The fine will pale into insignificance if either player sues Port sometime in the future. There should have been draft penalties and or loss of points added to this.
 

39 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

The fine will pale into insignificance if either player sues Port sometime in the future. There should have been draft penalties and or loss of points added to this.
 

The problem with suing sometime in the future is the diagnosis of CTE can only be done after death.

Helps very little with the effects of behavioural changes of the victims and the consequences to their family and friends.

Needs litigation that has potential for injury, and that could begin now as there is obvious negligence. 

Edited August 4, 20231 yr by kev martin

Looking on the bright side…… feeling a lot more at ease in barracking for Geelong this weekend 

Edited August 4, 20231 yr by Wodjathefirst

1 hour ago, Jibroni said:

The fine will pale into insignificance if either player sues Port sometime in the future. There should have been draft penalties and or loss of points added to this.
 

I'm torn on that front, in the sense that i'm of the view that wherever possible any penalties should be clear prior to the infraction, not post the event.

Sometimes that may not be possible if the infraction is totally random or impossible to predict it might occur. Can't really think of an example, but this is 100% not one of them.

Players being allowed to come back on after being concussed because the club doc okays it has been a risk that has been discussed ad infinitum ever since the concussion protocols came in. That is at the heart of the discussion about taking it out of the club's hands and have an AFL doc make the call.

So there should have been clear schedule of penalties in place PRIOR to the Allir incident. That way they have the investigation and apply the appropriate penalty - just as is the case with the MRO. 

And in my opinion the ONLY penalty that will have any deterrent effect is loss of premiership points. Using the Alir example that might have been worth a loss of 4 points, with 4 points suspended to add to any future infractions (for say 5 years). 

Does anyone seriously believe if such a penalty was in place that Port wouldn't have 100% made sure a SCATT test was done?

I'm not shocked that the AFL hasn't come out and said NOW, going forward any such infraction will cost premiership points. Why? because their governance of the game is all over the shop. 

A question for the AFL. What happens if a very similar scenario happens this weekend?

Let's say a team on the bubble of making the finals doesn't do a test on a player that gets a glancing head knock, that player comes back on and later it become clear that player had been concussed.

Is the penalty 100k (with half in the soft cap) because that is what Port copped?  Would any other penalty be fair?

Given making finals might mean at least 100k in additional revenue, is a 100k fine actually a deterrent in that scenario?  

Edited August 4, 20231 yr by binman

Just now, Wodjathefirst said:

Looking on the bright side…… feeling a lot more at ease in barracking for Geelong this weekend 

Just heard that Farrell and Dixon are both out from their selected side. 

Four of their best 22 out from last week will make it hard for Port. 

Remains staggering to think that an incident so overt and so obvious was not investigated further because of a “mistake”! Did Port even bother looking at a replay of the incident? Seeing other team doctors analysing vision of incidents on the bench shows a level of scrutiny that is both appropriate and required. Did anyone associated with Port (or the AFL) even bother to look at the incident again or were they more focussed on getting the player back on an winning the match. Oh, hang on, the doctor’s priority is the player not the match result.  Will any of those in the media have the guts to grill Port and the AFL. Not holding my breath. 

3 hours ago, sue said:

That $50,000 won't be much help to the AFL in the court cases to come. It won't help establish how concerned the AFL was about concussion back in 2023.  Maybe they think the $50K if wisely invested with Sportsbet will help pay the AFL legal fees.  Short-termism - may get them past this week but destroy the AFL in 10 years time.

The fine will assist future litigants, as you say Sue, this will happen and the case will be put as an example  when mounting an argument against the AFL as to how serious they took the issue.

After everything that has happened, the evidence over a number of years concerning past players, the AFLslaps the Power with a wet lettuce. 

Plaintiff's Legal rep in 2040 :"...They didn't seem too outraged at this issue back in 2023 after all the preceding medical evidence. Why even the Port coach said the boy seemed right to go back on.  Did Kenny go to med school..."

Presiding Judge:  "...I find in favour of the Plaintiff..."

1 hour ago, binman said:

Players being allowed to come back on after being concussed because the club doc okays it has been a risk that has been discussed ad infinitum ever since the concussion protocols came in. That is at the heart of the discussion about taking it out of the club's hands and have an AFL doc make the call.

So there should have been clear schedule of penalties in place PRIOR to the Allir incident. That way they have the investigation and apply the appropriate penalty - just as is the case with the MRO. 

And in my opinion the ONLY penalty that will have any deterrent effect is loss of premiership points. Using the Alir example that might have been worth a loss of 4 points, with 4 points suspended to add to any future infractions (for say 5 years). 

 

At the time a doctor made an assessment on Allir and diagnosed that there was no concussion but as we know enquiries since show otherwise, that is a serious problem.

I dont know if you need a precedent for what either appears to be either medical negligence or cheating (given the club involved would not surprise me).

All Port have said is it was a ‘mistake’ and the language has been very specific on this but to me it’s avoided acknowledging how the issue occurred? Why did the ‘mistake’ occur? 

To me a mistake is a point or a miss kick that goes out on the full, not a trained professional who needs to make an assessment and do their job properly. This doesn’t meet the criteria of a mistake for me.

Edited August 4, 20231 yr by Jibroni

5 hours ago, A F said:

So Port handed a $100,000 fine, but read this nonsense:

"$50,000 of the fine will be included in Port Adelaide's football department soft cap, with the remainder to sit outside the cap unless the club commits a similar breach of concussion protocols before the end of the AFL and AFLW seasons in 2024."

So they're allowed to [censored] up again, it'll just be a $50k hit to the soft cap. Are you [censored] kidding me?

The AFL are an utter joke.

Power cops huge fine over concussion protocols error - https://www.afl.com.au/news/993091

 

I interpret to mean another breach will activate the $50k "suspended" soft cap, in addition to whatever the penalty is for the new breach.

I interpreted it to mean they have to pay the full $100,000 fine, but with $50,000 of it classed as inside their soft cap and the other $50,000 outside.

If they have a recurrence, the second $50,000 then goes back inside the soft cap. That would mean the full $100,000 would be inside the soft cap, with even less spending available to their football department.

Hopefully they'd also end up being fined again for any recurrence.

31 minutes ago, Nasher said:

I interpret to mean another breach will activate the $50k "suspended" soft cap, in addition to whatever the penalty is for the new breach.

i don't believe there was any mention of the 50K being suspended

as I understand it:

50k to pay outside of soft cap

50k to pay and reduce soft cap by 50k

if further infringements by specified date then all the 100k reduces the soft cap

the soft cap being the football dept spending cap not the salary cap

 

Edited August 4, 20231 yr by daisycutter
maurisey beat me to punch and explained it better

This wet lettuce penalty will deter absolutely no club from breaching the concussion protocol in a final, or any other important game.

If we were a club with no integrity or care for its players, which we are very clearly not, as if we don't try to go around the protocol if Gawn has a suspected concussion in a prelim, for the low low cost of $50k! 

29 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

I interpreted it to mean they have to pay the full $100,000 fine, but with $50,000 of it classed as inside their soft cap and the other $50,000 outside.

If they have a recurrence, the second $50,000 then goes back inside the soft cap. That would mean the full $100,000 would be inside the soft cap, with even less spending available to their football department.

Hopefully they'd also end up being fined again for any recurrence.

Yeah, exactly, this is the thing. 

And the strange wording around committing a similar breach in the next year and two months, to me at least, downplays the severity of the Aliir incident (remembering this is the third or fourth incident from Port now).

I wonder whether the penalty was a decision that was canvassed with every club to get their input. It's the sort of thing the AFL might do. 'How will this impact everyone? Are we alright to hit them hard?' 'Nah, better make it light, because what happens if we're the next club to do it'. 

Again, the AFL is a disgrace.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i don't believe there was any mention of the 50K being suspended

as I understand it:

50k to pay outside of soft cap

50k to pay and reduce soft cap by 50k

if further infringements by specified date then all the 100k reduces the soft cap

the soft cap being the football dept spending cap not the salary cap

 

How is that different to the impact to the soft cap being "suspended"? I introduced the word in this case, but what you've just described is exactly what happens when something is suspended.

They have to pay $100k in cash regardless, the "suspended" part only refers to how much gets included in the soft cap. 

The New CEO of the AFL, what a gutless ratbag.......let him know how you feel Media when your kids are out this weekend playing Footy and your little son or daughter gets sent back on, after a head wack, with the encouragement.......the AFL can do it, so can we.

Was there an actual investigation to determine if Port did or didn't purposefully break concussion protocol? Given that Port first denied the Dr. made the wrong decision, then changed their tune and admitted to making a 'mistake', was this change the AFL telling them 'accept you made a 'mistake' and you'll get away with 100k fine?'

It's frustrating how blatantly obvious it is that Port broke protocols knowingly and then for their punishment to be worth the salary of essentially 1 rookie player. The AFL really think we're morons.

 

22 minutes ago, Nasher said:

How is that different to the impact to the soft cap being "suspended"? I introduced the word in this case, but what you've just described is exactly what happens when something is suspended.

They have to pay $100k in cash regardless, the "suspended" part only refers to how much gets included in the soft cap. 

fair enough, and you did put suspended in quotes.  As long as we both agree they have to pay the whole $100k all is good.

I have heard others (here, press and social media) saying they got away with a $50k fine and using the word suspended without proper context, so i think there was some confusion going around. The afl never used the term suspended.

6 hours ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Where has the Players "AFLPA" been in all this. I have not heard a word from them. 

Dangerfield no doubt out preening for some media promotion, not related to this shameful episode.

3 hours ago, Dodos Demons said:

Remains staggering to think that an incident so overt and so obvious was not investigated further because of a “mistake”! Did Port even bother looking at a replay of the incident? Seeing other team doctors analysing vision of incidents on the bench shows a level of scrutiny that is both appropriate and required. Did anyone associated with Port (or the AFL) even bother to look at the incident again or were they more focussed on getting the player back on an winning the match. Oh, hang on, the doctor’s priority is the player not the match result.  Will any of those in the media have the guts to grill Port and the AFL. Not holding my breath. 

At the time it was reported that the Port doc viewed the incident and said nothing to see (even though the rest of the world was aghast).   Also reported was that the AFL have someone in the bunker viewing this too with power to all the attention of the clubs to concerns.  Where they blind too?

30 minutes ago, Willmoy1947 said:

The New CEO of the AFL, what a gutless ratbag.......let him know how you feel Media when your kids are out this weekend playing Footy and your little son or daughter gets sent back on, after a head wack, with the encouragement.......the AFL can do it, so can we.

Exactly - an opportunity for him to show that the AFL are actually serious about concussion, but he squibbed at this first contest.  Glad he isn't playing for us.

Looks like the media are falling into line behind the AFL.

19 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Looks like the media are falling into line behind the AFL.

Journalism 101 - no fear no favours - unless it involves the AFL. Sadly for the AFL, a court of law is where they will eventually be held to account. 

6 hours ago, binman said:

I'm not shocked that the AFL hasn't come out and said NOW, going forward any such infraction will cost premiership points. Why? because their governance of the game is all over the shop. 

Not a truer word spoken. It's a farce the way the AFL is governed and the way the media let's them get away with it.

6 hours ago, Dodos Demons said:

Remains staggering to think that an incident so overt and so obvious was not investigated further because of a “mistake”! Did Port even bother looking at a replay of the incident? Seeing other team doctors analysing vision of incidents on the bench shows a level of scrutiny that is both appropriate and required. Did anyone associated with Port (or the AFL) even bother to look at the incident again or were they more focussed on getting the player back on an winning the match. Oh, hang on, the doctor’s priority is the player not the match result.  Will any of those in the media have the guts to grill Port and the AFL. Not holding my breath. 

How can they argue a "mistake" when Jones was subbed out with migraine but cleared of concussion? Is migraine not a symptom of conussion? What is in the SCAT5 test and what were Jones's results that led the doctor to think he had passed the test and was not concussed despite the migraine?

These are the questions any journo with even a high school education would be asking.

2 hours ago, Dodos Demons said:

Journalism 101 - no fear no favours - unless it involves the AFL. Sadly for the AFL, a court of law is where they will eventually be held to account. 

Can you believe how pathetic they are tonight (Ch7)?

They are giving the spotlight to the doctors  on the ground 🤔🤔 when have they cared about this before?

Sort of related….there is a rumour going around that Zorko hates Touk Miller that much that he squeezed and bruised his own testicles to set Miller up.  
Information source? My 90 odd year old father-in-law (whilst watching the Footscray Richmond game tonight)

Edited August 4, 20231 yr by Wodjathefirst