Discussion General Discussion
- Thread starter Impromptu
- Start date
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 39,514
- Likes
- 128,613
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 39,514
- Likes
- 128,613
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Possibly discussed already & I missed it ....but a thought just occurred to me....it’s finals and your playing in the preliminary final for a place in the G.F.
Your up by 20+ points with just a few minutes to go and looking good to progress....then u cop a knock to the head and suffer concussion.
What happens then....player Automatically MUST sit out the following week and is denied the opportunity to play in GF ?
Or is this considered a special case and there is scope for a less ridged outcome ?
Basically is this new rule set in stone, have the AFL considered this possibility? What if it’s a star player(touchwood)
Touchwood it doesn’t happen to any player ...but might we just see 46 players don the helmet for a prelim....that would be a funny sight😁
Your up by 20+ points with just a few minutes to go and looking good to progress....then u cop a knock to the head and suffer concussion.
What happens then....player Automatically MUST sit out the following week and is denied the opportunity to play in GF ?
Or is this considered a special case and there is scope for a less ridged outcome ?
Basically is this new rule set in stone, have the AFL considered this possibility? What if it’s a star player(touchwood)
Touchwood it doesn’t happen to any player ...but might we just see 46 players don the helmet for a prelim....that would be a funny sight😁
Last edited:
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,571
- Likes
- 1,374
- AFL Club
- Essendon
My understanding is that the player would miss out on the GF under the current rules, with the importance of the game not impacting the application of the 12 day rule. This makes sense to me, no matter if it’s a star player or a Grand Final at stake, because the point is to protect the player’s health (or at least mitigate the risk posed by further head knocks in the future). Chelsea Randall, captain of the Crows AFLW, missed the GF this year because of the protocol.
How's the rental situation or the price of units up there Ken ?
I've had thoughts of a sea change for the past few years, will finish this course in November then I'm up for an adventure.
I've had thoughts of a sea change for the past few years, will finish this course in November then I'm up for an adventure.
As it stands they'd miss the game.
Was a pretty heated discussion between Nick Riewoldt and Matt Lloyd about this.
I strongly agree with the Riewoldt side on it, who essentially said that if you've been medically cleared and passed all the relevant tests it should be your choice rather than an arbitrary number that some AFL idiot came up with. Personally I'd extend it to an (or multiple) independent doctor being required. Riewoldt basically said if he was in that situation he'd be taking it to court to play and I'd imagine he'd have a very strong case as there is no medical grounds or reason for the restraint of trade on the player, it's purely the AFL wanting to appear to be doing something to have a defendable position in any future lawsuits that could come, aka grandstanding.
I'm 100% behind if the player isn't medically fit to play then not being allowed as the head injuries are an issue and obviously the judgement of the player is impacted by them so they're not in a position to make the call. I'd also be absolutely fine with the AFL requiring a waiver of any future claims if you wanted to do it but the reality is that where the player is capable of making the choice it should be their choice. I imagine that the only time it would be an issue is in big finals anyway, fingers crossed we don't have to deal with it.
I also think the rule creates a genuine issue for the medical staff, as we saw with Weitering a couple of weeks ago, a player can look completely concussed and still play on if the medical staff ok it and there'd be unreasonable pressure on those medicos in a preliminary final knowing the consequences of this rule for any kind of minor to mid-level concussion.
Was a pretty heated discussion between Nick Riewoldt and Matt Lloyd about this.
I strongly agree with the Riewoldt side on it, who essentially said that if you've been medically cleared and passed all the relevant tests it should be your choice rather than an arbitrary number that some AFL idiot came up with. Personally I'd extend it to an (or multiple) independent doctor being required. Riewoldt basically said if he was in that situation he'd be taking it to court to play and I'd imagine he'd have a very strong case as there is no medical grounds or reason for the restraint of trade on the player, it's purely the AFL wanting to appear to be doing something to have a defendable position in any future lawsuits that could come, aka grandstanding.
I'm 100% behind if the player isn't medically fit to play then not being allowed as the head injuries are an issue and obviously the judgement of the player is impacted by them so they're not in a position to make the call. I'd also be absolutely fine with the AFL requiring a waiver of any future claims if you wanted to do it but the reality is that where the player is capable of making the choice it should be their choice. I imagine that the only time it would be an issue is in big finals anyway, fingers crossed we don't have to deal with it.
I also think the rule creates a genuine issue for the medical staff, as we saw with Weitering a couple of weeks ago, a player can look completely concussed and still play on if the medical staff ok it and there'd be unreasonable pressure on those medicos in a preliminary final knowing the consequences of this rule for any kind of minor to mid-level concussion.
@wogitalia .good post. Riewoldts point is on point and valid.
Hopefully we never have to cross that bridge but Murphy’s law being Murphy’s law no doubt we will at some point ; well...it already happened in the women’s game
Hopefully we never have to cross that bridge but Murphy’s law being Murphy’s law no doubt we will at some point ; well...it already happened in the women’s game
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 39,514
- Likes
- 128,613
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 39,514
- Likes
- 128,613
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide