just tell em to get over it and on with it.
 
RubbaDuck said:
You’ve hit the fundamental nail on the head right there. Footy is a team game and players are taught from an early age to put team first. If the coach, players and supporters are aware that a player risks handing a significant advantage to the other team if he doesn't pull back, players can be expected to think and act very differently.

Footy is a team game with players taught from an early age to put team first. If the AFL wants to effect change, they must penalise the team rather than the player. The strongest disincentives are penalties that directly punish the team of a would-be transgressor.

Here's my proposed solution;

Current game day scenario : When a transgressor concusses an opponent the victim's team is punished by being one man down, while the transgressor's team has the advantage of a full complement of players. That’s a bizarre outcome which needs to be flipped on its head.

Current outcome: Victim's team is penalised

Proposed game day scenario : When a player is forced into concussion protocols through the clear actions of an aggressor, the team may activate an emergency (in addition to the sub). The transgressor is red carded, leaving their team a player down.
Proposed Outcome: Aggressor's team is penalised

Current post-game scenario:
Best case, the victim cannot play for at least another week, possibly a lot more. Worst case they may never play again.

The transgressor is suspended for three or more rounds, providing no reparations for the victim or victim’s team. Best case, the transgressor is easily replaced and the offending club escapes punishment altogether. Worst case, the transgressor is a vital player and their suspension advantages subsequent opponents, who are competing for a ladder spot against the victim's team.

The offending player is punished with suspension, yet the victim may miss even more games, not to mention the longer term damage to his health. If the transgressor is easily replaceable, his team suffers no loss. If the transgressor is irreplaceable their team suffers, but so does the victim’s team when the loss of the transgressor gives subsequent opponents an advantage. The victim’s team may be without a key player for even longer, depending on the concussion history of the victim.

So while the AFL rightly seeks to penalise the offending player, the player’s careless actions stand to benefit their team. Coaches may tell their players one thing, but they know it’s not in the team’s interest to back off to protect an opponent. It certainly is in the player’s interest to protect their opponent, but when a player has to choose between their own interests and that of their team, they are taught to always put the latter’s interests first.

Proposed after game scenario:
A player found guilty of an offence that forces an opposing player into concussion protocols should receive a significant fine, say $20k. To ensure it’s also in their team’s interests to protect an opponent, the offender’s team should compensate the victim’s team directly, according to both the severity of the offence and the outcome, such as the number of weeks the victim is unable to play. Compensation could be in the form of draft points, ladder percentage or even game points for the most egregious examples.

Coaches, teammates and fans will go nuts at players who don’t back off as they risk taking their team down with them.

Conclusion :

AFL rules in place to prevent concussions misguidedly punish only the offending player. When combined with the “penalties” unwittingly placed on a victim and their team through mandatory adherence to AFL concussion protocols, there is no incentive for teams to coach players to back off rather than risk injury to an opponent. In fact, the incentive encourages quite the opposite.

A team stands to benefit on game day by risking the concussion of an opponent. Their opposition team may lose a key player on game day, leaving them a man down, and the team may escape without penalty altogether if their suspended player can be easily replaced. The rules provide an incentive for teams to coach players to go hard and never back off and, perversely, no real incentive to instruct their players otherwise.

The threat of suspension may make it in a player’s interest to protect an opponent, but since concussing an opponent gives their team an advantage and may not penalise their team at all, the greater incentive is to protect their team’s interest.

Also problematic is that even if the suspension were to hurt the offending team, suspension of a key player offers no reparations to the victim’s team. The only teams that can benefit from suspension are teams competing with the victim’s team for ladder position.

I doubt the AFL intended for their rules to act as an incentive for a team to concuss an opposition player. I wonder also if they foresaw the unintended consequences of suspending players, by handing an advantage to opponents of the victim’s team rather than compensating the victim’s team

By inadvertently motivating teams to act in quite the opposite way to what the AFL, presumably, intended. The AFL has put the health of the players in the AFL’s care at greater risk. The AFL has left itself wide open to a class action on behalf of all former and present players who have been or may be affected by head injuries.

The AFL cannot hope to change team cultures while it provides an incentive for teams to offend and penalises the victim’s team. Without a fresh approach to the rules and the penalties that are supposed to protect players’ heads, the AFL could find itself bankrupted by lawsuits.

The AFL can have my proposal for free, or perhaps they can pay a lawyer (with a grasp of game theory) to help them achieve the changes they seek, before it’s too late.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree but excellent, thoughtful post!
 
RubbaDuck said:
You’ve hit the fundamental nail on the head right there. Footy is a team game and players are taught from an early age to put team first. If the coach, players and supporters are aware that a player risks handing a significant advantage to the other team if he doesn't pull back, players can be expected to think and act very differently.

Footy is a team game with players taught from an early age to put team first. If the AFL wants to effect change, they must penalise the team rather than the player. The strongest disincentives are penalties that directly punish the team of a would-be transgressor.

Here's my proposed solution;

Current game day scenario : When a transgressor concusses an opponent the victim's team is punished by being one man down, while the transgressor's team has the advantage of a full complement of players. That’s a bizarre outcome which needs to be flipped on its head.

Current outcome: Victim's team is penalised

Proposed game day scenario : When a player is forced into concussion protocols through the clear actions of an aggressor, the team may activate an emergency (in addition to the sub). The transgressor is red carded, leaving their team a player down.
Proposed Outcome: Aggressor's team is penalised

Current post-game scenario:
Best case, the victim cannot play for at least another week, possibly a lot more. Worst case they may never play again.

The transgressor is suspended for three or more rounds, providing no reparations for the victim or victim’s team. Best case, the transgressor is easily replaced and the offending club escapes punishment altogether. Worst case, the transgressor is a vital player and their suspension advantages subsequent opponents, who are competing for a ladder spot against the victim's team.

The offending player is punished with suspension, yet the victim may miss even more games, not to mention the longer term damage to his health. If the transgressor is easily replaceable, his team suffers no loss. If the transgressor is irreplaceable their team suffers, but so does the victim’s team when the loss of the transgressor gives subsequent opponents an advantage. The victim’s team may be without a key player for even longer, depending on the concussion history of the victim.

So while the AFL rightly seeks to penalise the offending player, the player’s careless actions stand to benefit their team. Coaches may tell their players one thing, but they know it’s not in the team’s interest to back off to protect an opponent. It certainly is in the player’s interest to protect their opponent, but when a player has to choose between their own interests and that of their team, they are taught to always put the latter’s interests first.

Proposed after game scenario:
A player found guilty of an offence that forces an opposing player into concussion protocols should receive a significant fine, say $20k. To ensure it’s also in their team’s interests to protect an opponent, the offender’s team should compensate the victim’s team directly, according to both the severity of the offence and the outcome, such as the number of weeks the victim is unable to play. Compensation could be in the form of draft points, ladder percentage or even game points for the most egregious examples.

Coaches, teammates and fans will go nuts at players who don’t back off as they risk taking their team down with them.

Conclusion :

AFL rules in place to prevent concussions misguidedly punish only the offending player. When combined with the “penalties” unwittingly placed on a victim and their team through mandatory adherence to AFL concussion protocols, there is no incentive for teams to coach players to back off rather than risk injury to an opponent. In fact, the incentive encourages quite the opposite.

A team stands to benefit on game day by risking the concussion of an opponent. Their opposition team may lose a key player on game day, leaving them a man down, and the team may escape without penalty altogether if their suspended player can be easily replaced. The rules provide an incentive for teams to coach players to go hard and never back off and, perversely, no real incentive to instruct their players otherwise.

The threat of suspension may make it in a player’s interest to protect an opponent, but since concussing an opponent gives their team an advantage and may not penalise their team at all, the greater incentive is to protect their team’s interest.

Also problematic is that even if the suspension were to hurt the offending team, suspension of a key player offers no reparations to the victim’s team. The only teams that can benefit from suspension are teams competing with the victim’s team for ladder position.

I doubt the AFL intended for their rules to act as an incentive for a team to concuss an opposition player. I wonder also if they foresaw the unintended consequences of suspending players, by handing an advantage to opponents of the victim’s team rather than compensating the victim’s team

By inadvertently motivating teams to act in quite the opposite way to what the AFL, presumably, intended. The AFL has put the health of the players in the AFL’s care at greater risk. The AFL has left itself wide open to a class action on behalf of all former and present players who have been or may be affected by head injuries.

The AFL cannot hope to change team cultures while it provides an incentive for teams to offend and penalises the victim’s team. Without a fresh approach to the rules and the penalties that are supposed to protect players’ heads, the AFL could find itself bankrupted by lawsuits.

The AFL can have my proposal for free, or perhaps they can pay a lawyer (with a grasp of game theory) to help them achieve the changes they seek, before it’s too late.
Click to expand...
The theory ignores that many concussions happen totally within the laws of the game.
There is no 'offender'.

I've often marveled how there are so few life-threatening or life-changing injuries when 90 kg guys come flying through the air knee first into the back of someone's head or neck.....does that need to be eliminated in the interest of player safety?

It probably does IMO, but would be very hard to sell for fans of the game, and just as hard to police.
Knee to head/neck contact probably needs to be outlawed altogether - and they just live with thigh/calf contact - so leaping players have to change technique and turn or approach from side on to make a pack mark. It would obviously lessen the amount of spectacular marks taken drastically.
 
ShireSwan said:
The theory ignores that many concussions happen totally within the laws of the game.
There is no 'offender'.

I've often marveled how there are so few life-threatening or life-changing injuries when 90 kg guys come flying through the air knee first into the back of someone's head or neck.....does that need to be eliminated in the interest of player safety?

It probably does IMO, but would be very hard to sell for fans of the game, and just as hard to police.
Knee to head/neck contact probably needs to be outlawed altogether - and they just live with thigh/calf contact - so leaping players have to change technique and turn or approach from side on to make a pack mark. It would obviously lessen the amount of spectacular marks taken drastically.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting at all that we penalise a perfectly legal "accident". Or, like Jeremy Cameron, where no-one was involved but himself. He simply forgot to lower his landing gear.

Some will get missed, some will be f_ups, but we don't stop umpiring because decisions aren't always right. Start by penalising the obvious ones, like Brown. He wasn't being vindicative but he went in too hard too late. He had no right to put Tommy at risk of copping a head injury. To be fair, and this is where the problem lies, his club expects him to go hard and, sadly, put his opponent at risk. He knew he'd cocked up the second he did it but the coaching won't change until clubs feel some real sting. So far this year, three senior players have been forced out of the game on doctor's advice. I worry McCartin will receive similar advice.

The damage comes from a sudden acceleration of the brain, which slams it into the skull. Motor cycle helmets are heavily padded to slow the impact time of the collision (think punching through a pillow). In physics it's known as the impulse or the jerk, the third time derivative of displacement. The design of hard bicycle helmets does nothing to address the problem of the brain accelerating into the skull, the main cause of brain injuries. Bicycle helmets can even worsen brain damage as their greater circumference increases the rotational torque in an accident, resulting in greater angular acceleration, which can be even more damaging. MIPS helmets go some way to preventing this.

As far as I know, only Australia and NZ have compulsory bike helmet laws. They do little to stop brain damage and can even make it worse, while they also put people off riding bikes. From a medical safety perspective, there's a much stronger case for making crash helmets compulsory in cars (I won't go there - those with kids are already screaming inside noooo.....)

Anyway, I digress onto a pet subject. Short of putting players into heavily padded helmets, we'll be forced to clean up the areas of our game of highest risk. That will mean the game will change, but it already is changing and always has. Watch the '89 GF. The end of the hard-man era. Fantastic game, but it's hard to believe it's the same game as today's. No-one would want go back to that. I like that our game is evolving.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I think there are benefits to having a longer rest. I always remember reading about that teenage rugby union player. He got concussed a few times during a match. His coach just kept sending back onto the field. He got concussed again and dropped dead on the field. Because he had too many concussions in a short period of time so his brain was not able to recover.


www.theguardian.com

Death of a schoolboy: why concussion is rugby union's dirty secret | Andy Bull

Andy Bull: On 29 January 2011, 14-year-old Ben Robinson played rugby union for his school. After being treated three times for blows to the head and sent back to the field on each occasion, he collapsed and later died in hospital. Behind his profoundly tragic story is another of a sport in...
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
It wasn't the first blow that killed Ben Robinson. It was the fact that he played on, and was hit again. Dr Willie Stewart is one of Britain's leading neuropathologists. He has become one of the key figures in the campaign to reform rugby's concussion rules. He explains: "Second Impact Syndrome is incredibly poorly understood." The significant point, Stewart says, is that adolescent brains can swell uncontrollably after a single bang on the head. "The first one causes the blood vessels to become a bit leaky," he says. "The second one cause them to become much worse, and that leads to brain swelling." The second blow does not have to be concussive. A glancing blow, a jar, is enough to exacerbate the swelling. Which is why it is essential to remove a player as soon as signs of concussion are detected.
Click to expand...
 
ShireSwan said:
McCartin needs to wear a helmet if he wants to play at all from here on IMHO. Cushioning does lessen impact - and I don't care what studies say about American football helmets (irrelevent) or any helmets for that matter - it just does. For the same reason an air-bag is better to hit than a steering wheel - though obviously the benefit is lessened with the smaller thickness and cushioning of a helmet V an airbag.
Click to expand...
From what I was told, helmets don't really protect against concussion. If they did, I'm sure the AFL would make them mandatory.

The laymen terms I saw somewhere was to imagine your brain is like jelly inside a box. If you hit the side of the box the jelly will rattle around inside. If you put a protective barrier around the box and hit it, the result of the jelly rattling inside the box will be virtually the same. Helmets are only more beneficial against fractures, cuts, etc.
 
Ed_Gein said:
From what I was told, helmets don't really protect against concussion. If they did, I'm sure the AFL would make them mandatory.

The laymen terms I saw somewhere was to imagine your brain is like jelly inside a box. If you hit the side of the box the jelly will rattle around inside. If you put a protective barrier around the box and hit it, the result of the jelly rattling inside the box will be virtually the same. Helmets are only more beneficial against fractures, cuts, etc.
Click to expand...
I'm with Shire, still not buying it. The cushioning effect of the helmet, even if slight, will surely take some impact velocity off the hit.

Take a boxing bag as an example.. Imagine there was a brain in the middle of the boxing bag - when you fly kick the boxing bag, it moves around a bit, and im sure the brain does still feel a large portion of that hit. But now imagine there was no boxing bag around the brain and you decided to fly kick it, the brain along with its jellies would end up on Mars.

I get there's a heap of research around it but i just cant fathom that a cushion does not absorb at least some of the impact away form the central thing it is trying to protect.
 
Last edited:
zyzzbruh said:
I'm with Shire, still not buying it. The cushioning effect of the helmet, even if slight, will surely take some impact velocity off the hit.

Take a boxing bag as an example.. Imagine there was a brain in the middle of the boxing bag - when you fly kick the boxing bag, it moves around a bit, and im sure the brain does still feel a large portion of that hit. But now imagine there was no boxing bag around the brain and you decided to fly kick it, the brain along with its jellies would end up on Mars.

I get there's a heap of research around it but i just cant fathom that a cushion does not absorb at least some of the impact away form the central thing it is trying to protect.
Click to expand...
Ah well who knows? I'm sure the AFL have smarter people than us on the case. I think if they were serious about concussion then surely helmets would be made mandatory tomorrow if they provided enough protection
 
I've got no concerns with an abundance of caution around headknocks but I think it's also ok for people to ask the question.

Repeated concussions are obviously no good, but is the recovery from each one a finite thing? eg when you fill up a glass of water, once it's full, it's full. You can keep the tap running but it's not going to do anything.

Is concussion like that? Once you've recovered to a certain point is that it, or does each additional day/week lessen the likelihood of further issues?

I myself have no idea but I would guess that like most questions around the brain and CTE, it's far from settled.
 
Ed_Gein said:
Ah well who knows? I'm sure the AFL have smarter people than us on the case. I think if they were serious about concussion then surely helmets would be made mandatory tomorrow if they provided enough protection
Click to expand...
You're both right. Helmets can't stop the brain slamming into the inside of the skull but soft padding helps to slow the impact. But hitting something in a straight line will not generally lead to concussion. The brain sits in a big bag of fluid which provides great protection from a straight on impact.

Concussions tend to come from rotation of the brain, which happens when the head hits an object or surface at an angle. A force is applied tangentially to the head. Think of a spinning ball glancing a surface or a ball sent spinning when it's kicked on one side.

When Paddy Mac was knocked out for the final time, the impact looked innocuous but the sudden short quick rotation of his head as it glanced the grass was enough to make his brain twist. In such twisting the fluid layer offers less protection to the brain.

Padded helmets and most bicycle helmets don't protect against twisting/rotation of the brain, the main cause of concussion. Most bike helmets actually increase the rotational forces, as the (effective) increased diameter of the head, leads to a greater rotational torque. MIPS helmets allow some slide of the helmet before the head turns too.

If MIPS helmets were mandated in the AFL I expect they would reduce concussions. Folks might ask why ordinary bike helmets aren't good enough and discover we're legally required to wear bike helmets that really only protect against superficial scrapes and can actually exacerbate concussions.

Good article here https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/buyers-guides/what-is-mips
 
zyzzbruh said:
I'm with Shire, still not buying it. The cushioning effect of the helmet, even if slight, will surely take some impact velocity off the hit.

Take a boxing bag as an example.. Imagine there was a brain in the middle of the boxing bag - when you fly kick the boxing bag, it moves around a bit, and im sure the brain does still feel a large portion of that hit. But now imagine there was no boxing bag around the brain and you decided to fly kick it, the brain along with its jellies would end up on Mars.

I get there's a heap of research around it but i just cant fathom that a cushion does not absorb at least some of the impact away form the central thing it is trying to protect.
Click to expand...

Helmet would of absolutely helped in Paddy case where it was more of a sliding action than a heavy knock.

Just basic physics
 
I hope the club gives Tommy all the time he needs to get his grey cells in good shape.

I want to see Paddy McCartin beaming with happiness and pride as his little bro shares his first premiership medal with him.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch #30 Tom McCartin

Similar threads

SwansProudly
  • Locked
Game Day 2024 GF Swans v. Lions - Saturday 28 Sep @ 2:30 @ MCG
49 50 51 52 53
Replies
1K
Views
33K
SwansProudly
SwansProudly
SwansProudly
Player Watch #40 Tom Hanily - welcome to the Bloods
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
136
Views
7K
bedford
B
SwansProudly
  • Locked
Game Day 2024 Round 21 Port Adelaide v. Swans 3rd August @ Adelaide Oval 7:30 PM
43 44 45 46 47
Replies
1K
Views
23K
Gammalite
G
SwansProudly
  • Locked
Game Day 2024 Round 14 Adelaide v. Sydney 15 June 7:30 (AEST)
49 50 51 52 53
Replies
1K
Views
16K
SwansProudly
SwansProudly
SwansProudly
  • Locked
Game Day 2024 Round 11 Bulldogs v Bloods @ Marvel @ 7:30 PM
44 45 46 47 48
Replies
1K
Views
14K
SwansProudly
SwansProudly
Heeney2Franklin
Autopsy Groundhog day averted! Swans defeat Cats by 30 infront of a packed SCG
21 22 23 24 25
Replies
605
Views
16K
RubbaDuck
RubbaDuck
SwansProudly
  • Locked
Game Day 2024 Round 09 Freo v Swans @ Optus @ 8:30 PM
35 36 37 38 39
Replies
966
Views
13K
SwansProudly
SwansProudly

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top