Is Tippett's season over?

[DOSACHOKER1]

Why does it matter?
You've just said 3 concussions = retire.
Why does it matter how far are they apart?

organically it takes up to 4 weeks for a brain to fully rcover from a concussion is the main reason why the question of closeness is being made

 

[DOSACHOKER1]

Give him a rest for a few weeks, throw him a helmet in an attempt to minimalise effect of concussions (can still get concussion with helmets but lessens severity yes?), and keep a constant watch on him.

I'm sure the club doctors won't just throw him to the wolves - if he shows signs of forgettfulness etc over the next couple of weeks, he won't play for the next few weeks.

the lack of education of concussion and brain inj on this forum astounds me, seriously any of you making light of this issue need to take a deep breathe and think about it. It is your brain, once part of it becomes inj or worse still dies it never regains it s pre morbid state

 

[ok.crows]

Well, der, he's been concussed or recovering from concussion for the past 5 weeks.

Exactly so ... and even when he has been sitting on the bench concussed or recovering from concussion (and BTW reducing the number of interchange players the Crows could use), the Crows have been doing just fine without his contribution.

Hence, the point ... Tippett's contribution has not been vital to the Crows, since Tippet (through no fault of his own) hasn't made much contribution, and yet the Crows have done well without it.

 

[liam_13]

the lack of education of concussion and brain inj on this forum astounds me, seriously any of you making light of this issue need to take a deep breathe and think about it. It is your brain, once part of it becomes inj or worse still dies it never regains it s pre morbid state

If club doctors who should be up to date with all this shiz and the latest research don't think a 3 concussion thing is that big a problem, then why should I think it is so serious that Tippett should never play again or some other serious consequence?

 

[Natho]

Gotta feel for him. Very unlucky to get such injuries.

 

[DOSACHOKER1]

If club doctors who should be up to date with all this shiz and the latest research don't think a 3 concussion thing is that big a problem, then why should I think it is so serious that Tippett should never play again or some other serious consequence?

assuming they are, well obviously they arent when there is a mountain of research and precedent stating that early return to play from concussion significantly heightens the possibility of a second concussion and so on, this was known in the 70's. Ask yourself this, why do many players go back out when they are not concussed according to the medicos only then to have to come off again becuse they are symptomatic? Reimers 3 weeks ago, blurred vision? his eyes werent damaged, that part of the brain had been inj and had not recovered. Dr's are guessing with the most vital organ of the body which once damaged does not recover like muscles, ligaments and bones. The fact a player can play on autopilot does not mean they have recovered and many concussions are less severe or symptomatic 10 mins after the incident as they are 30 mins or 60 mins post initial concussion, that is a coping mechanism in the brain trying to re establish its proper function, remember these Dr's are not concussion expewrts they are GP's and sports Dr's who may be a specialist in some field, heck the physio for Nth Melb is on over 400K per year to keep blokes on the paddock, what are the Dr's on to do the same thing by whatever means?

 

[DOSACHOKER1]

Gotta feel for him. Very unlucky to get such injuries.

unlucky is a simplistic term in this case used by the coach, what he meant was poorly managed. 1+1+1 = 3 and this represents the number of concussions in 5 weeks, have you ever seen this before? I can guarentee that every weekend in contact sports there are underperforming players whom were concussed from the week previous, the timebomb is ticking before one of them is unlucky enough to sustain a permanent inj or death. Also someone mentioned helmets, they don't work as they don't prevent the brain shaking and twisting around inside the skull (contracoup). They are useful for preventing the head being crushed, smashed, split etc in case of cyclists/cricket etc but in reality the versions for the contact sporting codes are more of a plecebo.

 

[TheRoo32]

unlucky is a simplistic term in this case used by the coach, what he meant was poorly managed.

 

[Geoffa32]

If he is fit to play, I personally think he needs a run in the SANFL to get some match fitness up. Been a long time since he has played any decent minutes.

 

[BigLefty]

unlucky is a simplistic term in this case used by the coach, what he meant was poorly managed. 1+1+1 = 3 and this represents the number of concussions in 5 weeks, have you ever seen this before? I can guarentee that every weekend in contact sports there are underperforming players whom were concussed from the week previous, the timebomb is ticking before one of them is unlucky enough to sustain a permanent inj or death. Also someone mentioned helmets, they don't work as they don't prevent the brain shaking and twisting around inside the skull (contracoup). They are useful for preventing the head being crushed, smashed, split etc in case of cyclists/cricket etc but in reality the versions for the contact sporting codes are more of a plecebo.

i'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that the coach was referring to the way he was concussed as being unlucky. i still don tknow who whacked him from the kangas that caused his concussion, but the one against port was in a marking contest and the WC one he got headbutted attempting to kick.

it's not like he's contributed to his head knocks by playing recklessly, or ducking into tackles etc. they have been unlucky collisions.

your problem here is that you are generalising that a concussion is a concussion. they are all different and need a different treatment. you dont do 12 months rehab after an arthroscopy do you? but you do after a reco.

at the end of the day, no one here knows what symptoms he had, or the severity, or his recovery rate. so you should really just wait and trust the medicos to clear him to play when he is ready.

 

[DOSACHOKER1]

your problem here is that you are generalising that a concussion is a concussion. they are all different and need a different treatment. you dont do 12 months rehab after an arthroscopy do you? but you do after a reco.

at the end of the day, no one here knows what symptoms he had, or the severity, or his recovery rate. so you should really just wait and trust the medicos to clear him to play when he is ready.

I understand your opinion and you are correct, no 2 concussions are the same however my comments are based around the fact that the 3 major sporting codes are not treating concussion seriously at all, if they were they would have players permanently substituted from the game once they were concussed, at present they are saying that many actual concussive incidents are not concussion due to some simple testing they do on the sideline. I am not generalising at all, a clear understanding of what the brain is actually going through is what I am basing my remarks on. As for the comments from the coach you may be right, he may have meant that the incidents were unlucky however think about this for 1 sec, do you think that an innocuous incident that happens many times in a game that does not result in any concussion may have a greater ability to cause problems for a player whom is still recovering from a previous concussion? it is called secondary concussion syndrome and it basically means the brain is in a more fragile state and open to another concussive episode from innocuous events. I wouldn't trust the medicos at all as brain injury in this country in general terms is poorly addressed and poorly screened, in my state alone 2500 people per year acquire a brain injury and that stat is only on people whom are actually seeing neuro's, how many 100's get bashed, fall down drunk or are in sporting accidents every week and they dont go to hospital at all so don't even see the proper medical people, footy no different as very very few concussed players ever see the specialist in that area.

 

[BigLefty]

I understand your opinion and you are correct, no 2 concussions are the same however my comments are based around the fact that the 3 major sporting codes are not treating concussion seriously at all, if they were they would have players permanently substituted from the game once they were concussed, at present they are saying that many actual concussive incidents are not concussion due to some simple testing they do on the sideline. I am not generalising at all, a clear understanding of what the brain is actually going through is what I am basing my remarks on. As for the comments from the coach you may be right, he may have meant that the incidents were unlucky however think about this for 1 sec, do you think that an innocuous incident that happens many times in a game that does not result in any concussion may have a greater ability to cause problems for a player whom is still recovering from a previous concussion? it is called secondary concussion syndrome and it basically means the brain is in a more fragile state and open to another concussive episode from innocuous events. I wouldn't trust the medicos at all as brain injury in this country in general terms is poorly addressed and poorly screened, in my state alone 2500 people per year acquire a brain injury and that stat is only on people whom are actually seeing neuro's, how many 100's get bashed, fall down drunk or are in sporting accidents every week and they dont go to hospital at all so don't even see the proper medical people, footy no different as very very few concussed players ever see the specialist in that area.

i think it's a practical issue rather than a medical one. i'm all for protecting the players to minimise the risk of any injury, but if you make the concussion test too complicated or beyond the capabilities of the doctors at the ground, they just wont do them.

i dont even know exactly what the concussion test is, but i understand theres a series of questions asked. So if the rule was that if concussion was suspected, a brain scan or something was needed before you could return to the field, they just wouldnt do it.

then where do you draw the line, a scan after every high tackle just to make sure?

it's a complicated issue, and i'm not sure theres a practical answer yet.

to answer your question, i dont know. but many people seem to think this. i do suspect though that after a concussion a player may be unknowingly slightly "off" in their abilites. see kosi and his unawareness those years ago. maybe you're slightly slower to brace for impact, slightly less co-ordinated, so when you do get into a situation where you cop a hit, you might just not protect yourself properly.

 

[DOSACHOKER1]

i think it's a practical issue rather than a medical one. i'm all for protecting the players to minimise the risk of any injury, but if you make the concussion test too complicated or beyond the capabilities of the doctors at the ground, they just wont do them.

i dont even know exactly what the concussion test is, but i understand theres a series of questions asked. So if the rule was that if concussion was suspected, a brain scan or something was needed before you could return to the field, they just wouldnt do it.

then where do you draw the line, a scan after every high tackle just to make sure?

it's a complicated issue, and i'm not sure theres a practical answer yet.

to answer your question, i dont know. but many people seem to think this. i do suspect though that after a concussion a player may be unknowingly slightly "off" in their abilites. see kosi and his unawareness those years ago. maybe you're slightly slower to brace for impact, slightly less co-ordinated, so when you do get into a situation where you cop a hit, you might just not protect yourself properly.

one of the main issues is that a player is concussed and in the initia; stages show very few symptoms (Lindsay Gilbee against Carlton) he was clearly concussed, was convulsing for around 30-40 sec's. He should never have gone back out, Peter Larkins lied and said he wasn't concussed and what happened is something they do not have a name for yet but not concussion. That is utter BS. To have a seizure means the brain has been concussed ( in those circumstances) he didn't even have a concussion test. Notably he didn't have a great game after that because yes all his executive functioning etc was severly scrambled, opening the chance for a 2nd concussion.

 

[BigLefty]

one of the main issues is that a player is concussed and in the initia; stages show very few symptoms (Lindsay Gilbee against Carlton) he was clearly concussed, was convulsing for around 30-40 sec's. He should never have gone back out, Peter Larkins lied and said he wasn't concussed and what happened is something they do not have a name for yet but not concussion. That is utter BS. To have a seizure means the brain has been concussed ( in those circumstances) he didn't even have a concussion test. Notably he didn't have a great game after that because yes all his executive functioning etc was severly scrambled, opening the chance for a 2nd concussion.

i dont disagree with much of what your saying. i think everyone agrees we should ook after the players as best we can

so what do you think should be the protocal (on field, on game day), for head knocks?

 

[DOSACHOKER1]

i dont disagree with much of what your saying. i think everyone agrees we should ook after the players as best we can

so what do you think should be the protocal (on field, on game day), for head knocks?

I'm not for over reacting and I believe currently AFL do an excellent job on the prevention side, the management side is my area. Any player concussed, majorly or minorly (all concussions have the potential to manifest in an extreme way if poorly managed) should be subbed out immediately and the normal protocols then are activated. The player should then have a minimum amount of rest from external stimulii, low lit room etc with observation from family/friends/footy club official/team mate etc and not be allowed to engage in physical activity for a minimum period of time (many will disagree but it is only a game, surely brain health overrides a game?) say 3-5 days and not play the following week and if symptom free start a graduated return to training and games. Bekieve it or not but footy isn't the most important thing in the world and education from a young age about brain health would help change the "get up your not hurt " attitude. I have a template to follow somewhere that I have forwarded to some clubs but not sure how many have taken it up?

 

[MaccasNeighbour]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/144176/default.aspx

Tippett will now miss his third game following his spade of concussions. I for one am pleased to see AFC taking a very conservative approach.

 

[Badesumofu]

They are certainly doing all they can to make people think they are taking a conservative approach, but whether they truly are or not, remains to be seen. They named him to play this weekend. Coach and players did media suggesting that he was fine, recovered, right to go, no problems. Then they come out and say they are not playing him - that certainly looks conservative, but it looks that way because he was named originally, not because he was withdrawn. On top of that, the club doctor came right out and said that this might look conservative from the outside. The implication being that people would be more likely to think they are being over-cautious than under-cautious.

As far as I can see, even considering him to play this soon is decidedly not a conservative approach. They clearly want to appear conservative. Those two things together worry me considerably. That said, he has not actually played yet, and won't this week, so it remains to be seen whether they are really taking a conservative approach. I hope they are.

 

[DOSACHOKER1]

They are certainly doing all they can to make people think they are taking a conservative approach, but whether they truly are or not, remains to be seen. They named him to play this weekend. Coach and players did media suggesting that he was fine, recovered, right to go, no problems. Then they come out and say they are not playing him - that certainly looks conservative, but it looks that way because he was named originally, not because he was withdrawn. On top of that, the club doctor came right out and said that this might look conservative from the outside. The implication being that people would be more likely to think they are being over-cautious than under-cautious.

As far as I can see, even considering him to play this soon is decidedly not a conservative approach. They clearly want to appear conservative. Those two things together worry me considerably. That said, he has not actually played yet, and won't this week, so it remains to be seen whether they are really taking a conservative approach. I hope they are.

In the news in Tassie today an amatuer level player has had 4 concussions in 13 mths but 3 were close together last season and one this season at the start and the guy has been told by Dr's to give the game away and is suffering ongoing cognitive issues. In the same club another player has had a similar diagnosis but has decided to continue to play on? if the AFL 's stance is that concussions do not cause ongoing cognitive issues please explain the guy who is having ongoing cognitive issues? Tippett really should be rested for the remainder of the season, by not doing so risks his long term health but also send the wrong message to community and junior footy, surely this brings the game into disrepute and maybe the AFL should get a fine??

 

[rayven]

If the Americans in their studies are correct, it's not head knocks that need be adressed, its the impact the whole nervous system takes in collisions. The way the spinal cord and brain are rattled. Falling hard on your shoulder after a marking contest can be as serious to brain health as falling on your head.

David Parkin spoke about the concussions he got, he said he always played the next week but had a poor game and he slowly improved until about 3 games later before he started performing normal.

 

[DOSACHOKER1]

If the Americans in their studies are correct, it's not head knocks that need be adressed, its the impact the whole nervous system takes in collisions. The way the spinal cord and brain are rattled. Falling hard on your shoulder after a marking contest can be as serious to brain health as falling on your head.

David Parkin spoke about the concussions he got, he said he always played the next week but had a poor game and he slowly improved until about 3 games later before he started performing normal.

your partially correct and more the management of said inj, Parkin is correct and a concussion ended his career in 74, 26 hours unconscious will scare anyone out of playing at that stage of a career. The issue is those 3 weeks you are more open to a second concussion, this is what happened to Tipett. Does anyone remember Kosi coming out of the Dr's around 6 weeks after his knock and the camera was on him and he was saying all was good and nearly got cleaned up by a pedestrian walking down the street he did not see, clearly he wasn't right, no awareness, I still dont believe he has ever recovered and Polak, well he played again but why did he stop again, Dr advice.