Murphy's Law / concussion discussion

[Boot]

Former St.Kilda captain Nathan Burke says he benefited from wearing a helmet in that he suffered less symptoms after he started wearing it.

[jonmac1954]

Former St.Kilda captain Nathan Burke says he benefited from wearing a helmet in that he suffered less symptoms after he started wearing it.

Yes and Burke is a highly qualified trauma surgeon - not !!
With all respect he is totally unqualified to present even as hearsay evidence against the immense amount of highly respected and published medial evidence to the contrary.

[Rex]

Thanks Laurie for the links. I note that although the first article says helmets do little to stop concussion due to less effect on limiting the rotational injury, when that occurs, they do reduce traumatic brain injury.
I note that many decent bike helmets include an internal cage that helps deceleration. I’m sure that would be looked at.
Concussion, brain injury, prevention and management research is way behind where it should be and as we know much of it is now only happening due to litigation fear. More work is being done and we will know a lot more in coming years.
I have no doubt that helmets in many spheres of life and sport definitely make a difference, but how much in AFL is what we’re interested in.
Another question is at what cost to the game if universal helmets were introduced? I love footy and would hate to see players wearing armour like gridiron. And every time there’s a rule change players try to exploit them: with better helmets gridiron players use their heads like battering rams. When German taxi’s introduced ABS accidents went up: drivers drove closer, braked harder and hit more often. When boxing changed from bare knuckle to gloves, hand fractures decreased allowing boxers to hit harder and more often resulting in more TKO and brian injuries.
What I don’t want to see is a hasty, under-informed decision that just creates a different problem.

[jonmac1954]

^
Whilst even a passing casual thought will rightly surmise that a slight reduction in trauma is possible with helmets and a simarly passing thought will surmise that they cannot stop or even significantly reduce the massive trauma of concussion.
I had two sisters who were nurses - one a casualty nurse and the other a theatre nurse. My local friend here in the LaTrobe valley is a theatre technician and all agree that concussive trauma to the brain is life threatening and a severe injury far too often trivialized.

[stui magpie]

Wow !
Because it is the violent movement of the head which causes the brain injury.
Don't take my word for it go to some doctor NOT involved with sporting politics and ask them.
Violent head movements can cause concussion.
Helmets do not prevent violent head movements from heavy impacts.

Go back and read my original post. I know what causes concussion and also know that normal helmets do SFA to prevent it. What I suggested was if you could make special helmets out of an energy absorbing foam of some kind, that absorbs the kinetic energy from a hit and therefore reduce the amount of sloshing around inside the skull that the brain does.

[qldmagpie67]

Murphy will be a game by game proposition going forward
At best he won’t suffer day to day symptoms at worst he’s 1 head knock away from career being over
Listening to Jonathan brown and so many others speak about there head knocks now I think the AFL will actually take the decision away from players
If you look at Murphy’s knocks this season none where violent most came from pure football accidents incidents
The GF one was pure bad luck and didn’t seem so bad at first
I think the club needs to plan for life without Murphy to be honest

[warburton lad]

In a hypothetical case, Murphy may play another 10 seasons and not experience a concussion injury. In a high-contact environment like AFL that would require some luck.
I would rather Nathan Murphy retired before the next concussion than after it. It is a sobering thought that we could allow a player who has had 10 concussions to pull on the boots again.

I agree with previous posters who have suggested that the AFL may take the matter out of Collingwood's hands. If that happens, I would be astonished if Brayshaw from Melbourne is allowed to continue playing.
There may be a legal minefield ahead for clubs and the AFL if they withdraw the right of players to play at the highest level...

I only wish for the best for any player of any club who has issues around concussions- personal welfare is and always should be number one priority.

[RudeBoy]

There is a risk that if protective headware becomes mandatory, or even much more widely used, that it could lead to more concussions - as players become even more reckless, due to their feeling of having their head protected.

It reminds of when I was a teen, watching the great Viv Richards batting for the mighty West Indies. At the time when helmets were introduced to cricket, he refused to ever wear one, instead relying on watching the ball and evading it at the crease. I can't recall him ever being struck on the head, whereas many other batsmen regularly were struck, because they allowed themselves to be hit, feeling safe under a helmet.

[stui magpie]

^Rodney Hogg hit him flush on the jaw in a test match, Viv barely flinched and hooked the next ball for 6.

[inxs88]

Nathan had 4 concussions whilst in his cricket days none from batting (all from fielding allegedly). The issue Murph faces is that the match day Pies doctor on Grand Final assessed and passed his concussion test. Given Murph then ruled himself out, the doctor raised it with the AFL wanting to "cover himself" insofar as NOT making a mistake on GF Day.

Murp is being encouraged not to do the Panel test (just yet) as it's likely they shall default to the conservative decision of saying "retire".

[magpieazza]

I would hate to see him return and then suffer another brain injury.
The question I ask is if a player wants to play because its his/hers happiness in life where do we draw the line of responsibility.?

Can a player sign a waiver form and concluding that any injury to the head is their responsibility and the club/AFL takes no responsibility,
( much like the waiver forms you sign when purchasing a Go Kart ride at an Indoor Go Kart track for example )
Why does that not apply to adult players over the age of say 18 years of age.?
Where is that freedom of choice? Not that I would do that myself but I would imagine their are people that would like that choice.

[jonmac1954]

^

I get the the point you are making azza and to an extent am sympathetic to that attitude in general but there is an issue of passive enticement.
An AFL listed player makes a bloody good salary and is to a lesser or greater extent famous.
It seems to me that this represents a strong encouragement to 'push the envelope'.
When is enough and when is too much?

[magpieazza]

^ Exactly and its a boundary that probably has to be set by the AFL considering that it is pitched to our young and vulnerable at school level.

I do have a bug under the bonnet however and its at how our game has been changed so much to accommodate future law suits
when players know exactly where they stand and should make their own calls on their own futures.
These retrospective lawsuits were played under different environments of medical intelligence of that era
and I feel now we have a better understanding of what to expect, whereby we once didn't and which in my eyes
there had to be some culpability taken by the player back then and from now on.
This is afterall a contact sport.
I am fully behind protecting the player who is going after the ball but to what extent and this leads to how do you make it
acceptable to place a knee in the back of someones skull to take a specky, the most thrilling action and show piece of our game??

I dont have too many answers but I hope we can come to an "agreement" or a definition of what is
acceptable soon enough bc Im sick of the rule book being thrown out every year and lets give some respect to the umpires ....
How the hell do they keep up with all these rule changes, hope they get renumerated well.

[K]

No news on Murph but...
Landsberger (Hun today) has another article on the "concussion war".
Murphy not included in list of 17 red-zone players (3+ concussions in past 3 years).
Article talks about neck strengthening ("so a player's core can reduce the impact of whiplash") and proprioception training ("to improve players' field of vision, and therefore self-protection").

[LaurieHolden]

While he's expecting to play, I can confirm he's waiting for the AFL concussion panels final ruling.