Independent doctors at every match
- Thread starter Sainter1873
- Start date
- Tagged users None
And you aren’t a doctor either and have very little knowledge or relevant opinion to give on whether or not the doctors did their jobs. You don’t even know what was said in the conversation yet you’re carrying on.
Tell us all your incredible medical insights as to how the doctor during his interaction got it wrong which you don’t even know what was said during??
He didn't assess him as per HIA protocols. Cameron waving him off isn't an adequate assessment. It's irrelevant what he said as a proper HIA assessment should take up to 5 minutes if done right.
Considering it was his second head knock he should have been taken off the ground to be appropriately assessed.
The AFL has to step in here. It was obvious to everyone including experts in this field who have stated so publicly. 2 head knocks , one pretty significant and they kept him on the field and now has delayed concussion (brain injury) where's the duty of care?
Last edited:
But it's a fact he got it wrong.
He cleared Cameron to remain on the field - and later on he suffered concussion.
So the doctor 100% put the patient at risk.
Facts.
Freddy Swift
Club Legend
I understand your need to defend your club to the death but surely you don’t believe this was handled well. I’m sure you would have seen it differently if it had been another club involved.
I think any player who suffers a head knock, especially a forceful one like Cameron’s, should have to leave the field immediately and be assessed. Doesn’t matter what part of the game it is. None of this being waived off by the player or supposed assessment-on-the-go nonsense like we saw here.
I think the AFL ticking this off as being all okay is just them trying to save their own arses and not admit their systems are inadequate.
To be fair, it probably did tick off the AFL protocols.
I think it's the protocols that are incredibly inappropriate and inadequate. The doctor seemingly did follow them.
Teal Leviathan
Senior List
- Aug 14, 2020
- 191
- 728
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
There are two basic questions in relation to the Jeremy Cameron incident:
(1) Were the procedures followed correctly?
(2) Are those procedures adequate?
The AFL has circled their wagons and answered both of these questions with a simple "yes".
A lot of laypersons, including myself, have been surprised to learn that a head knock as apparently severe as Cameron's does not currently require the player to exit the field for assessment. A lot of folks have also reasonably questioned how the HIA procedure can be completed by the club doctor while the player is (a) on the field and (b) appears less than enthusiastically cooperative. That said, I don't believe that anyone has actually produced evidence disclosing the AFL's HIA procedure in detail that could be used to make a clearer judgement of the matter one way or the other. As such, while I think folks can be excused for feeling like they are being gaslit by the AFL on this, I am inclined to accept the AFL's claim that Geelong and the ARC adhered to the procedures as they are currently laid down.
The second question is more interesting, and I would be surprised if the AFL is actually as comfortable internally about how this played out as their public statements (which have mostly been addressed to the first question) suggest. The optics alone of a player who has experienced a severe head knock appearing to do their best to escape the attentions of a seemingly ineffectual club doctor who is chasing them around the field, are terrible. If either the club doctor or the ARC review panel believe that an HIA is called for, the player should be compelled to leave the ground to undergo that assessment, just as they are under the blood rule.
That Cameron has indeed subsequently reported delayed symptoms of concussion, and that said concussion may well have been made worse by Cameron continuing to play out the match as he did, raises deeper questions about the adequacy of current assessment and management protocols that I am not remotely qualified to engage with. I can only hope that those who do have both the knowledge and power to advocate for and support player welfare in this regard are considering these matters carefully.
(1) Were the procedures followed correctly?
(2) Are those procedures adequate?
The AFL has circled their wagons and answered both of these questions with a simple "yes".
A lot of laypersons, including myself, have been surprised to learn that a head knock as apparently severe as Cameron's does not currently require the player to exit the field for assessment. A lot of folks have also reasonably questioned how the HIA procedure can be completed by the club doctor while the player is (a) on the field and (b) appears less than enthusiastically cooperative. That said, I don't believe that anyone has actually produced evidence disclosing the AFL's HIA procedure in detail that could be used to make a clearer judgement of the matter one way or the other. As such, while I think folks can be excused for feeling like they are being gaslit by the AFL on this, I am inclined to accept the AFL's claim that Geelong and the ARC adhered to the procedures as they are currently laid down.
The second question is more interesting, and I would be surprised if the AFL is actually as comfortable internally about how this played out as their public statements (which have mostly been addressed to the first question) suggest. The optics alone of a player who has experienced a severe head knock appearing to do their best to escape the attentions of a seemingly ineffectual club doctor who is chasing them around the field, are terrible. If either the club doctor or the ARC review panel believe that an HIA is called for, the player should be compelled to leave the ground to undergo that assessment, just as they are under the blood rule.
That Cameron has indeed subsequently reported delayed symptoms of concussion, and that said concussion may well have been made worse by Cameron continuing to play out the match as he did, raises deeper questions about the adequacy of current assessment and management protocols that I am not remotely qualified to engage with. I can only hope that those who do have both the knowledge and power to advocate for and support player welfare in this regard are considering these matters carefully.
Last edited:
On your last point, Cameron (surprisingly) passed his HIA, however had he failed it he would have been put through a SCAT6 mid-match (time permitting – in this case the game would have been over before the test was completed). Geelong confirmed that he passed a SCAT6 test post game before failing one the next morning, which means that had the incident occurred earlier in the game and he failed his initial HIA, he would have completed a SCAT6 and then been allowed back out on the ground according to the protocol.
We can’t claim for certain that Geelong did not follow either test correctly, as you say the AFL ticked off on his HIA, but from a procedure perspective there were 2 points of failure which Cameron passed that would have allowed him back out on the ground despite being concussed in the incident. That in itself surely raises major questions about inadequacy of the protocols regardless of who was doing the assessment (Geelong doctor or independent, since there was nothing to gain for the Geelong doctor to fudge a post-match SCAT6 and then fail him on one the following morning) and the optics are definitely horrible.
The solution is having someone independent who is not concerned about the game at all. All the issues with concussions have involved either a close game or a player or a key team member who is critical to a teams success. It is no coincidence as the doctor is part of the team too so it is understandable they would fall into the team first part when it is a decision in a grey area. It's not a black and white decision in most incidents.
The players don't want to go off either so it needs to be taken out of their hands by the umpires getting the message and sending them off. The blood rule is the same and no one loses their minds over it as it has become acceptable practice. It will soon be the same if concussion is treated the same.
I highly doubt any doctor is having a hissy fit if an independent doctor is put in for all considering the history involved. I would also not care if the AFL introduced an independent doctor to all of Ports, Geelong and the Bulldogs games. When another team makes a mistake in the future they can add them into the roster.
Delayed concussion symptoms. So no he didn’t get it wrong at the time.
If you think the doctors can’t do their jobs right and have a conflict of interest then just have independent doctors period on the day. Why do you even need the club gp there since what you are saying is they are acting in harmful ways to players? This isn’t exclusively concussion as there are many other severe issues that can occur, it’s not just concussion.
If we have doctors as you claim acting in the worst interest of the players welfare, then we have a doctor and physio problem in general and our players health overall is in danger. If they apparently do it with concussion they would extend it to everything else.
Time to bring back the viewers red button vote - on whether a player should go into concussion protocols.
Will have more integrity than the AFL current set up and we clearly must get a better view than club benches/coaches boxes.
Maybe any viewer who wants to participate has to pre-register and 'neutrals' get a 50% loading on their vote.
Could also consider including a 'dick dangerous tackle' vote, whereby we get to vote to send players who initiate head contact with the ground when tackled, to the bench for 10 minutes.
Although presumably the Blues would hark up as they wouldn't have a fwd line to kick to.
Will have more integrity than the AFL current set up and we clearly must get a better view than club benches/coaches boxes.
Maybe any viewer who wants to participate has to pre-register and 'neutrals' get a 50% loading on their vote.
Could also consider including a 'dick dangerous tackle' vote, whereby we get to vote to send players who initiate head contact with the ground when tackled, to the bench for 10 minutes.
Although presumably the Blues would hark up as they wouldn't have a fwd line to kick to.
Concussion is the only issue as it has long term consequences that greatly impact quality of life. It is also harder to diagnose than other injuries and it might not appear to affect the output at the time unlike most other injuries. Club doctors are still required and club pay if they make the wrong call on things other than concussion (Rozee playing after a hammy for instance).
If you want to only have club doctors, there then needs to be a way for them to get players off the field like the blood rule rather than getting waved away. There also needs to be an independant review of incidents by indepandant doctors and punishment handed down to club doctors who do the wrong thing. Just because you are a dcotor, doesn't mean you can't make mistakes or be influenced by what is occuring in a game. Allir Allir got knocked out and the Port Doctor allowed him to go back onto the field for instance and it should have been punished.
If you can close the loop, you can continue with club doctors only and it will improve over time. If you want to prevent incidents occurring in games then get an independent person to make the call. Umpires already do this with the blood rule and they are not doctors. You could even have the ARC / 5th umpire just do it via vision and instruct the umpire to send them off for the doctor to assess properly.
How did he get delayed concussion?
I stopped reading after the bolded. I gather you know very little about sport and orthopedic injuries from this.
The tests measure symptoms. Unless you get a scan that shows brain damage then you are only basing it off symptoms. No symptoms until a later date is delayed concussion.
That's the entire problem. And that's why the AFL's protocols are woefully inadequate and ineffective.
The protocol should be based primarily on the impact. For a doctor with any clue about concussion, that should be their starting point if they genuinely care about the welfare of the player.
If they care about following the AFL's protocols as their priority, then they will miss obvious cases of brain trauma - like Geelong's doctor did. We all saw it, and we all knew he had suffered brain trauma.
If a child hit their head like that, do you think a doctor would allow them to just keep playing, or continue doing whatever it was they were doing?
Of course not. They would see the impact, and realise that brain trauma has occurred - regardless of symptoms immediately after. At the very least, as a precaution, they would not allow them to continue doing a dangerous activity.
I have personally seen doctors do this for most people multiple times. A whack to the head even half of what Cameron copped would have almost every single doctor on the planet telling a civilian to stop whatever they're doing and either go to hospital as a precaution, or go and rest.
The only reason Cameron was ticked off by the doctor, was because he was in the middle of something more important in that moment than his personal welfare. The AFL's protocols did not have his welfare at heart, and the doctor followed the protocols.
What test? Are you seriously suggesting they adequately performed an HIA on the ground ? Lol
Any dickhead can see that wasn't the case no matter what Geelong have said. The doctor wouldn't have been able to assess him appropriately given Cameron was running away from him and completely dismissive the entire time.
A million assumptions without knowing what was said or what Cameron said.
I have seen a lot of players get similar knocks and keep playing. If we are basing it off impact then probably 10-12 players a game after big marking contests will be forced off the ground.
We really seem to be having a bit of an over exaggeration to this one.
If a player is genuinely concussed and stays out there playing, do you honestly think they will be of much use?? Best of luck to the team doing that anyway
For section 1 you can easily tick thru it quickly. A few of them are obvious observations and the rest are just quick yea or no questions. Section 2 off field is what takes longer if you require it.
You seem to suggest you know alot about the topic and can critique gp’s. What do you do for work??
I’l let you think about it and come up with your own conclusion.
Similar threads
