I could have fathomed Lewis 2 weeks, Hogan 1 week and Thompson 4 weeks.

But Thompson 1 week??? FUBAR!!!

2 hours ago, Chris said:

If the CFC took concussion seriously he would have been off the ground being assessed straight away, or even at three quarter time. Didn't happen though, wonder why. 

Because he had "delayed" symptoms. It does amaze me how many "expert doctors" there are on here. A simple google of delayed concussion symptoms came up with ( and there is a plethora of information on this very subject)

Because the brain is very complex, every brain injury is different. Some symptoms may appear right away, while others may not show up for days or weeks after the concussion. Sometimes the injury makes it hard for people to recognize or to admit that they are having problems. The signs of concussion can be subtle.

I will take both Cripps and Rowe at their word. My issue is that an independent panel is taking medical evidence from a non impartial medico. If the MRP is going to rely on medical reports to hand down fines then they need to come up with a system where impartial medico's are providing the report.

Footy is a multi million dollar industry. With or without a MRP citing both Cripps and Rowe were reviewed by the Carlton medical team. The simple solution for me is that a single MRP member needs to review each game almost in real time and come up with as many incidents as he likes to review - whether they go further or not and get cited is immaterial. He gives the list of "offended" players to the teams and the clubs ascertain whether there is a medical review warranted ( ie - how are you feeling ? No problems Then no further examination required) . If there is a medical intervention required as was the case with Cripps and Rowe then an AFL appointed medico must be in on the examination/report from the get go. At least then there is a semblance of impartiality. However, how would it be if Cripps was coming back from a broken jaw ( and has been looked after by his Carlton medical team) and a love tap from an opponent has ill effect  - how would the Carlton doctors write up that report ? How would they write  a report about someone like Byron Pickett who constantly demolished opponents - would the report be unbiased ? To repeat we need impartial medico's involved in the process.

Having said that - I  take the medical reports at face value from Carlton and also  - don't hit a bloke in the head and you probably don't get 3 weeks.

 

 

    

 

3 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Because he had "delayed" symptoms. It does amaze me how many "expert doctors" there are on here. A simple google of delayed concussion symptoms came up with ( and there is a plethora of information on this very subject)

Because the brain is very complex, every brain injury is different. Some symptoms may appear right away, while others may not show up for days or weeks after the concussion. Sometimes the injury makes it hard for people to recognize or to admit that they are having problems. The signs of concussion can be subtle.

I will take both Cripps and Rowe at their word. My issue is that an independent panel is taking medical evidence from a non impartial medico. If the MRP is going to rely on medical reports to hand down fines then they need to come up with a system where impartial medico's are providing the report.

Footy is a multi million dollar industry. With or without a MRP citing both Cripps and Rowe were reviewed by the Carlton medical team. The simple solution for me is that a single MRP member needs to review each game almost in real time and come up with as many incidents as he likes to review - whether they go further or not and get cited is immaterial. He gives the list of "offended" players to the teams and the clubs ascertain whether there is a medical review warranted ( ie - how are you feeling ? No problems Then no further examination required) . If there is a medical intervention required as was the case with Cripps and Rowe then an AFL appointed medico must be in on the examination/report from the get go. At least then there is a semblance of impartiality. However, how would it be if Cripps was coming back from a broken jaw ( and has been looked after by his Carlton medical team) and a love tap from an opponent has ill effect  - how would the Carlton doctors write up that report ? How would they write  a report about someone like Byron Pickett who constantly demolished opponents - would the report be unbiased ? To repeat we need impartial medico's involved in the process.

Having said that - I  take the medical reports at face value from Carlton and also  - don't hit a bloke in the head and you probably don't get 3 weeks.

 

 

    

 

I have no issue with it being delayed concussion, fact is they didn't check at the time so they don't know if he was concussed straight away. Carlton need to answer some questions around why they were not assessed.

I believe the AFL should ask Carlton for a 'please explain' as to why two players who were downed, appeared injured and stayed down for a long time and who subsequently were found to have a cracked jaw and concussion post match were not medically assessed immediately. Looks like a dereliction of duty of care issue here. They should be investigated and punished. 

6 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Because he had "delayed" symptoms. It does amaze me how many "expert doctors" there are on here. A simple google of delayed concussion symptoms came up with ( and there is a plethora of information on this very subject)

Because the brain is very complex, every brain injury is different. Some symptoms may appear right away, while others may not show up for days or weeks after the concussion. Sometimes the injury makes it hard for people to recognize or to admit that they are having problems. The signs of concussion can be subtle.

I will take both Cripps and Rowe at their word. My issue is that an independent panel is taking medical evidence from a non impartial medico. If the MRP is going to rely on medical reports to hand down fines then they need to come up with a system where impartial medico's are providing the report.

Footy is a multi million dollar industry. With or without a MRP citing both Cripps and Rowe were reviewed by the Carlton medical team. The simple solution for me is that a single MRP member needs to review each game almost in real time and come up with as many incidents as he likes to review - whether they go further or not and get cited is immaterial. He gives the list of "offended" players to the teams and the clubs ascertain whether there is a medical review warranted ( ie - how are you feeling ? No problems Then no further examination required) . If there is a medical intervention required as was the case with Cripps and Rowe then an AFL appointed medico must be in on the examination/report from the get go. At least then there is a semblance of impartiality. However, how would it be if Cripps was coming back from a broken jaw ( and has been looked after by his Carlton medical team) and a love tap from an opponent has ill effect  - how would the Carlton doctors write up that report ? How would they write  a report about someone like Byron Pickett who constantly demolished opponents - would the report be unbiased ? To repeat we need impartial medico's involved in the process.

Having said that - I  take the medical reports at face value from Carlton and also  - don't hit a bloke in the head and you probably don't get 3 weeks.

 

 

    

 

I take umbrage and am completely incensed by this- no matter how well intended you believe it to be  Nutbean. Believe me, no medico/psych/physio would incorrectly document something because of allegiance - their impartiality is imperative to their ethic. They're not supporters, they're professionals who still operate under Doctor/Psych/Physio, client privilege with respect to transparency, authenticity and confidentiality. Far too cynical a statement to be taken seriously.

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Take it as read, both Blues will play.

Yep. I would be putting bets on right now

6 minutes ago, Danelska said:

I take umbrage and am completely incensed by this- no matter how well intended you believe it to be  Nutbean. Believe me, no medico/psych/physio would incorrectly document something because of allegiance - their impartiality is imperative to their ethic. They're not supporters, they're professionals who still operate under Doctor/Psych/Physio, client privilege with respect to transparency, authenticity and confidentiality. Far too cynical a statement to be taken seriously.

The only issue with which I have a contention is how can it be categorically stated that the delayed onset of concussion, which beset Rowe, was as a direct result of the blow from Jesse.  In the course of 4 quarters of football, a scrimmage, bump, a fall to the ground, inadvertent shoulder to the head in marking contest, or a legal tackle could have caused the same issue.  The question is, how would anybody actually know for sure?

In the absence of taking 'evidence' from the protagonists, it seems patently obvious to me that the MRP system is flawed, when it can hand down a sanction based purely on video footage and a Doctor's report, which could not possibly provide a direct correlation between the incident and the injury concerned

3 hours ago, Danelska said:

I take umbrage and am completely incensed by this- no matter how well intended you believe it to be  Nutbean. Believe me, no medico/psych/physio would incorrectly document something because of allegiance - their impartiality is imperative to their ethic. They're not supporters, they're professionals who still operate under Doctor/Psych/Physio, client privilege with respect to transparency, authenticity and confidentiality. Far too cynical a statement to be taken seriously.

You can take all the umbrage you like - ( obviously you didn't read my last line which said I take the Carlton reports at face value ). 

Whilst I did not see the episode of FC ( only reports on here) you may want to take umbrage with Caroline Wilson " Caro just said on FC that the Carlton medical report 'did not mince words' and 'did Melbourne no favours'.  She said Carlton are angry about the 2 incidence and Melbourne are angry about the medical reports.  She said there is 'bad blood' between the two clubs. ( quote from Lucifer's hero).

I am not suggesting for a second that a doctor document something incorrectly but language is very important and there are absolute ways to say the same thing with force and say something with feathers. Also you can go to three doctors and get three different opinions.

Far too cynical a statement to be taken seriously ? hmmm.. you really learned nothing from the Essendon doping saga ? How about this one (http://wwos.nine.com.au/2017/03/20/13/19/nrl-to-breach-clubs-who-break-concussion-guidelines) - who is conducting their medical tests ? cynical you say ?

To repeat - I am taking Carlton at face value - put all reporting in impartial medico's hands and I believe on occasions you will get either different result or at least different emphasis.

2 hours ago, iv'a worn smith said:

The only issue with which I have a contention is how can it be categorically stated that the delayed onset of concussion, which beset Rowe, was as a direct result of the blow from Jesse.  In the course of 4 quarters of football, a scrimmage, bump, a fall to the ground, inadvertent shoulder to the head in marking contest, or a legal tackle could have caused the same issue.  The question is, how would anybody actually know for sure?

In the absence of taking 'evidence' from the protagonists, it seems patently obvious to me that the MRP system is flawed, when it can hand down a sanction based purely on video footage and a Doctor's report, which could not possibly provide a direct correlation between the incident and the injury concerned

And this is the distinction - which I agree with @iv'a worn smith (as I work in one of the aforementioned fields) language typically in reports is ambiguous,  and particularly in relation to matters of the brain - always infer and are never causational. The MRP is flawed no doubt (however it needs to work off 'a' version of information which is  deemed 'best-practice', who best but the medico's eh), because the baseline in the case of matters of the brain is always inferred- and the baseline attitude is rightfully the head is sancrosanct. This is also the reason there are longitudinal studies into concussion in elite contact sport, when anecdotally it's clear that there is 'causation'.

3 minutes ago, nutbean said:

You can take all the umbrage you like - ( obviously you didn't read my last line which said I take the Carlton report at face value ). 

Whilst I did not see the episode of FC ( only reports on here) you may want to take umbrage with Caroline Wilson " Caro just said on FC that the Carlton medical report 'did not mince words' and 'did Melbourne no favours'.  She said Carlton are angry about the 2 incidence and Melbourne are angry about the medical reports.  She said there is 'bad blood' between the two clubs. ( quote from Lucifer's hero).

I am not suggesting for a second that document something incorrectly but language is very important and there are absolute ways to say the same thing with force and say something with feathers. Also you can go to three doctors and get three different opinions.

Far too cynical a statement to be taken seriously ? hmmm.. you really learned nothing from the Essendon doping saga ? How about this one (http://wwos.nine.com.au/2017/03/20/13/19/nrl-to-breach-clubs-who-break-concussion-guidelines) - who is conducting their medical tests ? cynical you say ?

To repeat - I am taking Carlton at face value - put all reporting in impartial medico's hands and I believe on occasions you will get either different result or at least different emphasis.

Thanks for the clarity @nutbean  - I eat umbrage with my scrambled eggs for breakfast!

Just now, Danelska said:

Thanks for the clarity @nutbean  - I eat umbrage with my scrambled eggs for breakfast!

I will repeat also - hit a bloke in the head and you suffer the consequences.

The industry is such high stakes you just need the appearance of complete impartiality.

Whilst obviously there is a huge amount of fact behind medicine, at the end of the day a lot is about opinion and probabilities. There are countless episodes of footballers being cleared to play ( in retrospect) too early. Greg Inglas played out a whole game limping with a bad knee and now is out for the year needing a reco. Did playing for the rest of the game make it worse ? Who knows.

Medicine is not black and white- The MRP are going off reports that are reporting opinion  - Little doubt there is concussion and a fractured jaw but you can write that up countless different ways.  

Dolores Umbrage rocks.....  

20 minutes ago, Danelska said:

And this is the distinction - which I agree with @iv'a worn smith (as I work in one of the aforementioned fields) language typically in reports is ambiguous,  and particularly in relation to matters of the brain - always infer and are never causational. 

Again - only going of a quote on here  ( which is third hand reporting ) - "words were not minced". Interpreting  what was said on FC  the language in the report was not ambiguous and inferred. ( big disclaimer - without seeing the reports we will never know).

Not happy with the Jordan Lewis response on TV - ' probably not very good from the teams point of view.' Doesn't sound contrite and smacks of arrogance. He needs to pull his head in.

15 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

Not happy with the Jordan Lewis response on TV - ' probably not very good from the teams point of view.' Doesn't sound contrite and smacks of arrogance. He needs to pull his head in.

Yeah wouldn’t want a melbourne player to be arrogant or anything...

9 minutes ago, Chook said:

Yeah wouldn’t want a melbourne player to be arrogant or anything...

Not when his absence could cost us games.

MRP did what they had to do except for the Thompson incident.

Early in the season, head contact, behind the play....... setting standards so all players know what to expect. just unfortunate that it was two of our players that had to front up.

Thought the penalties were a week too long but if they are consistent with this throughout the season i have no problem with it.

Thompson should have got 3 weeks.

6 minutes ago, CHF said:

MRP did what they had to do except for the Thompson incident.

Early in the season, head contact, behind the play....... setting standards so all players know what to expect. just unfortunate that it was two of our players that had to front up.

Thought the penalties were a week too long but if they are consistent with this throughout the season i have no problem with it.

Thompson should have got 3 weeks.

The inconsistency is the only issue I have. Our players shouldn't have done what they did, although they probably got a week longer than I thought they should've.

How Thompson only got one week is a mystery though! Dangers arms were pinned and he was defenseless and Thompson intentionally throws his weight behind an elbow to the head. Should've got 3-4 weeks compared to the others! I wish Barry Hall had smashed the c*nts head open when he had the chance! Such a pesky thug and he somehow keeps getting away with it.

15 minutes ago, CHF said:

MRP did what they had to do except for the Thompson incident.

Early in the season, head contact, behind the play....... setting standards so all players know what to expect. just unfortunate that it was two of our players that had to front up.

Thought the penalties were a week too long but if they are consistent with this throughout the season i have no problem with it.

Thompson should have got 3 weeks.

Oh, that's a good one!!!

 

I heard a good one about an Irishman, a rabbi, the Pope and Donald Trump but yours is better.

41 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

Not happy with the Jordan Lewis response on TV - ' probably not very good from the teams point of view.' Doesn't sound contrite and smacks of arrogance. He needs to pull his head in.

I thought TMacs chat with the media was very good:  Media conference: Tom McDonald .  Tonight's AFL 360 will be interesting.  Like you chook, I'll be hoping for a bit if contrition from Luey, then we can all put this issue to bed..

37 minutes ago, CHF said:

M

Thought the penalties were a week too long but if they are consistent with this throughout the season i have no problem with it.

Thompson should have got 3 weeks.

weren't even consistent on the same weekend, ditto round 1..................so guess you must have problems with it? 

2 hours ago, Danelska said:

And this is the distinction - which I agree with @iv'a worn smith (as I work in one of the aforementioned fields) language typically in reports is ambiguous,  and particularly in relation to matters of the brain - always infer and are never causational. The MRP is flawed no doubt (however it needs to work off 'a' version of information which is  deemed 'best-practice', who best but the medico's eh), because the baseline in the case of matters of the brain is always inferred- and the baseline attitude is rightfully the head is sancrosanct. This is also the reason there are longitudinal studies into concussion in elite contact sport, when anecdotally it's clear that there is 'causation'.

I would suggest you are a physio since you are placing on the same level as doctors and ethics 

 

To suggest a medico wouldn't exaggerate their report because of their ethics is laughable. 

15 minutes ago, Wolfmother said:

I would suggest you are a physio since you are placing on the same level as doctors and ethics 

 

To suggest a medico wouldn't exaggerate their report because of their ethics is laughable. 

There wouldn't be a prescription drug epidemic if all doctors were ethical. There's definitely more than one unethical doctor around. 

36 minutes ago, america de cali said:

There wouldn't be a prescription drug epidemic if all doctors were ethical. There's definitely more than one unethical doctor around. 

Yes and no. The medical profession isn't above dodgy practises, but even with mainly ethical doctors, you could still have a prescription drug epidemic.

1 hour ago, chook fowler said:

Not when his absence could cost us games.

You/we don't know what was said behind closed doors at the club, which is all that really matters.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

weren't even consistent on the same weekend, ditto round 1..................so guess you must have problems with it? 

The Thompson one was not off the ball. if they are consistent with off the ball incidents i have no problem with it.