AFL full of hypocrisy and mixed messages on concussion

Depends on their pay - apparently (according to some media people like Gerard Whatley) most already have high paying jobs outside the AFL and like the fact that they aren't eating and breathing football. One day maybe it will change, but how much is a fair wage for a field umpire, then boundary and goal umpires? Remember it needs to be enough for them to leave their second job (or maybe first).

I get not all umpires want to be full time, and may lose some, but the positives of attracting an retaining the best umpires will outweigh the lost.

If you speak to a lot of the umpires, they will tell you that they don't want to be full time. They often have other jobs that they enjoy doing and don't want to give up. I'm not sure making them full time would make any difference. Whether that is the right thing or not, is another question. The biggest problem depends on your point of view or position of the incident. An umpire can be obscured from the incident because of other players in their line of sight (or caught out of position). Making them full time isn't going to change this. Then you have the interpretation of the laws that add another level of complexity. E.g. Was it a sling tackle or did momentum cause the problem? Did he duck or slip? Was he contesting the ball or not? As for the Henderson incident with Marshall, I didn't see an issue with it. To me his eyes didn't deviate from the ball so how could he know where Marshall's head was? You may beg to differ, and that is the issue. There are two interpretations of the same incident. Now who is wrong and who is right? Selwood as mentioned turns his body just before the contest as is taught to all young players (protecting their own head) and because another player doesn't try to protect himself, Selwood is seen to be the bad guy? So we now encourage players to not use their body to protect themselves and likely have more clash of heads? The other option is a player stands back and allows the opposition player to collect the ball and he gets harangued for not attacking the ball and creating a contest. As for some of the bumps and how they are interpreted, most people forget the speed the players are moving at, and how hard it is to change direction in a split second while moving at speed. You can't change in mid-air either. Bracing for impact can cause issues as well. It will depend on where the player makes contact because again momentum can cause an arm to hit the head (or head to head contact). Does this mean that a player having been bumped is responsible for where their arms go? What happens if they cause concussion in the act of trying to protect themselves? Slowing it down on video changes the perspective as it is not showing it at full speed as it occurred. What are you going to do - make any contact with the head, however so slight a free kick? Any action that causes the head to hit the ground a free kick? They are the only way to really get rid of contact to the head, but accidents will continue to happen if that is the case anyway. So where do you stop and acknowledge that a player taking part in a game has assumed some sort of risk like most indemnity forms you are asked to sign when undertaking an activity that can cause injury?

Nothing wrong with some controlled violence i love it, I had a couple of mates that did MMA, use to love mucking around and sparring with the guys. A couple times a mate turned up a little groggy and worse for wear, going by this I'm guessing he'll sue in a couple years.lol. :laughing: On a separate note, I went to the port club yesterday and spent $220 on a book(Port Adelaide Archives)not sure if my mother would be proud or in shock.lol.

I'm also curious about that. I'm not sure that me working in a kitchen and they as professional sportspeople have the same sets of legislation surrounding OH&S. Would make sense to have a different set of guidelines for sport given the inherent danger built into the profession. I've signed indemnity at every meeting I've ever raced in.

B1 do they sign those in Australia as well. I'm just curious how they do the sports like you mentioned and avoid duty of care OSH laws. Is there a different frame work for sports?

Also need to remember, Selwood has form on this - take a look at his face gouging of Liam Baker in last year's Grand Final.

Yeah, I don't want the thuggery, although I do like watching UFC, so definitely like watching an organised biff. I do want hard uncompromising contests which will always come with the chance of injury, I'd also like to see a little intimidation back in the game via being able to tackle to hurt, obviously within the rules and spirit of the game, no head shots, no super vicious stuff, but hard at the body, think they call that charging this year.

%100 man the biggest injury these days from tackling is that syndesmosis injury that seems to be worse than ever before for some reason. For sure not king hits or anything like that but %100, I watched the Richmond v Geelong gf again a while ago which was weird for me in itself but I couldn't believe how nobody seemed to go up to ablest after he did his shoulder and test him out and keep testing him out for the whole game. In the end tigers won so didn't effect them but to me that was just so weird.lol.

The Rohan one always troubled me - - in that the ruling they came up with didn't specifically cater for what Thomas did in that Thomas didn't go sliding past the ball. The reality was Rohan was in no mans land - - not sure what he was doing. Thomas really had no option (can't risk bumping him) - so Thomas goes in low; turns to get side on and ultimately back towards his opponent (protecting himself and the ball). Good - classic footy - - putting your body on the line. Celebrated for decades. Rohan......what was he doing?? He wasn't going low for a clear contested; he was almost just running with the ball.......his poor positioning was the bigger issue. And this is the problem in a lot of cases - players not positioning themselves well enough and for the high contact they often put their head in a vulnerable position as they search for a free kick.

well please do explain how all these other sports manage to still exist and not face the possibility of litigation.?

That's it man it should be by choice but then if it's the players that want to go down this path, they have a duty of care to themselves as well. Like you said helmets won't stop everything but it would have to reduce the risk or severity of it.

The plot has been lost this season earlier than you think. Check out Selwood on Mansell (round 8). The MRO let him off - - and astoundingly did so by presenting the case for the defence (rather than the case for the prosecution). The assessment by the MRO as below: Contact between Geelong Cats’ Joel Selwood and Richmond’s Rhyan Mansell from the third quarter of Friday night’s match between Richmond and the Geelong Cats was assessed. Selwood approaches the loose ball after it is handballed behind Richmond’s Mansell. As Mansell attempts to retreat for the ball, he is held by Geelong player Shaun Higgins in an attempt to allow his teammate Selwood to contest the ball. As Selwood approaches the ball, he turns side-on and lowers his body to take possession as Mansell reaches for the ball when high contact is made. It was determined by the Match Review Officer that Selwood was contesting the ball and his actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken. So............actions "were not unreasonable in the circumstances". Then to contrast to the following week - Tarryn Thomas got whacked straight away by the MRO for this contact with Jiath. The assessment in this case: Tarryn Thomas, North Melbourne, has been charged with Engaging in Rough Conduct against Changkuoth Jiath, Hawthorn, during the first quarter of the Round Nine match between Hawthorn and North Melbourne, played at University of Tasmania Stadium on Saturday May 5, 2021. In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea. Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Careless Conduct, Medium Impact, High Contact. The incident was classified as a one-match sanction as a first offence. The player can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea. Justice was served - Thomas got off at the tribunal. However - - just how Selwood was deemed not unreasonable just because he turned side on - - to approach a contest - a player who was head over the ball and approach him from front on/head first. How that was not deemed unreasonable where as Thomas vs Jiath, both approached on an angle to each other, like the two arms of a "V" with very limited awareness if any of the other player and the contact was not seen to be high; play on - Jiath was winded and played out the game with no concusion concerns at all. So.........how was that even worthy of review let alone a sanction. SO - - that showed a massive level of confusion. Let alone - I still feel that the Mitch Duncan "attempted" smother that knocked out Aaron Hall earlier in the season at least deserved to be tested as an unreasonably reckless/careless action. This again was the case for the defence presented by the MRO. The assessment deemed "Player Duncan, who is positioned in front of Hall, runs quickly towards him and leaps in the air in an attempt to touch or smother the ball. While in the air, Duncan turns his body and his momentum carries him into Hall making high contact with his back. It was determined by the MRO that the action was not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken." The vision of this incident that is best is the initial long view - which shows Duncan launching from about 48m out at the same instant that Hall launches into his kick around 52m. As the MRO refers - Duncan runs quickly towards Hall and leaps with his momentum carryinghim into Hall........and Duncan has gone right over the 50m arc and is still in the air as he crashed into Hall who was just touching down.....still outside the 50m arc. That to me was always an unreasonably reckless/careless act - - the attempt to touch/smother the ball is one thing (that's more a vertical leap) - - but Duncan did something we do NOT see every other week - - he launched at the ball carrier and knocked him out. So.......just how from the above Duncan and Selwood were let off and Thomas was the only one hit with a suspension - - just beggars belief. The irony though - I DO believe Mackay should've been suspended - because - unlike Thomas vs Jiath; Mackay had a clear view of the player and the ball. And he attacked with a level of recklessness - - however the mitigation was the slight nudge from his Adelaide teammate that may have propelled Clark forward just the smidge sooner than was anticipated.

Spot on Cloud.

I’m not giving my name to some random on the internet, that I don’t particularly like no less, but I raced premier league speedway (Div 2) for the reading racers at number 7, crashed a lot, also Weymouth, Conference league (Div 3), and Trelawny, conference league, (Div 3) all in England, all between 2001 and 2004, I also won multiple state titles and an Aussie junior speedway title as well, which I’m guessing is a whole lot more than you’ve ever done in a sporting career.

That you are asking those juvenile questions highlights your absolute lack of awareness. Go on...what's your name? I'm going to google to see if you rode bikes professionally. I'm guessing you are quite the little BS artist. Love to see the Port fans band together. Put you side by side and there is an impressive wind tunnel between the ears. "just sign a waiver"...hah.

I rode motorcycles professionally in Europe, we signed that indemnity everywhere. Couldn't race without it. The Finke race is a pro race, Marshall's have died there. Equestrian jumps is an Olympic event, and super dangerous. What about MMA, boxing etc? Why is it seemingly worse in the AFL? I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as comparing them to the everyday persons workplace laws, no game ever would be able to go ahead.

Yeah, all sports are trying to be safer, MotoGP riders have airbags in their leathers as compulsory now. I don't think anyone, anywhere is arguing against reducing injuries. It's about where we draw the line, and how much risk is acceptable, I am on the side of most risk is acceptable, danger is an inbuilt part of this particular sport, ya pays your money, ya takes ya chances, bad shizen happens, sometimes tragically, but you knew the score when you signed up. The line for me is not having to pull out of a contest, as soon as players have to start slowing down at the contest for fear of sanction then the fabric of the game will be forever changed. Like I said the other day, it's impossible to hurt someone in a tackle legally in today's game, it's been legislated out of the game all together. It may be an unpopular opinion for some, but I like that part of the game. I never really saw a problem with the little wrestles and niggles either. Surely it's not just me that misses a bit of biff.

I don't think they should be mandatory in games as still believe in individuals making their own informed choice. But any player that suffers a concussion should be made to wear a helmet to mitigate the risk of repeated concussions. Won't stop all concussions but may reduce the severity.

I think the difference is that proffesional sports are work places and so work place laws are involved. Amatuer sport there is no compulsion to play because its not your livelihood, there for you can sign a diclaimer.