Roast Port Adelaide's failure to do a HIA assessment on Aliir - [AFL confirms both players FAILED concussion tests on Monday]

[Xtreme]

I find it incredibly odd this hasn't been wrapped up yet. What can they possibly be still investigating?

At bunnings to buy a bigger broom and rug to sweep things under.

 

[CrowToon]

At bunnings to buy a bigger broom and rug to sweep things under.

Genuinely wonder if they are waiting to see if the media lose interest in the next week in which case they give them a fully suspended 25k fine.

 

[Crankyhawk]

There should be an independent Dr at every match to stop this kind of garbage happening. Take it out of the clubs hands

I think there is an independent one there to look after the afl officials (have colleagues go have done that job), currently do not look after players.

 

[ams4crows]

Genuinely wonder if they are waiting to see if the media lose interest in the next week in which case they give them a fully suspended 25k fine.

Public outrage only lasts about a week these days before a new story is at the forefront, but I think this time the AFL's hand will be forced because of this impending lawsuit they'll have to go way over the top to make it seem like they care.

 

[ibd77]

The local media have been running cover today for port so maybe the club has got in first...maybe the sanctions incoming are worse than what has been spitballed and they want to set a narrative of being overly punished for what they acknowledged they erred on?.

Just spitballing

Many Crow fans have got the popcorn out now.

Ken is set to be re-signed but what happens if the club is excluded from the finals series?

 

[DaBarz]

Many Crow fans have got the popcorn out now.

Ken is set to be re-signed but what happens if the club is excluded from the finals series?

Rumour
And rumour only

2 years extension

Source is relatively reliable

 

[Elixuh]

Hang on…

So you are saying that if you are the coach of a footy team and you see two of your players smash head first into each other and both fall to the ground making ZERO attempts to break their own fall cause they are clearly out cold.. then lay in a tonic state for several seconds which is yet another massive red flag pointing to being KO’d… so clearly both showing all signs of being totally KO’d.

But then 5 minutes later the doc says one of them is right to go back on.. and in that 5 minutes you’ve seen the replay of the collision on the big screen at the ground and the computer monitors right next to you..

Are you seriously suggesting you’d go “oh, really, ok, thats great, lets send him on then”..

The very rules themselves state that, tests or no tests, those players ARE NOT allowed to return to the field given the way they fell to the ground and showed all the classical signs of being KO’d.

If it was me.. i couldnt give a flying fxxk what the doc says.. that doctor is clearly not thinking straight.

And in this case.. Ken Hinkley wouldve had every right to overrule him and take the far more conservative and risk averse approach..

he would be being praised by all and sundry right now if he hadve said “thanks doc, but no thanks” to the doctor and instead taken this risk averse approach..

Kenny is a man of integrity. He placed his trust in the wrong man.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Many Crow fans have got the popcorn out now.

Ken is set to be re-signed but what happens if the club is excluded from the finals series?

I doubt the AFL will dock premiership points & don't believe it would be fair punishment.

Looking like a big fine, but imo should be docked draft points too.

 

[Cyclonus]

Many Crow fans have got the popcorn out now.

Ken is set to be re-signed but what happens if the club is excluded from the finals series?

It may be that way for some dickhead Crows supporters, but I'd like to think most are just worried about the players and their safety as well as the greater impact on the league. I hope. I don't even mind Port that much, except in Showdowns. The incident just made me feel uncomfortable.

 

[Satan]

Kenny is a man of integrity. He placed his trust in the wrong man.

Like jimmy h

 

[Crow till I die]

I doubt the AFL will dock premiership points & don't believe it would be fair punishment.

Looking like a big fine, but imo should be dockef draft points too.

If it was a first offence, then a fine for sure...but this ain't the first time. I guess we will see how serious the AFL are on this soonenough but with that class action sitting there....they don't want to send the wrong message

 

[Mattrox]

Its not just port doing it but the ALLIR incident was at the extreme end.

Ive seen Saints and maybe Sydney this year but cant recall the games. Geelong have done it.

Anyone recall any sketchy incidents. I tbink at least the ones I recall did the test.

It's important to recognise that the scat5 test is to rule out a player in the b) situation of "possible" signs. It does not allow back a player in the a) situation with ANY sign of "Clear diagnosis of concussion" as stipulated in the protocol. In this case, a Dr does not have the ability to use judgement. They must follow the protocol. scat 5 is a monitoring tool in the a) situation.

On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Shadow89]

Its not just port doing it but the ALLIR incident was at the extreme end.

Ive seen Saints and maybe Sydney this year but cant recall the games. Geelong have done it.

Anyone recall any sketchy incidents. I tbink at least the ones I recall did the test.

We've not done anything like this in recent times. You can't just include club names and not have anything to reference your inference by - otherwise it's just slanderous.

We're actually at the almost annoying end when it comes to injury. Anything minor, and they're out for weeks on end - rather than back on in 5 minutes.

Big difference between someone doing the HIA and SCAT-5, and someone doing only one of them and coming back on after a massive incident. The equivalent of what Port did, is us bringing Jeremy Cameron on after Rohan sent him into next week when they collided.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

We've not done anything like this in recent times. You can't just include club names and not have anything to reference your inference by - otherwise it's just slanderous.

We're actually at the almost annoying end when it comes to injury. Anything minor, and they're out for weeks on end - rather than back on in 5 minutes.

Big difference between someone doing the HIA and SCAT-5, and someone doing only one of them and coming back on after a massive incident. The equivalent of what Port did, is us bringing Jeremy Cameron on after Rohan sent him into next week when they collided.

I did say that those teams did the tests in contrast to Port. I felt the head knocks warranted players being subbed out but played on. Geelong with Selwood was sketchy. There were times i believe he SHOULD have sat out

So not in recent times like last few years

 

[Shadow89]

I did say that those teams did the tests in contrast to Port. I felt the head knocks warranted players being subbed out but played on. Geelong with Selwood was sketchy

That's your own opinion though, isn't it?

If a player is subjected to the tests and is cleared to come back on, then what you're really arguing with is league standards for concussion. There's nothing 'sketchy' we've done - as we've adhered to league standards.

If we instead did as Port did and blatantly ignored league standards, then that's a different conversation. What you are insinuating is that we're in the same boat, when you have literally no evidence to support that - because it's never happened.

As I said, it's slanderous, and it's probably something you wouldn't like oppo supporters saying about your club; especially when it's completely false.

 

[Democromcy Manifest]

We've not done anything like this in recent times. You can't just include club names and not have anything to reference your inference by - otherwise it's just slanderous.

We're actually at the almost annoying end when it comes to injury. Anything minor, and they're out for weeks on end - rather than back on in 5 minutes.

Big difference between someone doing the HIA and SCAT-5, and someone doing only one of them and coming back on after a massive incident. The equivalent of what Port did, is us bringing Jeremy Cameron on after Rohan sent him into next week when they collided.

Id be surprised if all clubs have didnt some incident that wasnt completely handled correctly. As someone else pointed out Im sure you could look back on some of Selwoods games and find a time he should have been assessed and wasnt. The guidlines for requiring a HIA is pretty broad. Another example from another team is the Murphy/Rioli striking report. The way Murphy went down would suggest a HIA was required but I dont think one was performed.

However as the comment you replied to said, the AA incident was the extreme end of the scale.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

That's your own opinion though, isn't it?

If a player is subjected to the tests and is cleared to come back on, then what you're really arguing with is league standards for concussion. There's nothing 'sketchy' we've done - as we've adhered to league standards.

If we instead did as Port did and blatantly ignored league standards, then that's a different conversation. What you are insinuating is that we're in the same boat, when you have literally no evidence to support that - because it's never happened.

As I said, it's slanderous, and it's probably something you wouldn't like oppo supporters saying about your club; especially when it's completely false.

I didnt explain clearly. Geelong did the tests. Port did not. Yes my opinion players should have sat out

 

[PenfoldsFan]

So Barrett says less than 100k fine, says mitigating circumstance is lack of vision from the bench and having to deal with 2 players, which is exactly what I've been saying for 2 days.
He also says the ARC reviewers to be given additional powers to overrule Drs as I also suggested should have happened If they we're indeed there.

Save the apologies, I dont rate you anyway.

 

[naysayer]

Talk of draft and premiership points is over the top. I think a fine is fair, but I think it will be one of the biggest we've seen. 100k -ish

 

[Democromcy Manifest]

Talk of draft and premiership points is over the top. I think a fine is fair, but I think it will be one of the biggest we've seen. 100k -ish

I think the AFL will set up a structure that does fine premiership points for breaches like this in the future. Essentially saying that if you are going to risk a players long term health for 4 points, they will be taken off you.

But at the moment there are no rules or precedent so I think it would be very harsh. Not unjustified, but harsh.

 

[naysayer]

So Barrett says less than 100k fine, says mitigating circumstance is lack of vision from the bench and having to deal with 2 players, which is exactly what I've been saying for 2 days.
He also says the ARC reviewers to be given additional powers to overrule Drs as I also suggested should have happened If they we're indeed there.

Save the apologies, I dont rate you anyway.

Lack of vision from the bench? That.is.hilarious.

Did a flock of seagulls perhaps block their view of the big replay screen in the stadium? Or was their view of two players not moving on the ground 30 metres away obstructed by a poorly-timed yawn from the waterboy?

Any difficulty in assessing what happened should've resulted in spending a longer time making the assessment. Or at worst might've resulted in them calling Allir back to do a proper test once they had seen the vision.

Your club doesn't have an excuse, and they have history, and that's why you'll get a huge fine.

 

[SC_Power]

Expecting a very large fine, but premiership points or draft penalties would be appealed without a second thought.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Lack of vision from the bench? That.is.hilarious.

Did a flock of seagulls perhaps block their view of the big replay screen in the stadium? Or was their view of two players not moving on the ground 30 metres away obstructed by a poorly-timed yawn from the waterboy?

Any difficulty in assessing what happened should've resulted in spending a longer time making the assessment. Or at worst might've resulted in them calling Allir back to do a proper test once they had seen the vision.

Your club doesn't have an excuse, and they have history, and that's why you'll get a huge fine.

The problem with the hysteria over the past 4 days is the ability to slow down, isolate and judge each aspect, it works for nufties kickin back in the stands or at home but in the heat of battle it doesnt work like that.
Aliir falls to the ground with his back to the bench, they dont see his initial response in real time and with 2 players down, Jones obviously KO'd and visible, go out with their main focus on him.
By the time they assess Aliir on the ground he's come to and is grimacing in pain from what looks like a shoulder/collarbone hit.
Both are taken to the bench where both DR's attend Jones whilst Aliir watches the game.
By the time they get around to Aliir he's able to pass the HIA and returns to the field.
Should they have looked more closely at the hit to Aliir, yes.
Did the Doc get it wrong, yes.
Has the club put its hand up for that oversight, yes, and will cop a fine, I'll go 80k with 40k suspended.

Now, from the moment Aliir goes back on it becomes a wider problem because the AFL's ARC reviewers SHOULD have had him removed, if not immediately, then at the half.
They didnt for 1 of 2 reasons, negligence or no one present reviewing.
Rather than admit to either they've now wrapped it up by saying they'll give them more power next time which is the rug and broom treatment for their own part.

Now you can all rage to no avail.

 

[Mattrox]

If a player is subjected to the tests and is cleared to come back on, then what you're really arguing with is league standards for concussion. There's nothing 'sketchy' we've done - as we've adhered to league standards.

.

To be clear, a scat5 doesn't clear a player to get back after a "Clear diagnosis". In the case of a KO, there is no return to play under the protocol.

The player can return to play in the event of "possible" concussion with a scat5.

The sketchy part is where you see a player fall and know they are briefly out, but without any other sign ie tonic posturing, give them a scat5 and they pass, you turn a blind eye to the ko.

Umpires need a "headknock rule" whenever a player seems motionless they get sent off for HIA and evaluation. This would do 2 things, stop players acting hurt to draw a suspension. And it would force proper treatment for possible cases.

There also needs to be a person in the arc who reviews and just makes the game day call of "clear diagnosis of concussion with no return".


On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Rich01]

The problem with the hysteria over the past 4 days is the ability to slow down, isolate and judge each aspect, it works for nufties kickin back in the stands or at home but in the heat of battle it doesnt work like that.
Aliir falls to the ground with his back to the bench, they dont see his initial response in real time and with 2 players down, Jones obviously KO'd and visible, go out with their main focus on him.
By the time they assess Aliir on the ground he's come to and is grimacing in pain from what looks like a shoulder/collarbone hit.
Both are taken to the bench where both DR's attend Jones whilst Aliir watches the game.
By the time they get around to Aliir he's able to pass the HIA and returns to the field.
Should they have looked more closely at the hit to Aliir, yes.
Did the Doc get it wrong, yes.
Has the club put its hand up for that oversight, yes, and will cop a fine, I'll go 80k with 40k suspended.

Now, from the moment Aliir goes back on it becomes a wider problem because the AFL's ARC reviewers SHOULD have had him removed, if not immediately, then at the half.
They didnt for 1 of 2 reasons, negligence or no one present reviewing.
Rather than admit to either they've now wrapped it up by saying they'll give them more power next time which is the rug and broom treatment for their own part.

Now you can all rage to no avail.

If it’s a time or resource issue for Port they should have kept him benched until they could properly review the footage and conduct the appropriate tests. That’s just plain old negligence of duty of care.

Can’t palm this off to the AFL arc for such a monumental mistake.