So the game will need to continue to adapt to avoid head traumas to players. A rule change  to stop the Brayshaw incident is likely in the off season. How does the AFL intend to deal with such a case without looking at the incidents of high marks causing head trauma. I realise they are 2 distinct cases and not related except in their ability to cause injury.

How can the AFL say and make rules to stop concussions in tackles, bumps and smothers but leave open the ability to cause concussion when going for a mark? Whilst I understand there is inherent risk in playing, player welfare is rightfully being taken very seriously. In fact I’d say the AFL are about 10 years behind on this but that’s unsurprising. The high mark is a beautiful feature of our game so what needs to be done to firstly keep it and secondly try and make it safe?
For me it feels almost impossible to legislate all concussions out of the game considering the way the game is played. Is the high mark seen as the same as any 2 or more players competing directly for the ball where an injury may happen incidentally? Are coaches going to train defenders to avoid putting themselves at risk by not backing into packs? Do forwards need to almost “be careful” when jumping for the ball?
Do we simply play a sport that is inherently dangerous and thus not only do we need to keep making it safer but we also need to invest heavily in player welfare and past player welfare? Will we get to a point where a player with X number of concussions is no longer allowed to play the game and the club receives a draft pick to replace the player. Is concussion protocol going to be extended to 4 weeks? 
Over to you guys……

20 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

 

So the game will need to continue to adapt to avoid head traumas to players. A rule change  to stop the Brayshaw incident is likely in the off season. How does the AFL intend to deal with such a case without looking at the incidents of high marks causing head trauma. I realise they are 2 distinct cases and not related except in their ability to cause injury. 

• How can the AFL say and make rules to stop concussions in tackles, bumps and smothers but leave open the ability to cause concussion when going for a mark? Whilst I understand there is inherent risk in playing, player welfare is rightfully being taken very seriously. In fact I’d say the AFL are about 10 years behind on this but that’s unsurprising. The high mark is a beautiful feature of our game so what needs to be done to firstly keep it and secondly try and make it safe?
  For me it feels almost impossible to legislate all concussions out of the game considering the way the game is played. Is the high mark seen as the same as any 2 or more players competing directly for the ball where an injury may happen incidentally? Are coaches going to train defenders to avoid putting themselves at risk by not backing into packs? Do forwards need to almost “be careful” when jumping for the ball?
  Do we simply play a sport that is inherently dangerous and thus not only do we need to keep making it safer but we also need to invest heavily in player welfare and past player welfare? Will we get to a point where a player with X number of concussions is no longer allowed to play the game and the club receives a draft pick to replace the player. Is concussion protocol going to be extended to 4 weeks? 
  Over to you guys……

 

For a start, 'going for a mark;, unless it's in the T.Greene category where you stick your boot studs into the face of an oncoming player, is a legitimate 'footy action': in other words, you are 'going for the ball'. It is, of course, a 'unique' aspect of Aussie Rules and I recall my father - who was a terrific athlete, a soccer player -trying to come to grips with this aspect of our game. Yes, there can be 'collateral damage', but when all is said and done, it is not all that common that players inflict serious injury when flying high in the sky, as they say: and most of the damage is done because of the impact to the upper back, and, let's face it, few players are able to jump that high that the heads of the other players becomes an issue.

That's one consideration anyway. And, for the record, I don't see how it's relevant to what Maynard did. In other words, a lot of Maynard excusers bring up the 'Speckie' aspect as though it is in any way connected. It's the height of casuistry.

I'm involved at Junior level, the number 1 cause of concussion that I've seen are from a sling tackle.  Grounds are harder these days, as soon as the head hits the ground you are in trouble.

The crack down on this action has certainly decreased the concussions.

The bump players know you bump high you are in trouble.

The next is the so called footy acts, when you look at these very few and far between.

I think the moment you go past the ball and hit high in any contact form you will be in trouble.

No community sports associations would look to the AFL for guidance.

AFL has proven yet again its only concerned about protecting the 'so called' elite and not the head.

Tricky Gil  and Dill say theyre going to look at the Maynard incident again after the season.

Why didnt you do it this week you corrupt morons !

Not an ounce of credibility left but the corporate media will prop them up as they always do.

34 minutes ago, Deebauched said:

No community sports associations would look to the AFL for guidance.

AFL has proven yet again its only concerned about protecting the 'so called' elite and not the head.

Tricky Gil  and Dill say theyre going to look at the Maynard incident again after the season.

Why didnt you do it this week you corrupt morons !

Not an ounce of credibility left but the corporate media will prop them up as they always do.

Can we not turn this into another Maynard discussion. One of the reasons I posted it was to get away from Maynard. 

My prediction - in a tribute to the Simpsons prediction fraternity - is that one of our players will end up being the guinea pig for the first suspension given for this rule change - whatever it ends up being - and the media will have field day with the optics and the ensuing drama etc. It will also likely be 150% of what the ultimate penalty will end up becoming by the end of the year. There will also be a player in the finals that will find a way to get off for a similar incident - probably someone who plays for either Collingwood or Carlton.

3 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

My prediction - in a tribute to the Simpsons prediction fraternity - is that one of our players will end up being the guinea pig for the first suspension given for this rule change - whatever it ends up being - and the media will have field day with the optics and the ensuing drama etc. It will also likely be 150% of what the ultimate penalty will end up becoming by the end of the year. There will also be a player in the finals that will find a way to get off for a similar incident - probably someone who plays for either Collingwood or Carlton.

In a rational world this should be an absurd post, but experience tells us this is an entirely plausible scenario. 

2 hours ago, Roost it far said:

The high mark is a beautiful feature of our game so what needs to be done to firstly keep it and secondly try and make it safe?

Personal opinion is that the specie will be gone from the game.

...and the game will be very similar to Gaelic Football with no tackling or maybe limited tackling.

Marking with knees lifted will be outlawed.

Whether it will be a spectacle worth watching, who knows.

Times change, things change.

It's been a great game but is it worth the damage to the players?

I'd have thought the risk of concussion from a knee in the head from a speccie is far less than that from bumps, slings and whateever it was that didn't happen last Thursday.  Wrong?

(See Roostit I didn't menion him.)

7 minutes ago, sue said:

I'd have thought the risk of concussion from a knee in the head from a speccie is far less than that from bumps, slings and whateever it was that didn't happen last Thursday.  Wrong?

(See Roostit I didn't menion him.)

Very clever Sue! Whilst the risk of concussion from a high mark is lower than the other risks the risk is still there. Are we happy with that risk and the injuries that could result from it?

I think between the sling tackle and the fake 'bracing' actions actually turning your body into a battering ram, we can dramatically lower concussions.

Competing for marks, including speccies, causes very few injuries.

Legitimate tackles cause very few injuries.

Legitimate spoils cause very few injuries.

Hell, even legitimate bumps (as opposed to sniping) cause very few injuries.

In any situation other than when you turn your body into a point-focused weighted projectile (the physics of the tungsten rod or depleted uranium armour penetrating rounds are fascinating and illumating!) the injuries caused are dramtically less frequent and less severe.

15 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Very clever Sue! Whilst the risk of concussion from a high mark is lower than the other risks the risk is still there. Are we happy with that risk and the injuries that could result from it?

Unless we make the sport completely no contact there will always be concussions even with perfectly legitimate tackles, random collisions of 2 players going for the ball.   If you don't want 'no contact' then you have to rank actions which can cause concussion vs the degree you are prepared to change the game.   My guess is that speccies would be low on the 'cause concussion' index and high on the 'not changing the game' index.

Knee to back of head in marking contest will def go at some point.

There will be some over riding rule created that covers ALL contact with the head - marking, bumping, tackles, etc.

Incidental or not, any contact with the head will be instant free against

Reckon it will be around about the time a $500 mill settlement is reached for CTE damages to current/past players

Money is what forces the AFL to change

I think I'm going to be in the minority here, but I think high knees in the marking contest should be deemed a careless act and if resulting in injury to an opponent should be a suspendable offence.

If we're serious about protecting the head, what other alternative is there?

Edited September 15, 20231 yr by leucopogon

25 minutes ago, leucopogon said:

I think I'm going to be in the minority here, but I think high knees in the marking contest should be deemed a careless act and if resulting in injury to an opponent should be a suspendable offence.

If we're serious about protecting the head, what other alternative is there?

Does that mean the header from soccer goes, the rebound from basketball, any action in any sport that has the potential to cause a head knock banned or as a participant you accept by playing that sport there is a chance of injury

1 minute ago, drdrake said:

Does that mean the header from soccer goes, the rebound from basketball, any action in any sport that has the potential to cause a head knock banned or as a participant you accept by playing that sport there is a chance of injury

Honestly, I've thought about this for years. No sport is safe and I've got no idea where it's going to end up.

 

i think we can all expect a significant inrease in ticket and membership charges in the future to cover future concussion outcomes whether in monitoring, managing or litigation.

25% would not be surprising. it's either increased charges or cuts in expenditure and the latter would be unlikely.

Don’t be sucked into this conversation. This is the argument being made by people drawing parallels between things that don’t exist. It’s not logical to assume that if the AFL suspended Maynard they would have to suspend anyone attempting a mark. 

The ball in dispute, in the air, is significantly different to a player moving passed the ball and cannoning into a player.

 

28 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Don’t be sucked into this conversation. This is the argument being made by people drawing parallels between things that don’t exist. It’s not logical to assume that if the AFL suspended Maynard they would have to suspend anyone attempting a mark. 

The ball in dispute, in the air, is significantly different to a player moving passed the ball and cannoning into a player.

 

Great reply.

The speccy will never go, it's the games biggest spectacle, hence the name.

I find it sad that the NRL are taking this so seriously and so far in front of the AFL.  

Kick the ball off the ground out of congestion. Outside of that I can’t see how the AFL avoid concussion within the contest. The contested area already doesn’t make sense. Players don’t understand it. Someone will snap their neck soon. The only way out of that is to kick it off the ground out of congestion. But that wouldn’t be considered I doubt. But basically, the game is heavily focused around the contested ball. It’s at the heart of Aussie Rules. If they change that they change the game. But if they don’t do something they’ll face payouts the AFL won’t come back from. 

2 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

Don’t be sucked into this conversation. This is the argument being made by people drawing parallels between things that don’t exist. It’s not logical to assume that if the AFL suspended Maynard they would have to suspend anyone attempting a mark. 

The ball in dispute, in the air, is significantly different to a player moving passed the ball and cannoning into a player.

 

This conversation has zero to do with the Brayshaw incident 

1 hour ago, loges said:

The speccy will never go, it's the games biggest spectacle, hence the name.

It won't go, but contact to head in the speccy will be a free against. Players will have to be very careful in the contest 

21 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

This conversation has zero to do with the Brayshaw incident 

8 hours ago, Roost it far said:

So the game will need to continue to adapt to avoid head traumas to players. A rule change  to stop the Brayshaw incident is likely in the off season.

Sorry, which one is it?