Match Day Thread Rnd 15 V Melbourne. MCG 19.50 pm.

[AB Swannie]

Can anyone enlighten us as to the sort of "test" is involved for concussion?

I remember the alcohol test of walking a straight line and fingers to the nose; then there is "what day is it today, and who is Prime Minister", but surely it is more scientific than just questions.

Copied from http://www.neurosurgery.net.au/resou...-AFL-Level.pdf

Identification of concussion
? Clinical features consistent with a diagnosis of concussion include any one or more of
the following:
o Obvious LOC (e.g. rag doll appearance on video review or unresponsive when being
assessed);
o Impact seizures (e.g. tonic posturing, tonic-clonic jerks, etc.);
o Confusion/disorientation (e.g. fails the Maddocks questions);
o Balance disturbance (e.g. unsteady gait observed at the time of injury or evidence of
a balance disturbance on further assessment);
o Memorydisturbanceorothercognitivedeficits;
o Presence of symptoms after head trauma;*
o Any clinical impression by the team doctor that the player is not quite right following
trauma.

[Mountain Man]

Thanks - as assessed by the Swans Dr, or independently?

[neilfws]

and who is Prime Minister

An A&E nurse once told me that a common response to this question is "that b***ard!" That was during the Howard years, but I imagine it's quite consistent

[MattW]

I think the AFL should have a rule, that if a player is forced out of game through concussion due to a reportable incident, then one of the emergencies could be brought into the game as a replacement.

This was raised by Leigh Matthews in a 3AW interview with Longmire which is posted on the Swans site. I think it's an excellent idea.

[Ludwig]

WB Ludwig.

It was terrible Annie.

There I was, all alone.


I cried all day: "MATT! MATT! Please come back. I miss you so much. It's so lonely here without you."

But to no avail. He was gone. I hear he got a better offer and is now travelling with a forged passport.

[neilfws]

This was raised by Leigh Matthews in a 3AW interview with Longmire which is posted on the Swans site. I think it's an excellent idea.

Agreed! Better idea than a red card, which is sure to cause controversy at some point when issued incorrectly. They could even allow some time for assessment and video review while play went on, then bring on the emergency later as required.

[aguy]

I'm not so sue that the concussion replacement by an emergency player is the way to go. It is basically a return to the sub rule with a subtle difference.

Myself I do like the idea of a red card. Only to be used if a player is ruled out of a game as a result of the reportable Action of another player. Clearly no answer if perfect and without failings. By that is my preferred option. Leave both teams with 21 players and both can still have 18 on field.

[Industrial Fan]

Surely it would be 17 for the offending team?

[Dosser]

I will say up front that I am not a Towers fan but I am watching the replay of the 2nd quarter at the moment and something has occurred to me.
First of all he drops a sitter of a mark (par for the course) but a minute later he kicks a beautifully weighted pass onto Buddy's head. I realise that I have seen Towers do this a number of times this season, so I ask - is he maybe the best kick inside 50 in the team? He does it every game.

[dejavoodoo44]

I will say up front that I am not a Towers fan but I am watching the replay of the 2nd quarter at the moment and something has occurred to me.
First of all he drops a sitter of a mark (par for the course) but a minute later he kicks a beautifully weighted pass onto Buddy's head. I realise that I have seen Towers do this a number of times this season, so I ask - is he maybe the best kick inside 50 in the team? He does it every game.

Personally, I think that when Buddy takes possession outside of the fifty and chooses to hit somebody in the fifty, instead of having a shot, then he's probably the best. McVeigh can often put it on to a leading forward's chest, as well. If Hewett gets a bit of space, he's also pretty handy.

[aguy]

Surely it would be 17 for the offending team?

No I think the aim of the red card should be to bring back the teams to even in terms of interchange. At the moment the offending team are actually advantaged for example when mills was out was it leaves the Swans down one rotation. I think the aim of the red card should be to bring them back to the same rotations. The critics of the red card system have always said it may unfairly penalise a team if it is later decided on review that the offence wasn't worthy of a send off. As I see it the player should only be red carded after the opposition player fails the concussion test and therefore is a way of evening the contest again.

Further penalty for the offending player can still then go through the Normal MRP / tribunal system.

[Markwebbos]

Personally, I think that when Buddy takes possession outside of the fifty and chooses to hit somebody in the fifty, instead of having a shot, then he's probably the best. McVeigh can often put it on to a leading forward's chest, as well. If Hewett gets a bit of space, he's also pretty handy.

Newman's handy too

[dejavoodoo44]

Newman's handy too

Yes, don't know why I forgot him?

[CureTheSane]

I'm not so sue that the concussion replacement by an emergency player is the way to go. It is basically a return to the sub rule with a subtle difference.

Myself I do like the idea of a red card. Only to be used if a player is ruled out of a game as a result of the reportable Action of another player. Clearly no answer if perfect and without failings. By that is my preferred option. Leave both teams with 21 players and both can still have 18 on field.

For me, if a player is concussed, and this is documented by a doctor, then I have no issue of an emergency being brought on, at the start of the following quarter.
This would have to apply to any concussion, regardless of how it happened, and any infringing player follows the current process.

[AnnieH]

No I think the aim of the red card should be to bring back the teams to even in terms of interchange. At the moment the offending team are actually advantaged for example when mills was out was it leaves the Swans down one rotation. I think the aim of the red card should be to bring them back to the same rotations. The critics of the red card system have always said it may unfairly penalise a team if it is later decided on review that the offence wasn't worthy of a send off. As I see it the player should only be red carded after the opposition player fails the concussion test and therefore is a way of evening the contest again.

Further penalty for the offending player can still then go through the Normal MRP / tribunal system.

What if, we had a red card, gave it to the dirty little Bugg, he got sent off - then one of their players gets injured (for example, Viney).
Then they'd be two off the field.
Would you let the dirty little Bugg back on to even things up again?