Concussion: Is the AFL doing enough?

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I think if there is enough concern from club doctors after the game that they carried out a SCAT test afterwards, then that probably says there was enough concern to warrant that one should have been undertaken at the time.

Now who knows if he actually was slightly concussed at the time or not but in all the years of watching and playing sport, I have never seen someone sway and be so disoriented like that following a knock to the neck. Gasping for air yes, grabbing and holding your neck in pain yes, but swaying side to side like that and almost unable to stand, that’s a new one.

Hypoxia. Late in the game, backline under the pump, just exhausted himself in a physical contest and can't suck the air in that he needs. Can become light headed very quickly. Possibly on the verge of fainting.
Grabbed at his throat as the camera cut away. Was hunched over spitting like he was trying to clear his airway.

At that point, after the game, Weitering would've told them where he got hit and what he was feeling, the SCAT test was likely precautionary just to rule it out.

 

[Giant Pete]

Cripps had to come off and get the bleeding stopped. They obviously saw no signs that warranted a broader test.
Weitering appeared to cop a hit to the throat. He might have been light headed due to being unable to get enough oxygen for a few minutes.
A trainer came out to him and he appeared to say 'I'm fine'. They were seen reviewing the footage quite closely and must have deemed no head knock.
Don't the AFL now have independent doctors reviewing the footage as well?
I mean, if we are found to be derelict in our duty to assess, then we cop whatever the penalty is, but until there's proof to that effect, then I'll have to assume they did their due diligence.

The Cripps one… clear bump to the head, that has resulted in a broken nose… warrants a concussion test. Don’t have to be a doctor to know that.

 

[100action]

In contact sport where aggression in the form of hard hits is a 'feature' of the playstyle i.e. MMA, Boxing, rugby, NFL, AFL etc any intervention is too much or to put it your way 'more than enough'.

Fantastical concern trolling in terms of mitigating concussion is a never ending pursuit of game sanitization which eventually culminates in a commercially unviable product i. e. Olympic style boxing. You are killing the golden goose that you have had the privilege of enjoying so much.

But what about player welfare?

They accept the risks when they sign up to be highly paid footballers. If they don't like the risk, they can get another job in a first world country and still enjoy a high standard of living like the rest of us.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Hypoxia. Late in the game, backline under the pump, just exhausted himself in a physical contest and can't suck the air in that he needs. Can become light headed very quickly. Possibly on the verge of fainting.
Grabbed at his throat as the camera cut away. Was hunched over spitting like he was trying to clear his airway.

At that point, after the game, Weitering would've told them where he got hit and what he was feeling, the SCAT test was likely precautionary just to rule it out.

Very convenient he suddenly felt the affects of hypoxia at the exact moment he cops a knock on the chin but never at any other point over his career….

 

[jonnobackpocket]

Could've been hypoxia. Had just been involved in some intense, physical play where he would've been sucking in air from exhaustion. Then cops an elbow to the throat preventing him from getting that oxygen in, causing dizziness and light headed. Seemed fine in a couple of plays straight after.

Not even you believe that- don’t worry it will swept under that carpet, AFL will have their eyes on a Carlton/Collingwood granny don’t worry about that. Carlton admitted they tried to bring him off but ‘couldn’t’, what kind of excuse it that.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Not even you believe that- don’t worry it will swept under that carpet, AFL will have their eyes on a Carlton/Collingwood granny don’t worry about that. Carlton admitted they tried to bring him off but ‘couldn’t’, what kind of excuse it that.

Brissy supporters setting up the excuses already.

You will likely win next week by 8+ goals. You can relax a little bit. There is no conspiracy.

 

[jonnobackpocket]

Brissy supporters setting up the excuses already.

You will likely win next week by 8+ goals. You can relax a little bit. There is no conspiracy.

Excuses ha ha for what? The only reason Carlton people are trying to suggest it was anything but a concussion because they know it was rubbish. Barely a word today either. Port were worst club in the world when they did it. Got concussed by an elbow to the throat…..please

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Excuses ha ha for what? The only reason Carlton people are trying to suggest it was anything but a concussion because they know it was rubbish. Barely a word today either. Port were worst club in the world when they did it. Got concussed by an elbow to the throat…..please

I don’t think Weitering and Cripps were concussed. Yes I am not a doctor. The doctors didn’t feel that way either.

Cripps should’ve been put through a test based on the head knock. That is a fail.

By all reports Weitering was severely winded and out of breath from a hit to the throat but he didn’t cop a hit to the head that raised any flags.

Port had two players clearly knocked out cold from a clash of heads where play had to be stopped. They let one back on the field within 5 minutes with no test and subbed another one off with “migraine symptoms”. They had history in skating around concussion protocols.

I see where you’re coming from but comparing the two is a massive reach.

 

[jwikked]

Okay, how about this.
You get your first concussion for free, but any concussion after that comes with a 12 month forced ban from playing footy.

The players will love this, as they will be at a significantly reduced risk of CTE. They'll be thrilled.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Very convenient he suddenly felt the affects of hypoxia at the exact moment he cops a knock on the chin but never at any other point over his career….

Convenient? It was a direct result of the blow to the throat.
Cause and effect. Hardly convenient.
Do you actually know what it is? Never at any other point over his career? Not sure how many times players cop blows to the throat that prevent them breathing during a heavy aerobic load?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Not even you believe that- don’t worry it will swept under that carpet, AFL will have their eyes on a Carlton/Collingwood granny don’t worry about that. Carlton admitted they tried to bring him off but ‘couldn’t’, what kind of excuse it that.

I'm not worried.
I'm more than happy for the AFL to investigate and for the club to be penalised if they've been found to do something wrong.
I also happen to see a very plausible reason for what happened and the vision seems to match that. It may be wrong. I don't care. I'll happily admit I'm wrong if an investigation finds otherwise. No big deal.

 

[domin8tors]

like to know where all the Melbourne supporters are jumping on their high horse re: Maynard, and not one peep when Pickett actually lines up a player and hits them in the head.

i'll double down on my own post. how could he get only one week....

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

So now people are saying that any contact to the head should mean a player has to go off for a concussion test. What a can of worms that opens up as the opposition can hit players at will to get them off the ground.

I don't know that either was concussed. Cripps showed no ill effect aside from blood from his nose and Weitering copped a glancing blow to the jaw.

It doesn't escape notice that a lot of the criticism comes from people who during game threads were barracking against us, so taking key players out of the game for 20 minutes would have been quite useful.

 

[quotemokc]

This might not be the best thread but how can anyone take the AFL seriously about protecting the head when so many high tackles weren't paid in tonight's game?

 

[Aussie in exile]

This might not be the best thread but how can anyone take the AFL seriously about protecting the head when so many high tackles weren't paid in tonight's game?

The AFL will do what ever they have to do to protect the AFL brand, and if that means not highlighting head high tackles, which would bring unwanted attention to the game they will

 

[CD Xbow]

An article about CTE and Shane Tuck

Shane Tuck

Age

42

Ht

189cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.4

5star

K

11.4

4star

HB

12.0

5star

M

4.5

4star

T

3.7

5star

CL

5.0

5star

No current season stats available

D

14.8

4star

K

9.2

4star

HB

5.6

4star

M

2.4

3star

T

1.4

4star

- 'his brain was toast'. It's come up because the Royal Australian College of Pathologist have published guidelines to reduce risk. Among the recommendations is restricting children under 14 to low- or no-contact versions of sports, which is based on evidence a player’s risk of developing CTE is greater the longer they play contact sport. There is also some evidence that knocks as a youngster may be more damaging. I hope they are looking at the genes not just the brains.

‘His brain was just toasted’: It was only after Shane’s death that his family learnt the truth

An Australian medical peak body has become the first to speak out about the long-term impact of repeated head trauma on athletes and their families.

www.smh.com.au

 

[greatwhiteshark]

We don't even pay free kicks now for above shoulder contact and the AFL want us to think they take concussion serious.
As soon as they decided that the player with the ball was now at fault for head high contact then their concussion rules became a joke.

 

[Caligo]

We don't even pay free kicks now for above shoulder contact and the AFL want us to think they take concussion serious.
As soon as they decided that the player with the ball was now at fault for head high contact then their concussion rules became a joke.

I think the opposite. If you give free kicks for high contact you caused as the ball carrier, you incentivise high contact, causing more of it.

The AFL are absolutely right to not give free kicks when players try to get themselves hit in the head.

The rules need to penalise tacklers who try to hit in the head, and penalise ball carriers who try to get hit. Only by targeting both can we reduce head contact.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Reading the tragic and gut wrenching recent comments from Shane Tuck

Shane Tuck

Age

42

Ht

189cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.4

5star

K

11.4

4star

HB

12.0

5star

M

4.5

4star

T

3.7

5star

CL

5.0

5star

No current season stats available

D

14.8

4star

K

9.2

4star

HB

5.6

4star

M

2.4

3star

T

1.4

4star

's Widow in the last week, I would say still probably not, despite the introduction of the concussion rule.

I still strongly suspect some club doctors have a sneaky way to get around players who have been concussed/suffered heavy head trauma and okayed their players to return to the field.

I know Premierships/winning games is important, but no family should ever have to go through what Michael and Faye Tuck and their daughter in law and grandkids experienced with their own heartache and immeasurable loss of Shane

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I think the opposite. If you give free kicks for high contact you caused as the ball carrier, you incentivise high contact, causing more of it.

The AFL are absolutely right to not give free kicks when players try to get themselves hit in the head.

The rules need to penalise tacklers who try to hit in the head, and penalise ball carriers who try to get hit. Only by targeting both can we reduce head contact.

For over 100 years players have ducked weaved, raised arms etc and we always put it on the tackler to not tackle high. We have now removed that totally. The tackler now doesn't even bend, they all stand upright and all tackle the same height knowing if it's high we will blame the player with the ball. It is insanity.
It should not even matter what the player with the ball does. The only thing he should not be allowed to do is duck his head.
But he should be able to lower his body, raise the weak tacklers arms up to high, drop their shoulder.
The tackler has to adapt and not get them high.
By penalising the tackler the coaches will then make their players tackle lower, which will free the arms so the ball can be disposed and the game will flow more freely.
With no onus at all on the tackler we have head high contact as now rife in the sport and hence concussion is now a joke to the league.

The player with the ball can do what he likes, the tackler should have 100% of the onus to tackle below the shoulders. Was never a problem for over 100 years, yet seems a problem for the modern player?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I think the opposite. If you give free kicks for high contact you caused as the ball carrier, you incentivise high contact, causing more of it.

The AFL are absolutely right to not give free kicks when players try to get themselves hit in the head.

The rules need to penalise tacklers who try to hit in the head, and penalise ball carriers who try to get hit. Only by targeting both can we reduce head contact.

And no player tries to get hit in the head, they get hit in the head by careless tackles.

 

[Caligo]

For over 100 years players have ducked weaved, raised arms etc and we always put it on the tackler to not tackle high. We have now removed that totally. The tackler now doesn't even bend, they all stand upright and all tackle the same height knowing if it's high we will blame the player with the ball. It is insanity.
It should not even matter what the player with the ball does. The only thing he should not be allowed to do is duck his head.
But he should be able to lower his body, raise the weak tacklers arms up to high, drop their shoulder.
The tackler has to adapt and not get them high.
By penalising the tackler the coaches will then make their players tackle lower, which will free the arms so the ball can be disposed and the game will flow more freely.
With no onus at all on the tackler we have head high contact as now rife in the sport and hence concussion is now a joke to the league.

The player with the ball can do what he likes, the tackler should have 100% of the onus to tackle below the shoulders. Was never a problem for over 100 years, yet seems a problem for the modern player?

That isn't true though. You have to at least work from reality. You need to really dive to not get a free from high contact, and even then you still get the free more often than not.

Only since Selwood have we seen the knee drop and arm raise to force high contact. And that action still generates a huge number of free kicks every season, long after its inventor retired.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

That isn't true though. You have to at least work from reality. You need to really dive to not get a free from high contact, and even then you still get the free more often than not.

Only since Selwood have we seen the knee drop and arm raise to force high contact. And that action still generates a huge number of free kicks every season, long after its inventor retired.

You don't change rules based on what a few players do and in my view what Selwood did was no issue. The weak tackler who could not pin his arms you want rewarded. Many times the strong tacklers pinned his arms and he could not force it high. But no you want the weak guy rewarded. Selwood tackled 30 times a game, 3 of them he forced high because they were weak tackles and they change the rule.
Again why do you want the weak tackler rewarded?

As for your first point the head high contact rule is basically not part of the sport anymore. Even just simply bending over to pick up the ball you are deemed to be leading with your head.

We will not agree on this, I am all for the game progressing but this rule to not penalize high contact and actually blame the player with the ball is the most stupid rule change in the history of the million rule changes these idiots who run our sport have done.

 

[Caligo]

As for your first point the head high contact rule is basically not part of the sport anymore. Even just simply bending over to pick up the ball you are deemed to be leading with your head.

What the hell sport are you even talking about? Because it sure isn't AFL.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

What the hell sport are you even talking about? Because it sure isn't AFL.

You're clearly watching a different sport than I am.