Independent doctors at every match

[Sentinel]

The HIA takes 5 minutes . This wasn't done on the ground , if they said it was that's a lie.

I don't believe there is a minimum timeframe for a HIA. There is for SCAT6 (15 minutes).

 

[PAFC66]

I don't believe there is a minimum timeframe for a HIA. There is for SCAT6 (15 minutes).

Jeremy Cameron enters concussion protocols amid AFL great’s radical idea

Cats star sidelined amid concussion drama as AFL great proposes radical idea

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I don't believe there is a minimum timeframe for a HIA. There is for SCAT6 (15 minutes).

It seems that an intimidated doctor chasing a player around for a minute or two asking him if he's Ok whilst also trying to stay out of the way of play, constitutes an HIA now.

 

[PAFC66]

It seems that an intimidated doctor chasing a player around for a minute or two asking him if he's Ok whilst also trying to stay out of the way of play, constitutes an HIA now.

Exactly right. He waved the doctor away . That's not conducting an HIA.

 

[Sentinel]

Jeremy Cameron enters concussion protocols amid AFL great’s radical idea

Cats star sidelined amid concussion drama as AFL great proposes radical idea

www.foxsports.com.au

View attachment 1986235

I believe that's just an approximate time, not a mandatory minimum. Its also not 5 minutes of speaking directly with the player - there are a bunch of things to check, which can also include observing the player from a distance.

Once again, I'm not saying whether Cameron should have passed the HIA or not, or whether the test itself is sufficient. It seems Port fans think I'm taking a side here.

 

[joe444]

No, you're doing what is widely regarded as a concern-troll.

The doctor went to the player and spent time checking on him.

 

[PAFC66]

No, you're doing what is widely regarded as a concern-troll.

The doctor went to the player and spent time checking on him. You only care because your team was the opponent and could have lost.

View attachment 1986239

Spent time ? Cameron waved him off that's not how a HIA works. He also wasn't assessed after the head clash with Drew whilst Drew came off the ground.

 

[Brian McGee]

No, you're doing what is widely regarded as a concern-troll.

The doctor went to the player and spent time checking on him.

View attachment 1986239

Are you trying to quote me here? Or pasting screen shot?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Once again, I'm not saying whether Cameron should have passed the HIA or not, or whether the test itself is sufficient.

Well it's obviously not sufficient.

He suffered significant head trauma, and the HIA missed it. It's literally not sufficient.

 

[PAFC66]

Well it's obviously not sufficient.

He suffered significant head trauma, and the HIA missed it. It's literally not sufficient.

I think people assuming the HIA was completed appropriately are delusional.

 

[SC_Power]

You do not need to run through the list of questions you wrote in order to conduct a HIA.

I don't know why I care enough to have these debates, I guess because my team got hauled over the coals for an entirely different situation (more serious) we kinda had a bit of a look at these things.

One example below (hey look, they're the same questions) - I can add the symptom questions if you want.

(Final post for me, say what you want.)

 

[Sentinel]

Well it's obviously not sufficient.

He suffered significant head trauma, and the HIA missed it. It's literally not sufficient.

There's a fair argument there, although he did pass a SCAT6 post game so even if it occured earlier, he failed the HIA and was put through the 15 minute test mid-game, he likely would have gone back on. Delayed concussion obviously makes that tricky and means no test is going to be perfect - again, the HIA may not go far enough regardless of that.

 

[joe444]

Are you trying to quote me here? Or pasting screen shot?

My fault. I'll rephrase when things are less combative.

 

[Sentinel]

I don't know why I care enough to have these debates, I guess because my team got hauled over the coals for an entirely different situation (more serious) we kinda had a bit of a look at these things.

One example below (hey look, they're the same questions) - I can add the symptom questions if you want.

(Final post for me, say what you want.)

View attachment 1986244

That's from the International Rugby Board, not the AFL.

 

[Brian McGee]

My fault. I'll rephrase when things are less combative.

It’s no drama. I don’t believe that I am being combative at all. I am merely expressing frustration at what on face value appears like a complete double standard applied by the afl regarding similar circumstances.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

There's a fair argument there, although he did pass a SCAT6 post game so even if it occured earlier, he failed the HIA and was put through the 15 minute test mid-game, he likely would have gone back on. Delayed concussion obviously makes that tricky and means no test is going to be perfect - again, the HIA may not go far enough regardless of that.

But this is by the AFL protocols are so appallingly amateurish.

You do not need to be an expert to know that that type of impact to any human, will cause significant brain trauma.

If the AFL's protocols miss that - it's deeply flawed. When the average punter can see as clear as day that he suffered brain trauma due to the significance of the impact, and the AFL's system misses it, there's a problem.

 

[PAFC66]

That's from the International Rugby Board, not the AFL.

It's the same thing. It's a form that has to be completed with a number of questions.
Cameron telling the trainer to piss off probably isn't sufficient.

 

[bzparkes]

And the independent doctor will be overly cautious and any head knock will have the player taken from the ground - because they have no relationship with the player or the team and will only worry about their own negligence if they dont remove the player.

So we will end up with far too many players sitting out who havent got any problems.

Its now the next day. Has Cameron been declared unavailable for next week due to concussion protocols?

It's not about whether he was concussed or not, it's the fact they didn't take him of and check to begin with.

If he had a HIA, it's 5 minutes and he'd be back on.

Did leaving a potentially concussed player on the field change the outcome of the game anyway?

No, it didn't.

 

[Sentinel]

It's the same thing. It's a form that has to be completed with a number of questions

Are you sure about that?

 

[bzparkes]

A guys head slams into the ground, he's slow to get up, doesn't get taken off late in a close game when he just happens to be the clubs best player.

How can the AFL be content with that if they are serious about protecting the players long term heath?

He plays for Geelong and not an interstate/minnow Vic side.

The comp is highly compromised. If Port got fined, then Geelong should also.

 

[Sentinel]

But this is by the AFL protocols are so appallingly amateurish.

You do not need to be an expert to know that that type of impact to any human, will cause significant brain trauma.

If the AFL's protocols miss that - it's deeply flawed. When the average punter can see as clear as day that he suffered brain trauma due to the significance of the impact, and the AFL's system misses it, there's a problem.

I'm not disagreeing, but again he would have been cleared after passing a SCAT6 which is used internationally rather than being AFL specific.

 

[bzparkes]

What I can't understand is cats fans flagellating themselves over being "absolved" by the AFL in embarrassing fashion.

It should be pretty obvious from the Liberatore situation that once again the AFL has no idea what they're doing, and the only thing they are consistent in, is inconsistency.

I would think for the most part, apart from a few lunatics, most people watching the sport want the players to have their brains looked after. We all watched the multiple replays of Cameron's head bouncing off the deck with significant force. Cameron now has a concussion. Those two things are undeniable. Wouldn't it have been in the player's best interest to protect him from further injury in the last few minutes?

All the AFL have done now is completely muddy the waters, as next time someone gets a knock all that needs to be done is for a doctor to run out and go "you right mate?" And as long as the player doesn't say "Wednesday" it's all good.

You have to leave the field immediately if there's the slightest dribble of blood, with a 0% chance of any transfusion or infection, but someone can get knocked into next week and thats all a-ok.

I don't have a problem with port getting a 100k fine for the aliir incident last year. That was atrocious. But this is almost as bad and the AFL tripped over themselves to say it's all good mate.

Well, considering Daniel Venables was forced into retirement do to WCE treating him on advice directly from their 'Head concussion expert', I'd say you're correct in them having NFI.

Of course, the fact he turned out to be a complete fraud isn't relevant, apparently....

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Jeremy Cameron slams his head into the turf, looks dazed, the doc asks a few questions, then what happens? Willem Drew smacks his head on Cameron’s face earlier on and it takes the docs five minutes to get Drew off? Anyone watching the TV broadcast could see the contact to the head, same as Cameron. But then it takes five minutes before they are taken off.

Unless I’m wrong on the points above, it is beyond time to bring in independent doctors who have the authority to bring players off, no questions asked.

The current system seems like a mess.

Completely agree!

Time for the AFL to take this seriously, even if only from their POV to avoid huge compensation payouts as opposed to actually wanting to do the right thing by player welfare.

Independent doctors needed where they are shown any concerning vision.

Players are pulled immediately from the ground where doctor has concerns. If the AFL can stop play for blood rule, they can stop play for potential concussion which may be more serious.

Teams may reactivate any player subbed for a player who has been ruled out for concussion.

 

[My_Username]

Jeremy Cameron slams his head into the turf, looks dazed, the doc asks a few questions, then what happens? Willem Drew smacks his head on Cameron’s face earlier on and it takes the docs five minutes to get Drew off? Anyone watching the TV broadcast could see the contact to the head, same as Cameron. But then it takes five minutes before they are taken off.

Unless I’m wrong on the points above, it is beyond time to bring in independent doctors who have the authority to bring players off, no questions asked.

The current system seems like a mess.

Problem with this is that there is a benefit in assessing an injury from the doctor knowing the patient.

This would be even more true when you're talking about something that relies on a judgement call as much as cognitive testing.

Player A is a little slow to speak usually.
Player B jokes around a bit.
Player C gets distracted easily.

All could be considered 'warning signs' if they're unusual behavior, but are largely meaningless if that's just the way that person is.

I agree with the need for the doctor to be independent, but let's not cause harm in the attempt to look like we're doing good.

 

[longdonkey]

I don't know why I care enough to have these debates, I guess because my team got hauled over the coals for an entirely different situation (more serious) we kinda had a bit of a look at these things.

One example below (hey look, they're the same questions) - I can add the symptom questions if you want.

(Final post for me, say what you want.)

View attachment 1986244

Is this part of the CSX App?

Use of the CSX App is mandatory for all assessments of concussion/suspected
concussion, whether they occur at training or during matches