I'm beginning to think Harry Reems is Hagdorn
https://omny.fm/shows/breakfast-with-steve-and-basil/kim-hagdorn-18-march-2019
Here’s my piece from this morning so you can all read between lines with regards to what I said.
All the best, Haggers.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
I'm beginning to think Harry Reems is Hagdorn
https://omny.fm/shows/breakfast-with-steve-and-basil/kim-hagdorn-18-march-2019
Here’s my piece from this morning so you can all read between lines with regards to what I said.
All the best, Haggers.
Quick question, do you have a background in the medical/fitness area? Cause it appears there is lack of understanding of acute injury management in sports. Not having a go at you, but there's a lot of inaccuracies in general floating around this thread.I wouldn't call it "hysteria". A few examples (out of many) which are representative of a serious problem:
Blakely dislocating his shoulder (going back to 2017) and then being sent straight back out, only to dislocate it again. It wasn't far removed from the 12th Man skit with Bruce Reid sticky taping himself together.
Brad Hill being sent back onto the ground against Essendon. It happened in front of me, and it was obvious it was a bad injury. He collapsed in a heap horribly and it looked season ending. We were way in front and zero chance of losing. Then I see him hobbling back onto the ground? Ridiculous.
These are things other than just soft tissue injuries. It points to a general lack of competence across the board. Inability to prevent injuries, and inability to diagnose/manage injuries.
I agree with the calls on Hill given the context of the game, but his injury was an odd one, but that's a footballing decision that wouldn't be in the hands of the S/C/fitness staff/Drs. He obviously must of passed orthopaedic tests to return to the field, and given that the injury was bone bruising from memory, that would be expected. Again if he is still functioning and wants to return to the field there would be no reason to stop him. However given the context of the game, I also do find this call strange.
Quick question, do you have a background in the medical/fitness area? Cause it appears there is lack of understanding of acute injury management in sports. Not having a go at you, but there's a lot of inaccuracies in general floating around this thread.
Blakely's shoulder keeps being brought up on this board - it really just shows people lack understanding and knowledge in acute injury management of sporting injuries. If a shoulder is dislocated and relocated but is still functional, and the athlete wants to, there is no reason to stop them from returning to the field. Tape isn't gonna stop a shoulder from going, despite what people think, and a second dislocation wouldn't have changed any management at all. If anything it's easier to deal with a second/third dislocation than an initial.
I agree with the calls on Hill given the context of the game, but his injury was an odd one, but that's a footballing decision that wouldn't be in the hands of the S/C/fitness staff/Drs. He obviously must of passed orthopaedic tests to return to the field, and given that the injury was bone bruising from memory, that would be expected. Again if he is still functioning and wants to return to the field there would be no reason to stop him. However given the context of the game, I also do find this call strange.
Now I'm not saying our S/C staff are perfect but they aren't that bad. And the criticism they receive is often hard to read due to some of the uninformed opinions floating around on here.
One of the problems Lyon has is when you spend your time making pithy remarks to sound smart they can come back to bite you. "We are an outcomes based industry" springs to mind. Does it really matter if you think the methods of the medical and fitness staff are world's best, when the outcomes they're producing aren't.
when he went down - was right in front of me, you would have given it 1.01 it was an ACL. He was on the ground screaming in pain and it looked like it was going to be a stretcher. We were 10 goals up absolute madness to have him back on the ground. I just don't understand the thought process, why you would let someone back onto the field after he went down like that. It wasn't like he twisted it, felt a bit bad.
Given the nature of the activity I don't think you can boil down the instances to a level playing field with any sort of volume that doesn't heavily compromise your data, there might only be a handful of 180-185cm + 85-90kg + non-impact ACL injuries for example, each one would alter the outcome too much.
It's also extremely difficult to measure the injuries you've avoided.
I know this is very abstract but it's because I saw this recently. With injury we are like the soldiers at Dunkirk yelling at the air force for not protecting them from attack, we don't see the hundreds who were stopped from getting to them.
Were you there? I never saw anyone yelling at the RAF, they were too busy throwing themselves into the air in many small pieces!Given the nature of the activity I don't think you can boil down the instances to a level playing field with any sort of volume that doesn't heavily compromise your data, there might only be a handful of 180-185cm + 85-90kg + non-impact ACL injuries for example, each one would alter the outcome too much.
It's also extremely difficult to measure the injuries you've avoided.
I know this is very abstract but it's because I saw this recently. With injury we are like the soldiers at Dunkirk yelling at the air force for not protecting them from attack, we don't see the hundreds who were stopped from getting to them.