The AFL decreed earlier this year that no player should be played the week after getting concussion. The Crows medical staff would not ignore an AFL directive. Therefore his injury was minor and the classification of high impact ( not to be confused with high contact which did occur ) was wrongly obtained for a start.

Exactly Redleg. I've mentioned this elsewhere today and can't understand why there is not more noise about it. Although I do believe the clubs doctors would ignore an AFL directive, because it has happened numerous times already this year. There have been a number of concussions in every round this season resulting in a couple of subbing and exactly 0 players missing a week. It seems the clubs assess as concussed when it suits them and change that assessment to suit them.

It definitely would have been nice to hear from Dangerfield, but it needed to happen on Monday, because as we know now, we couldn't present any new evidence tonight.I mean that in itself is a complete joke. WTF is this appeals board's job anyway, except for stamp some paperwork? It's a disgrace.They wasted our time and wouldn't consider any relevant and very recent evidence that have been brought to hand. Disgusting.

As for new evidence, Adam McNicol on the the AFL site said that we cannot expect to win without new evidence. That says to me that it would be ok for us to submit new evidence. However through the process he mentioned a couple pieces of new evidence that we weren't allowed to show. I can't understand all of this, because on one hand we are told we need new evidence to win, and on the other hand we aren't allowed to submit new evidence. I asked McNicol in 5 different questions why, and none of them were displayed on the site or answere. Most of the questions he answered were relatively trivial. Obviously he was there to keep things AFL-sanitised, and avoiding anything of real substance. I agree we should have got it more right on Tuesday, but they have ignored the evidence and it is an outrage.

The afl have not said a player should not play the next week after concussion

They actually did daisy, just before the start of the season when they announced the rule that a concussed player had to be subbed. The second part to that was that they missed a week. I clearly remember, because I have been saying for a while now that is what I thought should happen to a concussed player, and I was amazed they finally did it.

They actually did daisy, just before the start of the season when they announced the rule that a concussed player had to be subbed. The second part to that was that they missed a week. I clearly remember, because I have been saying for a while now that is what I thought should happen to a concussed player, and I was amazed they finally did it.

afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=109725

They actually did daisy, just before the start of the season when they announced the rule that a concussed player had to be subbed. The second part to that was that they missed a week. I clearly remember, because I have been saying for a while now that is what I thought should happen to a concussed player, and I was amazed they finally did it.

Sorry you're wrong Kent

It is purely up to the attending medical staff.

They are just saying tthat if player still has symptoms of concussion the following week he should not play and only a Dr can decide that.

i

There are instances of players getting concussed and playing the following week this season. THis dos not mean the initial diagnosis was wrong

As for new evidence, Adam McNicol on the the AFL site said that we cannot expect to win without new evidence. That says to me that it would be ok for us to submit new evidence. However through the process he mentioned a couple pieces of new evidence that we weren't allowed to show. I can't understand all of this, because on one hand we are told we need new evidence to win, and on the other hand we aren't allowed to submit new evidence. I asked McNicol in 5 different questions why, and none of them were displayed on the site or answere. Most of the questions he answered were relatively trivial. Obviously he was there to keep things AFL-sanitised, and avoiding anything of real substance. I agree we should have got it more right on Tuesday, but they have ignored the evidence and it is an outrage.

Spot on. What's the use of an Appeals board if a) one cannot present new evidence; and B) one cannot be given a fresh hearing?

The whole thing is a joke.

afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=109725

Sorry you're wrong KentIt is purely up to the attending medical staff.They are just saying tthat if player still has symptoms of concussion the following week he should not play and only a Dr can decide that.iThere are instances of players getting concussed and playing the following week this season. THis dos not mean the initial diagnosis was wrong

Fair enough guys, I must have heard it somewhere that did not explain it correctly.

Fair enough guys, I must have heard it somewhere that did not explain it correctly.

no worries....you were not the only one