Are Collingwood going backwards under Buckley?

[Fadge]

Nope. Sanderson's comments show clear as day that it's up to the coaches if they take a player out of the game in this situation. Whether that is as a sub or not is irrelevant. Do you think no players were pulled from the game before the sub rule came into play? Of course not.

As Sanderson's comments make clear, there was debate among the coaches as to whether Dangerfield should play on or not. It was their call to make. He consulted the doctor a number of times, not for the doctor's decision, but for his opinion on whether this type of injury could sustain further damage. Even when he had the doctors assurance, he still wasn't sure about leaving him on and contacted the doctor again and again. This was his decision making process and the decision was his to make.

Leaving Dangerfield on was ultimately the coach's call. Sanderson had every power to take the player off to avoid what he himself called "any unnecessary risk" and no one would have batted an eyelid if he had done so; quite the opposite of this raucous "he can't override the doctor, you don't understand how modern football works Monkey King" chorus you've all cried out in this thread.

So he contacted the doctor again and again to be assured there was minimal risk of further damage.

Sounds like the doctor's call to me.

 

[SuperSub17]

Nope. Sanderson's comments show clear as day that it's up to the coaches if they take a player out of the game in this situation. Whether that is as a sub or not is irrelevant. Do you think no players were pulled from the game before the sub rule came into play? Of course not.

As Sanderson's comments make clear, there was debate among the coaches as to whether Dangerfield should play on or not. It was their call to make. He consulted the doctor a number of times, not for the doctor's decision, but for his opinion on whether this type of injury could sustain further damage. Even when he had the doctors assurance, he still wasn't sure about leaving him on and contacted the doctor again and again. This was his decision making process and the decision was his to make.

Leaving Dangerfield on was ultimately the coach's call. Sanderson had every power to take the player off to avoid what he himself called "any unnecessary risk" and no one would have batted an eyelid if he had done so; quite the opposite of this raucous "he can't override the doctor, you don't understand how modern football works Monkey King" chorus you've all cried out in this thread.

Now the sub rule leaves an entire different dimension to the game. Taking Dangerfield off at the time would have been a huge disadvantage given that it was very early in the game. I can understand what you're saying here, but ultimately, as you pointed out, the diagnoses were very different.

As I also mentioned in the post - which you conveniently ignored - the initial diagnosis was a PCL. Therefore there was something definitely wrong with the way the doctors diagnosed it at the time.

 

[Monkey King]

So he contacted the doctor again and again to be assured there was minimal risk of further damage.

Sounds like the doctor's call to me.

The coaches debated whether the player should be taken out of the game, not the doctor. The coaches. They get info from the doctor, and make their decision. Even with the doctors info they were debating the merits taking him off to avoid unnecessary risk. Not sure of the extent of your experience with running a team, but that doesn't sound much at all like the doctors calling the shots.

 

[Pie eyed]

God still clinging on by a fingernail?..........

 

[Monkey King]

Now the sub rule leaves an entire different dimension to the game. Taking Dangerfield off at the time would have been a huge disadvantage given that it was very early in the game. I can understand what you're saying here, but ultimately, as you pointed out, the diagnoses were very different.

The issue Sanderson was talking about had little to do with the strategy of the sub. The decision being debated was whether or not they should take unnecessary risk with the player, not activate the sub. This was all very clear.

And all I've ever said is that the coach has an input in a player being out on the field in these situations. Contrary to Pies posters howling this suggestion down, it turns out to be quite accurate.

As I also mentioned in the post - which you conveniently ignored - the initial diagnosis was a PCL. Therefore there was something definitely wrong with the way the doctors diagnosed it at the time.

I'm not saying there wasn't. In your post you said rumors and it wasn't actually clear whether this was a diagnosis at the first injury or after the second one. So for these two reasons I didn't address it.

 

[Fadge]

The coaches debated whether the player should be taken out of the game, not the doctor. The coaches. They get info from the doctor, and make their decision. Even with the doctors info they were debating the merits taking him off to avoid unnecessary risk. Not sure of the extent of your experience with running a team, but that doesn't sound much at all like the doctors calling the shots.

I stand corrected. The coaches make the ultimate decision, with 99% of the input for that decision received from the club doctor/s. Hence why he continually spoke with the club doctors.

Semantics MK, you're very good at this game.

 

[Monkey King]

God still clinging on by a fingernail?..........

Yes. That's about the state of Pies posters arguments after Sanderson's comments.

 

[Monkey King]

I stand corrected. The coaches make the ultimate decision ...

Yes. Thank you. The coaches do make the ultimate decision.

And clearly the Crows band of coaches were seriously considering taking the more cautious approach irrespective of the doctors opinion. After constant reassurance from the doctor that it simply wasn't possible to cause further damage, Sanderson made his call. And if it blew up in his face, would question his own judgement for having done so, knowing that it was his call to make.

This is the way it goes for the leader of a team.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Why do i always feel reading MK's post is like playing "Whack a Mole".

Ignore.

 

[Fadge]

Yes. Thank you. The coaches do make the ultimate decision.

And clearly the Crows band of coaches were seriously considering taking the more cautious approach irrespective of the doctors opinion. After constant reassurance from the doctor that it simply wasn't possible to cause further damage, Sanderson made his call. And if it blew up in his face, would question his own judgement for having done so, knowing that it was his call to make.

This is the way it goes for the leader of a team.

He's back, the [Monkey] King of the partial quote!

 

[Pie eyed]

Yes. That's about the state of Pies posters arguments after Sanderson's comments.

Give it up. You've been pushing an empty barrow long enough. No-one gives a rats what you think.
Doesn't that wall hurt your head?

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

No they are not going backwards under bucks!! Ok better for you? Cheers

And what a great season your team are having by comparison! How much further do you reckon your team can sink?

 

[SuperSub17]

I'm not saying there wasn't. In your post you said rumors and it wasn't actually clear whether this was a diagnosis at the first injury or after the second one. So for these two reasons I didn't address it.

Then how do you expect Buckley to make a decision on a false diagnosis? Is he expected to say "no looks like an ACL from up here a hundred metres away, even though you blokes think he can go back on he's not going on"?

WTF is he supposed to do? He can only go on what he's been told - which was later proven to be wrong - apart from the fact that Ball was involved in two separate incidents and no one could accurately tell which one did the knee.

 

[Mental Magpie]

Thread has been de-railed.

 

[Plugger_87]

And what a great season your team are having by comparison! How much further do you reckon your team can sink?

go to bed son, you have a big auskick day tomorrow

 

[partylikeits1990]

As I've said, I'm not blaming anyone, but among many other things, I am noting that Ball's injury was not completely independent of Buckley's coaching. He should have been more cautious with the player once it became clear out on the field that he wasn't quite right, not just leave him out there.

Adam Goodes hobbled around with a bung knee for several matches last year including the Grand Final without rupturing his ACL.

That would be down to John Longmire's coaching ay Monkey Queen?

 

[SuperSub17]

Adam Goodes hobbled around with a bung knee for several matches last year including the Grand Final without rupturing his ACL.

That would be down to John Longmire's coaching ay Monkey Queen?

Won them the flag. I wonder what Monkey King wil come up with next.

 

[Forward Press]

The last couple of pages full of off-topic trolling has suggested that this thread is past its expiration date.

Closed.