There has been plenty written about concussion, its short and long term effects and rules of play designed to help prevent head injuries. There hasn't been any discussion though that I am aware of about providing players with protective head gear or the compulsory use of such equipment.  The AFLPA doesn't appear to be advocating it, so I am guessing that the majority of players aren't too concerned.  Does the Club and or AFL fall short of its duty of care responsibilities in not requiring that head gear be worn and is it time for action to further assist in protecting the players?

There is plenty of research that has been done that putting protective gear on people means they take more risks and that negates the affect of the protective gear. The one I am most familiar with is bush fire fighters, before they had the protective gear they got out early and took far more care, with every new thing put in place to protect them the rate of fire fighters putting them selves in increasingly dangerous positions has increased. This is seen with an increase in burn over rates for trucks etc. People come to really on the protection more than relying on their own self preservation intuition. 

In short, helmets arent the answer, but I dont know what is 

Obviously, there is not much interest in this topic, which surprises me given the number of players we have had suffer concussions this year. 

It would be helpful if there was some evidence out there from research into protective gear that was more relevant to football. I wonder what the AFL players who currently wear helmets think about it all. 

Sadly, it won't be until there is a serious injury at the highest level with a Phil Hughes, common law reform come about. There is an ongoing emphasis on creating collisions to win the 50/50 contests and the head is inevitably going to be hit. In American grid-iron it is documented that a significant percentage of their players end their careers with brain injuries. If parents see such stats emerging in our code then sports like soccer (which also have brain impact issues) will increasingly be favoured.

Headgear does very little for concussion, it can prevent scratches and bumps but not concussion.

I'd imagine with protective head gear of the sort Marc Murphy has been wearing, you could get hot. That may affect your performance, especially early and late in the season when the weather is warmer. Or in Brisbane, Darwin and Alice Springs.

26 minutes ago, Redlegs Too said:

Obviously, there is not much interest in this topic, which surprises me given the number of players we have had suffer concussions this year. 

It would be helpful if there was some evidence out there from research into protective gear that was more relevant to football. I wonder what the AFL players who currently wear helmets think about it all. 

there has been lots of research on the use of headgear in collision sports with respect to concussion injury

concussion is caused by sudden movement of the head causing the brain to slosh around in the cranium. headgear doesn't do much to stop this sudden acceleration/decceleration which leads to concussion.

headgear is good to prevent bone and other head region impact damage but not the internal damage which is concussion. headgear also has to be such that the headgear itself doesn't cause damage to other players or becomes a weapon (as in gridiron). and as another poster said headgear can give a player an unrealistic sense of protection and could lead to more concussion type injuries

Edited May 8, 20169 yr by daisycutter

43 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

there has been lots of research on the use of headgear in collision sports with respect to concussion injury

concussion is caused by sudden movement of the head causing the brain to slosh around in the cranium. headgear doesn't do much to stop this sudden acceleration/decceleration which leads to concussion.

headgear is good to prevent bone and other head region impact damage but not the internal damage which is concussion. headgear also has to be such that the headgear itself doesn't cause damage to other players or becomes a weapon (as in gridiron). and as another poster said headgear can give a player an unrealistic sense of protection and could lead to more concussion type injuries

I can understand all that, but it still seems to me that if there is a crumple zone around the head, the impact that gets transferred to the brain to slosh around must be reduced. So the number and extent of concussion must be reduced at least a bit. So does experience show that the effect is small and outweighed by the 'unrealistic sense of protection' problem?   I wonder if the enormous space taken up by a gridiron helmet was a large lump of foam, would the protection effect then become substantial?   Would look ridiculous of course (like gridiron players already do).

BTW, if the protection is a large lump of foam, I can't see how you can use it as an offensive weapon like a gridiron helmet can be.  Though doubtless offensive to the eye.

Doesnt help. NFL has one of the biggest problems with concussions, when you poor all that great on you feel invincible, but the intent had the same on so the his are just as hard if not harder.  The inside of the helmets are inflated to fit the head but it's the brain inside the skull that moves and causes the injury. 

As others have said, there's very little evidence to support headgear use.

It's also true that the AFL have been fairly proactive in regards to instances of concussion in games. It is taken seriously, and the power is with the medical staff. This is good.

But I have serious concerns about the league's approach to concussion across careers. While some players have opted to give the game up as a result of multiple head knocks, the league hasn't (I believe) taken much of a stance on the cumulative impact of head knocks. I'm particularly thinking of a case like Joel Selwood. I can think of many instances, and there are surely many more hidden instances, of Selwood having been concussed. Over time, head knocks of lesser severity can result in concussion. Selwood has certainly been dragged from the ground after copping what have been pretty innocuous looking hits.

I would feel quite uncomfortable if the league started forcing the retirements of mid-career players, but there are a few guys running around who I am scared for.

Unfortunately AFL is a contact sport and i can't see much that can be done to avoid concussion outside of discouraging ducking for free kicks.

There are going to be times where a bloke like Viney has his head over the ball and gets a hit, i think we're going to have to live with it and be really careful when it happens. 

I don't mind the idea of a severe concussion leading to a forced period of games out depending on how bad it is, for example, a moderate to bad concussion = 1 forced week off

4 minutes ago, Peter Griffen said:

Unfortunately AFL is a contact sport and i can't see much that can be done to avoid concussion outside of discouraging ducking for free kicks.

There are going to be times where a bloke like Viney has his head over the ball and gets a hit, i think we're going to have to live with it and be really careful when it happens. 

I don't mind the idea of a severe concussion leading to a forced period of games out depending on how bad it is, for example, a moderate to bad concussion = 1 forced week off

Pity the AFL does not instruct umpires to do so.  I think they did for a nanosecond or so but obviously not doing it now.

On 5/9/2016 at 11:43 AM, sue said:

Pity the AFL does not instruct umpires to do so.  I think they did for a nanosecond or so but obviously not doing it now.

Absolutely, you see guys like Joel Selwood ducking constantly and people saying how tough they are for trying to win free kicks, personally i think it's just a matter of time before it backfires and someone gets seriously hurt trying to be " Tough" for a free kick.

I think it should be treated as staging and hand a free kick to the tackler, and consistently doing it should result in fines and brownlow ineligibility. fairest and best player in my eyes isn't someone who plays for soft free kicks constantly.

1 hour ago, sue said:

I can understand all that, but it still seems to me that if there is a crumple zone around the head, the impact that gets transferred to the brain to slosh around must be reduced. So the number and extent of concussion must be reduced at least a bit. So does experience show that the effect is small and outweighed by the 'unrealistic sense of protection' problem?   I wonder if the enormous space taken up by a gridiron helmet was a large lump of foam, would the protection effect then become substantial?   Would look ridiculous of course (like gridiron players already do).

BTW, if the protection is a large lump of foam, I can't see how you can use it as an offensive weapon like a gridiron helmet can be.  Though doubtless offensive to the eye.

the crumple zone only helps for impact type injuries (which in them selves can be very serious)

the crumple zone doesn't stop the brain movement either being accelerated or decelerated resulting in the sloshing movement which does the brain damage (concussion). The brain is mostly water and like a jelly. In a post mortem they can't even slice the brain for slides without first using a fixative.

agreed, soft foam type helmets shouldn't act like a weapon. that was in reference to any suggestion of hard hats 

Thanks for the input people. Very helpful information.  I guess we just have to hope that the players don't do stupid things and that these injuries are minimised as much as possible.

I worry for the length of someone like a Viney's career as I think as time goes on people will continuously take the severity of head injuries more seriously

Occasionally you see an umpire call "play on, you ducked your head" rather than a free kick being paid.

As Sue said earlier, this usually seems to have a short term focus but quickly disappears

As such, the penalty for ducking is negligible and the possible benefit is a free kick (incorrectly paid)

I'd like to see the ducking issue taken a step further whereby the player who ducks into a tackle, instead of getting the play on call, actually is penalised by a free kick against

It will only be stopped if it's disadvantageous to the team. Cough up a few free kicks and you'll soon have ducking coached out of players

I used to shudder when watching players like that little ferret from WCE Ashton Hams constantly ducking to receive frees. They risk their health and possibly their lives by doing it. Not to mention the impact on the life of the tackler should the worst happen. I'd imagine it would be hard to live with if you gave someone permanent spinal damage.

I still remember the Neil Sachse incident. I never want to see that happen to someone again

Applying this to concussions, if you legislate that it is a penalty to duck into a tackle, you won't eliminate concussions but there is every chance that the incidences will be reduced as players will be less likely to put their heads into a position that will concede a free

You'll still have accidents - it's a contact sport. But the search for ways to reduce the occurrence should be ongoing forever.

Gothebiff - I thought a year or so back they said they were going to pay frees for ducking, not just ignore the high tackle.  They do the latter occasionally, but it's only the former that will stop it because as you say, "the penalty for ducking is negligible and the possible benefit is a free kick (incorrectly paid"

To the OP a quick google search reveals this:

http://sma.org.au/2013/11/helmets-do-not-prevent-concussion/

I'm sure if you searched academic research you'd find plenty of studies.

 

5 hours ago, pitchfork said:

As others have said, there's very little evidence to support headgear use.

It's also true that the AFL have been fairly proactive in regards to instances of concussion in games. It is taken seriously, and the power is with the medical staff. This is good.

But I have serious concerns about the league's approach to concussion across careers. While some players have opted to give the game up as a result of multiple head knocks, the league hasn't (I believe) taken much of a stance on the cumulative impact of head knocks. I'm particularly thinking of a case like Joel Selwood. I can think of many instances, and there are surely many more hidden instances, of Selwood having been concussed. Over time, head knocks of lesser severity can result in concussion. Selwood has certainly been dragged from the ground after copping what have been pretty innocuous looking hits.

I would feel quite uncomfortable if the league started forcing the retirements of mid-career players, but there are a few guys running around who I am scared for.

Bartel and Nick Riewoldt are the 2 I worry about, both have had plenty of concussions from some minor hits.

I'm still not sure why Stefan Martin played after being hit by the Steven May freight train. Played ordinary as well. I'm glad Salem and Lumumba didn't play on Saturday, and I'm sure Viney will be monitored closely for this week.

This may have been covered but headgear does very little for an injury that occurs internally ie. An impact between brain and skull. 

6 hours ago, Go the Biff said:

Occasionally you see an umpire call "play on, you ducked your head" rather than a free kick being paid.

That was the call against Viney I believe during the Suns game.  (The problem was he was going in and down to get the ball and not trying to plow through players with the ball.)