2 hours ago, Sydee said:

Is there a duty of care not to slam your knee into someone’s ribs ? - asking for a friend 

Something had to be done, after all, Cox was not playing where the knee effect might have been useful as instructed.

50 minutes ago, Deesprate said:

With respect we have concussion protocols that are well established and to be followed. You don’t have to be a medical expert to confirm established protocols for treating concussion were followed. It a reasonable question where concussion occurs to ask were the protocols followed. There have been enough serious rib related injuries to warrant established protocols to be established and followed. Whilst doctors do their best they are fallible to just accept their decisions without question put them at different level of all other professions in the community. I would hardly call the AFL ticking it off independent. The court are full of medico legal cases where medical professionals get it wrong. If the AFL in future dont put protocols in place they may well be liable based on the current known risk of this issue. Indeed it not beyond belief that Petracca himself may well legally question the decision made that put him back on the ground. In those circumstances the court would demand full transparency of what occurred.

But what you are saying isn't true.

There are concussion assessment protocols. Do you know what they are? Have you got access to them? Even if you've heard the name of the assessment/testing protocol would you know what they mean or whether they are suitable?

My guess is the answer to everything above is No. And if you happen to answer yes because you have specific medical training, then you probably know that the general public would be not able to interpret them.

 

In Petracca's case there were protocols for assessment. The medical team has followed them. They have determined low risk of internal injury, most likely rib damage. What is the name of the tests or procedures they follows? I don't know. You don't know. We're not doctors. Releasing the details of the test procedure is not useful.

 

Doctors are fallible, and their procedures can be fallible, and I agree that it is reasonable to suggest the independence of the AFL is sometimes questionable. But that doesn't mean they should open the books to the general public for this critique. The general public have no knowledge about this and will interpret it badly whatever is released.

 

If Petracca wants to question the professional practice of the medical staff, he can (although he has publicly already praised them). But there proceedures were signed off by an oversight medical panel (via the AFL). Do you really think that a process that is signed off by two sets of medical practitioners independently is going to fail a test for malpractice?

 

 

Sometimes, in specialist areas like this (and like vaccines, and other medical advice, etc) we need to trust that maybe, just maybe, reading about something in a newspaper doesn't make us qualified to comment on whether it was best practice or not.

It's a pretty shocking injury to Tracca.

After all is said and done I'm glad he's ok in terms of nothing life threatening.

The blame game doesn't help and in any case I'm sure the clubs learnt things here( no sarcasm either).

Four broken ribs, injured spleen and lungs is pretty nasty.

I have no idea what Moore was thinking. Why and earth would he have put his knee in so very, very hard( it must have been given the injuries) in just attempting to go a spoil.

Let's be frank about this. He was not flying for a mark and didn't need his knees for elevation.

It's not necessarily a normal footy act in that if it happened all the time we would obviously see many more injuries like the ones Trac has.

It is genuinely hard to ascertain why Moore did this. If you watch the replay moores knee was sticking out way before the contest.

if anything moores knee would have impeded his ability to get closer to the ball. So it definitely begs the question why.

Edited June 15, 2024Jun 15 by leave it to deever

Just watched the incident for the first time. I have absolutely no doubt that Moore went in with the knee as the primary action, then the spoil followed. Disgraceful. Lost all respect for the jerk.

7 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

It's a pretty shocking injury to Tracca.

After all is said and done I'm glad he's ok in terms of nothing life threatening.

The blame game doesn't help and in any case I'm sure the clubs learnt things here( no sarcasm either).

Four broken ribs, injured spleen and lungs is pretty nasty.

I have no idea what Moore was thinking. Why and earth would he have put his knee in so very, very hard( it must have been given the injuries) in just attempting to go a spoil.

Let's be frank about this. He was not flying for a mark and didn't need his knees for elevation.

It's not necessarily a normal footy act in that if it happened all the time we would obviously see many more injuries like the ones Trac has.

It is genuinely hard to ascertain why Moore did this.

Well said

Laura kane said on crunch time on SEN that AFL emergency doctors were involved on Monday as well. She is comfortable we did everything right.

It does seem to make the rules somewhat inconsistent.

I mean it's a slippery slope in stopping knees in the back for only spoils. And a path I'm not sure I'd like.

That said the knee out in this spoiling attempt would have made it harder for Moore to get closer to the ball and only ultimately possible by the physics of moores knee pushing Trac out of the contest

So it seems pushing a player flat in the back with hands albeit a spoil attempt or a mark is penalized but a knee isn't.

It's a tough game to arbitrate but tougher one to play. Id hate to see knees penalized after someone's spinal cord is damaged.

Despite being a footy act this particular knee out, wasn't a fair footy act for me. Totally unnecessary and has seen one of the Afls best players season done and dusted. Thanks Darcy. Get well asap Trac. 

 

Petition to get our club doctors x-ray vision googles and a crystal ball for maximum duty of care.

The retrospectoscope seems to still be in use. So many sanctimonious experts. If it was Pies, Blues or Geelong the media would have stayed quiet.

52 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

It does seem to make the rules somewhat inconsistent.

I mean it's a slippery slope in stopping knees in the back for only spoils. And a path I'm not sure I'd like.

That said the knee out in this spoiling attempt would have made it harder for Moore to get closer to the ball and only ultimately possible by the physics of moores knee pushing Trac out of the contest

So it seems pushing a player flat in the back with hands albeit a spoil attempt or a mark is penalized but a knee isn't.

It's a tough game to arbitrate but tougher one to play. Id hate to see knees penalized after someone's spinal cord is damaged.

Despite being a footy act this particular knee out, wasn't a fair footy act for me. Totally unnecessary and has seen one of the Afls best players season done and dusted. Thanks Darcy. Get well asap Trac. 

 

Counter point to this is that the has been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of marking contests in football throughout the years and few few that have resulted in an injury this bad, let alone something as bad as a permanent spinal injury.

There are inherent risks in playing a contact sport. I think we are all comfortable that brain injury due to concussion is something we need to minimise as much as possible. We've identified that regular head hits makes the risk of CTE way too high and we have a lot of past players suffering. But we don't truly have a zero tolerance because if we did we would say "no contact, no species (hit your head on ground), no tackling, etc). We are just comfortable to reduce it as low as reasonably practical.

So is a 0.001% chance of this kind of injury (knee to back, spleen) occuring, is that an acceptable risk? It probably is a low enough risk, but if we see a trend in them increasing then action may be required.

Edited June 15, 2024Jun 15 by deanox

3 hours ago, deanox said:

Counter point to this is that the has been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of marking contests in football throughout the years and few few that have resulted in an injury this bad, let alone something as bad as a permanent spinal injury.

There are inherent risks in playing a contact sport. I think we are all comfortable that brain injury due to concussion is something we need to minimise as much as possible. We've identified that regular head hits makes the risk of CTE way too high and we have a lot of past players suffering. But we don't truly have a zero tolerance because if we did we would say "no contact, no species (hit your head on ground), no tackling, etc). We are just comfortable to reduce it as low as reasonably practical.

So is a 0.001% chance of this kind of injury (knee to back, spleen) occuring, is that an acceptable risk? It probably is a low enough risk, but if we see a trend in them increasing then action may be required.

There have been quite where kidneys have been injured requiring removal in some cases, pretty sure Brad Miller got a Geelong player with his knee and the kidney had to be removed also Sam Newman had one removed after copping a knee in the back.

Whateley makes me physically ill.

He's a creepy ,spineless little blowfly and I can't really watch or listen to him.

Don't know why.

He just creeps me out.

I know it's irrational but thats the truth.

1 hour ago, drysdale demon said:

There have been quite where kidneys have been injured requiring removal in some cases, pretty sure Brad Miller got a Geelong player with his knee and the kidney had to be removed also Sam Newman had one removed after copping a knee in the back.

Yeah of course, I wasn't saying it was the only one, I was saying from a risk assessment perspective, maybe it's a tolerable risk as part of contact football?

Firstly, there are probably less organ injuries than concussions (I am guessing).

Second, my understanding is that most organ injuries are identified and treated with full recovery and no lasting effects. Contrast that the brain injuries which are cumulative, hidden, difficult to diagnose or define the "how bad is it" line, and chronic, with no full recovery expected.

So based on those assumptions, I could see why tolerance for brain injuries and concussions would be lower than tolerance for internal organ injuries.

Finally, concussion related injuries are based almost solely around 1 thing: contact to the head. And as there is rarely acceptable contact to the head, it's easy to introduce an effective control that is a blanket ban on such contact. But internal and organ related injuries are associated with all sorts of other impacts and contacts that usually aren't a lasting problem. It's very hard to implement controls which prevent them, while also allowing competing in a contact sport.

So potentially consequence is not as high for body contact as it is for head injury, and secondly, likelihood seems a bit lower too (thousands of body hits for every organ damage vs 10s of head contact for every concussion). So the overall risk is likely to be lower.

 

Edited June 15, 2024Jun 15 by deanox
Edit to add that I don't know any of this for sure, it is me, as a lay person, doing a risk assessment thought experiment. Please don't quote me!

Whateley: confected inanity to feed the AFL media cycle.

unlike meadow lea, he ought not be congratulated 

I haven’t read or watched too much AFL media this week, but did anyone raise the opinion that Moore’s knee was completely unnecessary? He was trying to reach for that spoil and it just made no sense to go with the knee. He wasn’t going for a speccy, and he wasn’t protecting himself. If Moore wasn’t such an AFL media darling, I reckon there would have been a bit of a focus on careless and unnecessary knees in a marking contest.

whateley on sen with laura kane was like a dog with a bone - he just wouldn't accept that 'doctors know best'

he's a good commentator when he's calling the game, but he's a pretentious poindexter 

Whateley is always moralising

2 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

whateley on sen with laura kane was like a dog with a bone - he just wouldn't accept that 'doctors know best'

he's a good commentator when he's calling the game, but he's a pretentious poindexter 

Poindexter haven't heard that one in a while. 🤣

Geez there's a lot of doctors in media and social media land aren't there

I was very interested to see the fall out from Moore's use of his knee as a weapon. Anyone who thinks Moore didn't know what he was doing or that he didn't know where his knee was going is being naive in my opinion. They practice using their knee and jumping into a bag all the time at training. I don't think he wanted to end Petracca's season but he certainly aimed to hurt.

It was a follow up to last years Maynard "dog" act. This was the first time we had played since then and even though Melbourne's focus was lost by it's pathetic effort the week before Collingwood's wasn't. One of Moore's generals had been called to account and the Collingwood Captain was going to back him up to the hilt.

This was an act of war. Collingwood won the war again and we didn't even know it was a war. We have come out looking like fools. Again. If we are to survive as a team in this era of potential greatness we have to realise whats going on. I am really only interested in one more match for the rest of the year. Round 24 against Collingwood. 

They have done it to us again. We have let it be done to us again. Until we beat Collingwood and physically beat Collingwood, we will never be any good again. Basic combat warfare.

Come on Goodwin, get your head out of the "woe is me" [censored] and get us up for one game.

Edited June 15, 2024Jun 15 by deespicable me
obvious

Not all doctors are equal in all matters. Sports medicine doctors who manage sprained ankles, ACL injuries and concussion may not have extensive experience in major trauma. 

I could not care less what GW thinks or writes. He adopted this view at the outset and maintains it despite what we have learned since from Dr Bruckner, the AFL and Trac himself. If he listened to them he would have nothing to say or write.

Gerard has no special insights into football and no knowledge he needs to share. He should stick to talking to horses.

Whateley says:  "Collingwood captain Darcy Moore and midfielder Jack Crisp both asked Petracca whether he should be on the ground given what they were seeing up close."

Doubt that info came from a demon player or mfc.  So it is the Pies PR machine again telling the world what 'good guys' 🤮they are.?

I thought Whateley was better than to write an article where a few facts are dispersed in a diatribe of supposition and uninformed opinion.  Lost any cred he had imv.

As for Coll there are no words to describe the depth of my loathing for that club.

Edited June 15, 2024Jun 15 by Lucifers Hero

On 15/06/2024 at 00:27, 3183 Dee said:

Gerard Whateley’s take on Petracca incident

Apologies if this has been posted previously, but quite a damning article by Gerard Whateley on the duty of care that appeared to be absent last Monday. According to him, Collingwood players (Moore and Crisp) were concerned enough to ask Christian if he should be on the field.

If true, this is a shocking indictment on our club and certainly does not help with the litany of other stuff that has been swirling about recently. I’m beginning to wonder if our fitness program/ethos, whereby you build resilience by playing through injury has started to take its toll. It feels as though the players are being told that their mental and physical well-being comes before everything, yet clearly several of them are banged up. I wonder if this is creating disillusionment within the playing group?

Whateley is a million percent correct on this!