Concussion rule

[LostDoggy]

I hear today that the afl is bringing in a rule that if you are concussed you aren't allowed back on. Fair enough its sensible to me, however it's opens up many grey areas one of them is intentional concussing opposition players. If the bulldogs reached the gf I'd be asking Barry to knock out as many as he can. Without a sending off rule what's stopping anyone from doing this?

[The Coon Dog]

I hear today that the afl is bringing in a rule that if you are concussed you aren't allowed back on. Fair enough its sensible to me, however it's opens up many grey areas one of them is intentional concussing opposition players. If the bulldogs reached the gf I'd be asking Barry to knock out as many as he can. Without a sending off rule what's stopping anyone from doing this?

Who determines what player is & isn't suffering concussion?

As you say Chops, a few grey areas. Might be a few 'inner ear infections' & the like this season.

[Sockeye Salmon]

No-one can suggest it in an formal format without being threatened with defamation but every doctor in the league will do precisely what the coach says.

'He's just winded' will be getting a run fairly often, I guess.

[jazzadogs]

Who determines what player is & isn't suffering concussion?

As you say Chops, a few grey areas. Might be a few 'inner ear infections' & the like this season.
They could easily ask for proof through the concussion test (assuming they still do a concussion test?). Have the doctors show their test, proving that the player is not concussed, before they're let back on the ground.
Obviously this is still open to corruption of sorts, because players can just reduce their baseline score meaning it's easier to 'prove' they're not concussed.

I think it's a good idea, clubs were too liberal with letting concussed players back onto the ground.
Poor form to announce it two days before the start of the season though.

[Mofra]

Isn't the test if a player was stretchered off?
If it is, we'll see alot more trainers carrying/helping players off.

[Topdog]

I hear today that the afl is bringing in a rule that if you are concussed you aren't allowed back on. Fair enough its sensible to me, however it's opens up many grey areas one of them is intentional concussing opposition players. If the bulldogs reached the gf I'd be asking Barry to knock out as many as he can. Without a sending off rule what's stopping anyone from doing this?

Very good point Chops.

It's a noble idea by the AFL but I can't see it working well. As TCD said lots of inner ear infections.

[AndrewP6]

Great idea in theory. However, as the saying goes, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." (attributed rather amusingly to either Yogi Berra or Albert Einstein!)

[LostDoggy]

Seeing the injuries from Round 1, I seriously want the AFL to bring in two Subs , one the normal Sub- one off one on, the other the Medical Sub for a concussed or injured player- one off one on . If the AFL want to keep things level with no subterfuge or deliberate high tackles the Medical Sub is the easiest way to do it. Also with the finals, I would want the Club doctors of the Club's who did,nt qualify for the finals to be made available as neutral Doctors to ascertain the injury before the Medical Sub, this would eliminate a Club trying to inject fresh legs before the end of a game by exploiting the Medical Sub

.

[Sockeye Salmon]

No-one can suggest it in an formal format without being threatened with defamation but every doctor in the league will do precisely what the coach says.

'He's just winded' will be getting a run fairly often, I guess.

As usual, SS is right on the money.


Apparently Mitch Clark was just winded.

If you missed it he got collected and was walking like a new-born foal. His opponent was actually holding him up and waved for the trainers.

He wasn't subbed out and came back on later.

[AndrewP6]

Seeing the injuries from Round 1, I seriously want the AFL to bring in two Subs , one the normal Sub- one off one on, the other the Medical Sub for a concussed or injured player- one off one on . If the AFL want to keep things level with no subterfuge or deliberate high tackles the Medical Sub is the easiest way to do it. Also with the finals, I would want the Club doctors of the Club's who did,nt qualify for the finals to be made available as neutral Doctors to ascertain the injury before the Medical Sub, this would eliminate a Club trying to inject fresh legs before the end of a game by exploiting the Medical Sub

.

Sounds logical - which means it won't happen.

[Greystache]

As usual, SS is right on the money.


Apparently Mitch Clark was just winded.

If you missed it he got collected and was walking like a new-born foal. His opponent was actually holding him up and waved for the trainers.

He wasn't subbed out and came back on later.

I don't agree at all, while they may be working for a footy club, they are still reportable to the medical practitioners board. They can be dis-barred for in proper practice, they won't risk their livelihoods for a job they do for the enjoyment. This will be sorted out within a couple of weeks.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I don't agree at all, while they may be working for a footy club, they are still reportable to the medical practitioners board. They can be dis-barred for in proper practice, they won't risk their livelihoods for a job they do for the enjoyment. This will be sorted out within a couple of weeks.

He should have been done for malpractice on Saturday night.

If you think the coaches aren't making the decisions for them you're delirious.

[Greystache]

He should have been done for malpractice on Saturday night.

If you think the coaches aren't making the decisions for them you're delirious.

I can tell you I'm not, a family friend was a club doctor in the AFL for years. He lost count the number of times he told the coach "get ****ed, he's not right to go back on"

Just because a player was stunned doesn't mean he's got a concussion, Mitch Clark came back on not long after and looked fine. chances are he'll play this week.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I can tell you I'm not, a family friend was a club doctor in the AFL for years. He lost count the number of times he told the coach "get ****ed, he's not right to go back on"

Just because a player was stunned doesn't mean he's got a concussion, Mitch Clark came back on not long after and looked fine. chances are he'll play this week.

Yeah, and the Brisbane doctor said the scratches to the Brisbane player from Jose Romero's fingernails were 'bleeding profusely'.

[Topdog]

Just because a player was stunned doesn't mean he's got a concussion, Mitch Clark came back on not long after and looked fine. chances are he'll play this week.

Tue and Mitch was most likely fine.

However was a concussion test done? The answer is no as he came back on in 3 minutes and the test has 30 questions and several physical tests too.

AFL cleared Brisbane.

http://www.afl.com.au/newsviews/news/blogarticlestandard/tabid/15692/newsid/110246/default.aspx

[Greystache]

He should have been done for malpractice on Saturday night.

If you think the coaches aren't making the decisions for them you're delirious.

Richmond's best player subbed at quarter time due to a concussion, obviously it would've been the coaches decision not the doctor's. :rolleyes:

[LostDoggy]

Is this concussion rule a lightning rod? Seems to have been a lot more concussions have been reported in the first two rounds of this year than usual.

I still don't understand the sub rule. If you have to nominate only a single player as a sub, how can it help but become tactical? And unless you're really lucky, it still disadvantages a team when someone gets injured or concussed: for example, if a ruck is named as a sub, and a backman is injured, the ruck comes on and the team is a backman short. One of the key justifications for the sub rule (other than to slow the game down) was to reduce the disadvantage to the team suffering an early injury. Surely then you would have a range of subs available to cover a variety of positions, easiest thing to legislate would be just to have all your emergencies as potential subs.

This has been a cock-up of quite magnificent proportions, almost as big as the complete confusion around however the rushed behind rule has been worded.

[azabob]

Is this concussion rule a lightning rod? Seems to have been a lot more concussions have been reported in the first two rounds of this year than usual.

I still don't understand the sub rule. If you have to nominate only a single player as a sub, how can it help but become tactical? And unless you're really lucky, it still disadvantages a team when someone gets injured or concussed: for example, if a ruck is named as a sub, and a backman is injured, the ruck comes on and the team is a backman short. One of the key justifications for the sub rule (other than to slow the game down) was to reduce the disadvantage to the team suffering an early injury. Surely then you would have a range of subs available to cover a variety of positions, easiest thing to legislate would be just to have all your emergencies as potential subs.

This has been a cock-up of quite magnificent proportions, almost as big as the complete confusion around however the rushed behind rule has been worded.

Has been reported in today's AGE that J.Brown was in favour of the rule before the season started but after Brisbane's round one game he now doesn't like it.

In the 3rd quarter Beams got subbed off and then brisbane copped 3 injuries, Brown, Clark and Staker all game ending injuries so in theory they were down to nil on the bench except for the sub Beams who was fully fit and ready to go, but couldn't. No surprise Freo ran over the top of them.

[ledge]

Does this automatically rule Jack out for next weeks game?

[azabob]

Does this automatically rule Jack out for next weeks game?

Apparently not. Richmond have released a statement saying he has pulled up well and will play next week.

[soupman]

Is this concussion rule a lightning rod? Seems to have been a lot more concussions have been reported in the first two rounds of this year than usual.

I still don't understand the sub rule. If you have to nominate only a single player as a sub, how can it help but become tactical? And unless you're really lucky, it still disadvantages a team when someone gets injured or concussed: for example, if a ruck is named as a sub, and a backman is injured, the ruck comes on and the team is a backman short. One of the key justifications for the sub rule (other than to slow the game down) was to reduce the disadvantage to the team suffering an early injury. Surely then you would have a range of subs available to cover a variety of positions, easiest thing to legislate would be just to have all your emergencies as potential subs.
This has been a cock-up of quite magnificent proportions, almost as big as the complete confusion around however the rushed behind rule has been worded.

Creates too many issues regarding whether these players get sufficient match practice, player payments, etc.