Scandal Sfnl refusing to enforce concussion rules

[Mitchell Madness]

You may have seen footage of the hit from the d1 women's game between casey and endaevour hills. Endaevour hills' nicola Weston was concussed and admitted to being concussed at the tribunal .

The league has said she will be allowed to play the grand final despite it only being 14 days (not 21 as per afl vic rules)

Am hearing similar stories from numerous leagues

The relationship between the afl and the grassroots leagues is fractured

 

[ThirtyFive]

I’d say that they’ll be on very shaky ground if things go pear shaped e.g sustains another concussion. But, it’s predictable. There was poor communication with state leagues from day one, and as a consequence, grassroots medical staff. I’d bet it’ll happen ad nauseam, particularly now finals are approaching

 

[twiggy4PM]

It is a ridiculous rule made by the AFL to suit the AFL. Are they stating that there are no other doctors capable of treating concussion except AFL doctors, so other leagues must wait 21 days while the AFL players only have to wait 14 days.

Patronising and arrogant attitude

 

[matthew_s]

It is a ridiculous rule made by the AFL to suit the AFL. Are they stating that there are no other doctors capable of treating concussion except AFL doctors, so other leagues must wait 21 days while the AFL players only have to wait 14 days.

Patronising and arrogant attitude

Are you suggesting that these weekend warriors are going to get the same amount of care and monitoring as Rankine will?

 

[ThirtyFive]

I agree, that 21 days is appropriate for community football where the standard of care for concussed players is not comparable with AFL clubs. But, in state league competitions it is overreach. I’m interested to know what care and monitoring will Rankine receive that is not provided to state league competition players? He will undergo SCAT 6 testing by a doctor. If he exhibits symptoms, he will be further tested. If he doesn’t, he will be managed through the 12 day protocols and will return to competition at 12 days. If he has symptom recurrence it will be longer. Same happens in state league clubs and competitions. Except, the AFL imposed 21 days. It is poorly executed policy and will lead to players and clubs hiding concussions, particularly at this stage of the year when finals approach as the original author has identified. From day one, there was a lack of consultation, in fact, zero, with the very people the AFL needed to “buy in” to implement the policy. There are plenty of experienced sports doctors who will say that the majority of concussions are non- symptomatic within 7 days. Just what are these “advanced care settings” within AFL clubs that aren’t available to state league players as out patients? The level of expertise available in state league clubs is comparable to AFL clubs. In my view, it is overreach. Players who continue to exhibit symptoms in stage 2/3 will still be managed appropriately with extended exclusion from training and play. A 21 day policy is too long in senior state league competitions. I’m genuinely interested to know what “advanced care settings’ are? The AFL have created this issue and if they’d consulted, rather than arrogantly bestowed this poorly implemented policy, we wouldn’t be in this situation. They’re not getting “buy in” and it’s not surprising in the least.

 

[Pies No 1]

This has to do with the litigation side of it. AFL has set these timeframes for a reason. If clubs go rogue and do their own thing, just wait for that player to retire and sue the club for 10's of millions and then the club will no longer exist.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

This has to do with the litigation side of it. AFL has set these timeframes for a reason. If clubs go rogue and do their own thing, just wait for that player to retire and sue the club for 10's of millions and then the club will no longer exist.

Weston is also a train-on pies VFLW player to muddy the waters even more

 

[twiggy4PM]

Are you suggesting that these weekend warriors are going to get the same amount of care and monitoring as Rankine will?

Yes.

Are you suggesting that if a WAFL player gets concussion there are no quaified doctors available to treat them apart from those used by the AFL teams?

 

[matthew_s]

Yes.

Are you suggesting that if a WAFL player gets concussion there are no quaified doctors available to treat them apart from those used by the AFL teams?

No, I’m suggest the amount of care and monitoring will not be the same.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I agree, that 21 days is appropriate for community football where the standard of care for concussed players is not comparable with AFL clubs. But, in state league competitions it is overreach. I’m interested to know what care and monitoring will Rankine receive that is not provided to state league competition players? He will undergo SCAT 6 testing by a doctor. If he exhibits symptoms, he will be further tested. If he doesn’t, he will be managed through the 12 day protocols and will return to competition at 12 days. If he has symptom recurrence it will be longer. Same happens in state league clubs and competitions. Except, the AFL imposed 21 days. It is poorly executed policy and will lead to players and clubs hiding concussions, particularly at this stage of the year when finals approach as the original author has identified. From day one, there was a lack of consultation, in fact, zero, with the very people the AFL needed to “buy in” to implement the policy. There are plenty of experienced sports doctors who will say that the majority of concussions are non- symptomatic within 7 days. Just what are these “advanced care settings” within AFL clubs that aren’t available to state league players as out patients? The level of expertise available in state league clubs is comparable to AFL clubs. In my view, it is overreach. Players who continue to exhibit symptoms in stage 2/3 will still be managed appropriately with extended exclusion from training and play. A 21 day policy is too long in senior state league competitions. I’m genuinely interested to know what “advanced care settings’ are? The AFL have created this issue and if they’d consulted, rather than arrogantly bestowed this poorly implemented policy, we wouldn’t be in this situation. They’re not getting “buy in” and it’s not surprising in the least.

“Community football” is a troublesome term and covers an enormous range of levels.

In some cases the gap between “state league” footy and the higher echelons of “community football” is very little in terms of finances, players, facilities and resources.

In Victoria the state league doesn’t even have reserves - most state league-listed players are playing “community football” every week.

Community footy used to come after AFL / AFL Reserves / VFL / VFL Reserves. Now two of those four levels are gone and the top of community footy is the third tier.

Of course at the other end there’s extremely disorganised, recreational-level footy with little resources.

But the range is enormous.

Plenty of “community football” clubs hire professional medicos that would be the equal of a state league club. You can’t rely on volunteers and it’s often good business for medicos looking to build experience and business in the field.

The simple answer is obvious - clubs at any level should be able to be accredited as having the qualified staff and processes in place and would not require the extended mandatory period. The rest could have the blanket rule.

But it’s easier for the AFL to just throw it over everyone, given they don’t actually give a shit how it affects people.

 

[Blue Pulse]

Watched the SFNL and EFNL and listening to the talk from players, if they cop a head knock within the next few weeks, Mum's the word, otherwise there goes the final series.
Of course, some they won't be able to hide but the majority will let it slide, I would say this would extend to most leagues.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Watched the SFNL and EFNL and listening to the talk from players, if they cop a head knock within the next few weeks, Mum's the word, otherwise there goes the final series.
Of course, some they won't be able to hide but the majority will let it slide, I would say this would extend to most leagues.

I contacted afl house about it. Afl house told me that unless it is reported by the clubs OFFICIALLY (official concussion reporting docs) there's nothing they can do. Effectively it is all for show re:concussion

 

[Blue Pulse]

I contacted afl house about it. Afl house told me that unless it is reported by the clubs OFFICIALLY (official concussion reporting docs) there's nothing they can do. Effectively it is all for show re:concussion

Totally agree, unfortunately, players will hide their head knocks, especially during finals because they know clubs will err on the side of caution.
The AFL have to cover their butts, but unfortunately, in doing so, every tweak to the rules takes away the instinctive style of play that players have grown up with causing them to hesitate or think twice before carrying out an action they have done for years, which in my view is causing more problems.
If they want to change or tweak rules, it has to start a junior level

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Totally agree, unfortunately, players will hide their head knocks, especially during finals because they know clubs will err on the side of caution.
The AFL have to cover their butts, but unfortunately, in doing so, every tweak to the rules takes away the instinctive style of play that players have grown up with causing them to hesitate or think twice before carrying out an action they have done for years, which in my view is causing more problems.
If they want to change or tweak rules, it has to start a junior level

For this instance though, it was actually the opposite, the club, and the sfnl knew and didn't enforce it

 

[Blue Pulse]

For this instance though, it was actually the opposite, the club, and the sfnl knew and didn't enforce it

I would have thought to clear the player they would need a doctors approval? "If" something untoward were to occur in the near future, it would be the club and SFNL who would face liability.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

I would have thought to clear the player they would need a doctors approval? "If" something untoward were to occur in the near future, it would be the club and SFNL who would face liability.

Only need clearance if it's reported.
The club never filled out the paperwork, and the league didn't knock on the door and ask for it...

 

[Aussie in exile]

Be prepared for court cases in years to come with ex players looking for large compo payments

 

[burge13]

Be prepared for court cases in years to come with ex players looking for large compo payments

They should be prepared to be laughed out of the room when there's no record of the head knock because they never said anything at the time

 

[Mitchell Madness]

They should be prepared to be laughed out of the room when there's no record of the head knock because they never said anything at the time

They did. It's in the league tribunal recirds

 

[teagueyubeauty]

This has to do with the litigation side of it. AFL has set these timeframes for a reason. If clubs go rogue and do their own thing, just wait for that player to retire and sue the club for 10's of millions and then the club will no longer exist.

Just ask Glenroy in the EDFL, currently being sued by someone who played for them in the 90’s

Not sure how much he expects to get from Glenroy themselves as they are a minnow club but I assume the real payout will come from EDFL insurers

If he wins then it’s open season on local footy clubs who cannot possibly afford the likely payouts.
If clubs are ignoring the directive then they won’t be getting the coverage from their league headquarters in future and will be forced to close the club


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[ThirtyFive]

And, all of this was predictable at the beginning of the year. Policy is a dogs breakfast and could have been avoided if there had been proper consultation, which, they didn’t. I know plenty of experienced sports doctors who will tell you that the majority of concussions will resolve within 7 days and that players are missing games unnecessarily. AIS as a statutory body framed a policy at a time when there were various “recommendations” from a senate committee. They pandered to government pressure. Interestingly, there was a recent Harvard/Oxford/UNNSW extensive study (so, institutions with significant credebility) that found there was NO correlation in cognitive decline of concussed community footballers. In fact, the extensive research showed that those who had sustained concussion displayed improved cognition than those who hadn’t! What makes that study any less relevant than those which the senate committee based their recommendations on? Those with lingering concussion symptoms have had an enforced lay off in any case, in some cases longer than 21 days. The policy needs reworking.