QFA Div 2 North

Remove this Banner Ad

Baz said:
The extremely challenging position for clubs / AFLQ to manage is the player who had all the signs or symptoms of a concussion, yet presents to training with a letter from a doctor saying the player has no symptoms of having incurred a concussive event and therefore is medically cleared to play! Very challenging for a club to say to a player we are overriding a doctors professional assessment and not allowing you to play the next two games!
Click to expand...
Yes indeed that could be an issue - but if a doctor has signed it off, the player wants to play, then unless the club itself has a doctor who the player presented to on the day, they are in the clear. Some clubs I am sure will tell the player "don't be ridiculous, and give us the name of your doctor" but bottom line is once a doctor signs away to say clear to play then that's that. Goes for all medical situations in life, not sure why local community AFL footy is any different.
 
LaggingBehind said:
Not sure that example is that straight forward any more SMY. It goes beyond 1st aid who just identify and refer. It’s the decision to play the following week by the club. As you’ve now moved the discussion to who has liability then consider this:

For starters, I highly doubt that any doctor fudges their diagnosis and can’t produce meticulous records, if ever called upon, to support that their analysis was on all the information they were provided by the patient. I dare say they’re not covered by their insurance for dodgy diagnosis and have serious disciplinary consequences if they did. So I doubt they submit as easily as you suggest. Suddenly there is the requirement to produce the 1st aid analysis report.

Secondly you argued a few comments back how super serious all this was for player welfare as priority. So if that player does have those further serious issues as you outlined and that prevents their work and livelihood then they surely chase someone for money. If the doctor is squeaky clean, then they’ll come knocking at the club.

They potentially engage a lawyer who gets some eyewitnesses to say that the player had obvious symptoms in the preceding game (friends will sign to ensure he gets $) and potentially he even states that he was sent by the club volunteer to get the doctors clearance even though he had all the symptoms. Not sure that looks good on the club.

The lawyer identifies Marsh/JLT for public liability as the cash cow. Not sure you’d want to be that club volunteer being interviewed by insurance claim assessor on what occurred and that prevented the Marsh/JLT payment.

Either this is the super serious issue that you said earlier, or it’s not.
Click to expand...
Have you ever obtained a medical certificate for sick days?? There are doctors out there who will state whatever you want them to state if it suits them. Now in this day and age i agree that it would be more unlikely that a doctor would bc the litigation would be enormous down the track but if that player went with a 1st aid report from the club (mandatory) stating that the player was suffering from signs / symptoms that aligned with concussion then it would be incredibly unlikely the player gets the okay to play. Once he's told this it is up to the club to ensure he doesn't for 2 games. If they can't / won't do this then any ramifications they receive should be on them.

As for the decision to play the following week, I might be on an island here but if a player was Ko'd on the weekend and decided he was alright to play and had received a medical certificate stating he could, and I was coaching that side and saw the player during the game / after the game - not a hope in hell. Nothing to do with potentially being sued down the track but just player welfare.

Seriously think you are underestimating people's thought processes around this issue in todays world. It is the single biggest issue in the code - by a fair way.
 
smy1305 said:
Yes indeed that could be an issue - but if a doctor has signed it off, the player wants to play, then unless the club itself has a doctor who the player presented to on the day, they are in the clear. Some clubs I am sure will tell the player "don't be ridiculous, and give us the name of your doctor" but bottom line is once a doctor signs away to say clear to play then that's that. Goes for all medical situations in life, not sure why local community AFL footy is any different.
Click to expand...
Correct, so there in lies the issue with the concussion policy! Very difficult for FT staff to manage let alone club volunteers.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Baz said:
Correct, so there in lies the issue with the concussion policy! Very difficult for FT staff to manage let alone club volunteers.
Click to expand...
Yes but the club volunteer isn't there, nor should they be, to override a doctor's verdict whether it's too harsh or not harsh enough. A player comes back from the doctor with a statement that says "concussion" mild or otherwise, its 2 games out no questions asked. Thats where the club has to step up and put emotion aside too imo. On the other hand, if the player has a clean verdict from doc, and feels that it is wrong, all they can do is question the player and provide a warning about playing and could prevent the player from playing obviously (just make them unavailable for selection) but they don't have to. And legally they could not be touched.
 
smy1305 said:
Have you ever obtained a medical certificate for sick days?? There are doctors out there who will state whatever you want them to state if it suits them. Now in this day and age i agree that it would be more unlikely that a doctor would bc the litigation would be enormous down the track but if that player went with a 1st aid report from the club (mandatory) stating that the player was suffering from signs / symptoms that aligned with concussion then it would be incredibly unlikely the player gets the okay to play. Once he's told this it is up to the club to ensure he doesn't for 2 games. If they can't / won't do this then any ramifications they receive should be on them.

As for the decision to play the following week, I might be on an island here but if a player was Ko'd on the weekend and decided he was alright to play and had received a medical certificate stating he could, and I was coaching that side and saw the player during the game / after the game - not a hope in hell. Nothing to do with potentially being sued down the track but just player welfare.

Seriously think you are underestimating people's thought processes around this issue in todays world. It is the single biggest issue in the code - by a fair way.
Click to expand...
Not underestimating it. Just don’t think it’s clear enough nor tested enough.

Let’s move onto footy. Who stood out in the weekend games?
 
From a litigious perspective, a club would be somewhat mitigated if a player presented with a certificate saying “there was no concussive event” versus a certificate stating “the player is cleared to play”, when it was obvious to club that a player was concussed and there’s a policy stating it’s mandatory 21 day rest period. Often the treating doctor will clear the player to resume sport unbeknownst that a concussion policy exists in the background.
 
this issue popped up today for the first time already.

My son got a slight knock in a Colts internal scratch match, we didn't really have our usual medical staff on hand as it was more of a training session and he reported to the bench and was told not to go back on.

Wasn't declared concussed and my amateur view was that he was fine, but happy for him to sit out the rest of the day. He has a heap of footy on in the next few weeks, and when I told him we were going to the doctor to get it confirmed that he was either concussed or he wasn't, as he'd need to sit out 21 days if he was - the immediate reaction was an unwillingness to see the doctor.

I told him not negotiable, and the next response was 'next time I get a knock I just won't come off if I'm risking 3 weeks out'

I'm not raising Einstein obviously, and have subsequently had the convo about importance of his brain compared to the next 3 weeks of footy - but it was an interesting first test case and shows the issues with this suggested new protocol.

*sidenote, doctor cleared him and said he wasn't concussed. Will sit out a few days anyway and have another check to be sure.
 
Baz said:
Correct, so there in lies the issue with the concussion policy! Very difficult for FT staff to manage let alone club volunteers.
Click to expand...
Not to mention keeping the records or copy of medical certificates for
7-8!years in case of litigation against your club? Where does it end?
 
Thommo 42 said:
this issue popped up today for the first time already.

My son got a slight knock in a Colts internal scratch match, we didn't really have our usual medical staff on hand as it was more of a training session and he reported to the bench and was told not to go back on.

Wasn't declared concussed and my amateur view was that he was fine, but happy for him to sit out the rest of the day. He has a heap of footy on in the next few weeks, and when I told him we were going to the doctor to get it confirmed that he was either concussed or he wasn't, as he'd need to sit out 21 days if he was - the immediate reaction was an unwillingness to see the doctor.

I told him not negotiable, and the next response was 'next time I get a knock I just won't come off if I'm risking 3 weeks out'

I'm not raising Einstein obviously, and have subsequently had the convo about importance of his brain compared to the next 3 weeks of footy - but it was an interesting first test case and shows the issues with this suggested new protocol.

*sidenote, doctor cleared him and said he wasn't concussed. Will sit out a few days anyway and have another check to be sure.
Click to expand...
Well done Thommo in doing the right thing for your son.

However I agree, good luck in trying to argue with a teenage boy or a young man in missing 3 weeks of footy. Good thing is that this time of the year it doesn’t hurt to miss games. However a bloke who’s trying to get into the senior side or keep his spot has to suddenly miss out on 3 weeks. And then you add in finals. When we talk about concussion people assume being knocked out or being really groggy. We play a tough sport so of course we have all had minor and for some major head knocks and played on like nothing happened.

Anyway my point is that there is too much discrepancy for each club. Seems to me the onus is either on the club or the player, depending on circumstances. Based on how many volunteers and who witnessed the head knock. But more fun for everyone to sort out for themselves
 
Baz said:
From a litigious perspective, a club would be somewhat mitigated if a player presented with a certificate saying “there was no concussive event” versus a certificate stating “the player is cleared to play”, when it was obvious to club that a player was concussed and there’s a policy stating it’s mandatory 21 day rest period. Often the treating doctor will clear the player to resume sport unbeknownst that a concussion policy exists in the background.
Click to expand...
Well I would expect any good doc to ask what it was being requested for surely!

Many jobs would require clearance. Gee whiz th is sort of stuff has been happening for years. The only difference now is that it’s 21 days
 
Thommo 42 said:
this issue popped up today for the first time already.

My son got a slight knock in a Colts internal scratch match, we didn't really have our usual medical staff on hand as it was more of a training session and he reported to the bench and was told not to go back on.

Wasn't declared concussed and my amateur view was that he was fine, but happy for him to sit out the rest of the day. He has a heap of footy on in the next few weeks, and when I told him we were going to the doctor to get it confirmed that he was either concussed or he wasn't, as he'd need to sit out 21 days if he was - the immediate reaction was an unwillingness to see the doctor.

I told him not negotiable, and the next response was 'next time I get a knock I just won't come off if I'm risking 3 weeks out'

I'm not raising Einstein obviously, and have subsequently had the convo about importance of his brain compared to the next 3 weeks of footy - but it was an interesting first test case and shows the issues with this suggested new protocol.

*sidenote, doctor cleared him and said he wasn't concussed. Will sit out a few days anyway and have another check to be sure.
Click to expand...
And that’s how it should work. If a player / parent doesn’t want to present then the onus isn’t on the football club
 
Backpocket101 said:
Well done Thommo in doing the right thing for your son.

However I agree, good luck in trying to argue with a teenage boy or a young man in missing 3 weeks of footy. Good thing is that this time of the year it doesn’t hurt to miss games. However a bloke who’s trying to get into the senior side or keep his spot has to suddenly miss out on 3 weeks. And then you add in finals. When we talk about concussion people assume being knocked out or being really groggy. We play a tough sport so of course we have all had minor and for some major head knocks and played on like nothing happened.

Anyway my point is that there is too much discrepancy for each club. Seems to me the onus is either on the club or the player, depending on circumstances. Based on how many volunteers and who witnessed the head knock. But more fun for everyone to sort out for themselves
Click to expand...
That’s been the case for many a year though not just 2024. Only diff is player will miss 2 games not 1 (12 days protocol).
I suppose it gets back to duty of care of your players. If u espouse how much u love your players and would do anything for them but on the other hand encourage them to play after getting a decent head knock bc the due diligence hasn’t been enforced then u r prob a hypocrite. We have all been part of the era when concussion was not considered overly serious. Geewhiz john Kennedy snr once famously said “any injury above the shoulders doesn’t count” but we know what we know now
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Having the Eagles back playing Saturdays is a win in itself. More history in the club than most other teams in the comp. If they fill two teams and have a crack every week, results in the first year are irrelevant really. Tipping they win a few games and will set a platform to build on over the next few years. Will also be unreal to have some old traditional rivalry games between Zillmere, Sandgate & Kedron, all former QAFL clubs with proud histories. Vossy and the club have done a great job, same with Pine Rivers and them getting back to Saturday footy again.
 
Redcliffe played UQ today. Again a great opportunity for our boys against a Div 1 club. End result was 10 goals (in their favour) but we take a lot away from the game.
 
So Div 2 south fixture out. Hopefully the combination of Ballina and Byron Bay becoming the Southern Stingrays can see them become competitive again. Pretty sure both teams were last and second last, last year. Is any div 2 south team going to try to move back up to div 1? Hasn’t been a Gold Coast team in div 1 since Burleigh in 2019 and they’ve won 2 premierships since then, and a few ressies ones.
 
Backpocket101 said:
So Div 2 south fixture out. Hopefully the combination of Ballina and Byron Bay becoming the Southern Stingrays can see them become competitive again. Pretty sure both teams were last and second last, last year. Is any div 2 south team going to try to move back up to div 1? Hasn’t been a Gold Coast team in div 1 since Burleigh in 2019 and they’ve won 2 premierships since then, and a few ressies ones.
Click to expand...
Dont think you get just one Div 2 south team going up due to the travel. Would likely need both Burleigh and either Bond Uni or Coolangatta to come up to make the travel a bit easier on both. With Coorparoo going up next year leaves only 7 teams in Div 1 next year. Could be good to see in my opinion both Burleigh and Bond or Coolie go up and maybe even Alex Hills and have Div 1 as a 10 team comp.
 
Footyboy2020 said:
Dont think you get just one Div 2 south team going up due to the travel. Would likely need both Burleigh and either Bond Uni or Coolangatta to come up to make the travel a bit easier on both. With Coorparoo going up next year leaves only 7 teams in Div 1 next year. Could be good to see in my opinion both Burleigh and Bond or Coolie go up and maybe even Alex Hills and have Div 1 as a 10 team comp.
Click to expand...
What would happen to div 2 south then. Would there be enough teams ? Adding the northern rivers teams looks like it failed.
 
Gone Akers said:
What would happen to div 2 south then. Would there be enough teams ? Adding the northern rivers teams looks like it failed.
Click to expand...
Originally had Lismore as well but since the 2022 floods that poor town hasn’t recovered. Byron Bay went into northern rivers I think last season or didn’t have a men’s, can’t remember which reason. Tweed came last in both grades last year without a single win. Ballina finished with about 3-4 wins in both grades but also both finished second last. So the fact they are combining isn’t a good thing for both a numbers reason and quality reason.

When Burleigh was last in div 1. You had 3 very strong sunny coast teams and they were the only Gold Coast team and finished dead last. Once Maroochydore and Noosa went up you’d think a Gold Coast team would come up. However there is now hinterland and Moreton Bay. But if you’re a strong div 2 team north or south. Not going up to div 1 due to travel shouldn’t be the excuse. But perhaps instead of one Gold Coast team going up. Two go up, but then it leaves the div 2 south comp almost dead in the water. Perhaps Pacific Pines and Ormeau could join div 2 south in the upcoming years. Anyway just ideas.
 
Backpocket101 said:
Originally had Lismore as well but since the 2022 floods that poor town hasn’t recovered. Byron Bay went into northern rivers I think last season or didn’t have a men’s, can’t remember which reason. Tweed came last in both grades last year without a single win. Ballina finished with about 3-4 wins in both grades but also both finished second last. So the fact they are combining isn’t a good thing for both a numbers reason and quality reason.

When Burleigh was last in div 1. You had 3 very strong sunny coast teams and they were the only Gold Coast team and finished dead last. Once Maroochydore and Noosa went up you’d think a Gold Coast team would come up. However there is now hinterland and Moreton Bay. But if you’re a strong div 2 team north or south. Not going up to div 1 due to travel shouldn’t be the excuse. But perhaps instead of one Gold Coast team going up. Two go up, but then it leaves the div 2 south comp almost dead in the water. Perhaps Pacific Pines and Ormeau could join div 2 south in the upcoming years. Anyway just ideas.
Click to expand...
Yeah agreed.The Travel thing is BS. You’d think bond/cooly and Burleigh are good enough to push for div 1 imo.
 
Gone Akers said:
Yeah agreed.The Travel thing is BS. You’d think bond/cooly and Burleigh are good enough to push for div 1 imo.
Click to expand...
I think it is as well in regards to the travel but that is the main reason I can think of as to why they don’t. Is there anyone on here that knows which division is actually better in regards to the North/South? Don't actually get to watch either of them so would be interested in regards to any of them coming up to Div 1 in the future.
 
Footyboy2020 said:
I think it is as well in regards to the travel but that is the main reason I can think of as to why they don’t. Is there anyone on here that knows which division is actually better in regards to the North/South? Don't actually get to watch either of them so would be interested in regards to any of them coming up to Div 1 in the future.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that the south was stronger. Might be different now.
 
Footyboy2020 said:
I think it is as well in regards to the travel but that is the main reason I can think of as to why they don’t. Is there anyone on here that knows which division is actually better in regards to the North/South? Don't actually get to watch either of them so would be interested in regards to any of them coming up to Div 1 in the future.
Click to expand...
Each team in div 2 south in the last 5 or so years that had gone up to div 1 made finals in their first year, except for Wynnum who were not ready at all. Two of those teams being Moreton Bay and Hinterland were miles ahead of everyone else for about 2-3 years. I’m pretty sure Moreton Bay went through undefeated the year they won it and then Hinterland did the same the following year.

Whereas in div 2 south, no team has gone up, yet I don’t think there has been a back to back premiership team in since before 2020.Unless it’s in the ressies. And the top 4 from 2023 have either won it or played in a granny in the last 3 years. So top end a lot closer together then div 2 north.

But to argue which comp is stronger, I would argue div 2 north. But again really hard to tell. They could do a potential Div 2 North V South during the year. Or do what they did a few years ago in div 4 S/N where North Shore played Pac Pines and the winner was the ‘winner’ of div 4. However that idea was heavily criticised for obvious reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
QAFL 2024 season
27 28 29 30 31
Replies
764
Views
51K
BennyFortyEight
B
Thommo 42
QAFL 2023 Season
142 143 144 145 146
Replies
4K
Views
302K
LaggingBehind
L
R
One blokes QAFL footy season experience, documented. (2022)
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
Engimal v3
Engimal v3

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top