2012/10: Should Australian Rules football introduce helmets?
What they said...
'There is a medical and ethical imperative for all football codes to minimise the risks of head injuries and concussion among players'
Frederic Gilbert and Bradley J Partridge, authors of 'The need to tackle concussion in Australian football codes' published in The Medical Journal of Australia, 2012
'There is some speculation that people wearing headgear may feel less vulnerable and might play more aggressively. We did surveys on a lot of players and that was a message we got...'
Dr. McIntosh, Associate Professor in Biomechanics at the School of Safety Science, University of New South Wales
The issue at a glance
In June, 2012, a United States expert in sports-related brain injury stated his belief that Australian Rules football players were vulnerable to serious brain damage. Chris Nowinski, the co-director of Boston University's Centre for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy, has predicted that Australian football codes 'will change rules' to help prevent the condition that can trigger early-onset dementia.
Among the proposals being considered is the introduction of helmets, especially in the junior leagues where there is concern about the vulnerability of developing brains.
South Metro Junior Football League general manager David Cannizzo has indicated that about half the clubs choose to wear helmets in the younger grades despite AFL Victoria having no helmet policy.
Currently wearing helmets is at the discretion of individual players and clubs. Debate continues as to whether a standardised approach to helmets is desirable.
Background
(Much of the following information is taken from the AFL's Guidelines for the Responsible Approach to Concussion. The full text of this document can be found at
http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Coach_AFL/Injury_Management/ResponsibleApproachConcussionintheAFL.pdf)
Current regulations do not require helmets be worn by Australian Rules players and some leagues have guidelines which suggest scepticism about the value of helmets.
Regulations in the junior Australian Football leagues
Protective head gear (helmets)
There is no strong evidence to suggest protective head gear is necessary in junior football. In the event that protective head gear (a helmet) is required because of a disability or medical condition, a medical certificate should be provided that states the protective head gear will provide adequate protection. However, it is recommended all children participating in any form of the game should wear an appropriately fitted mouth guard.
Helmets for senior AFL players
The senior league does not require the wearing of helmets, though some players, usually those with pre-existent head injuries, wear helmets, usually on the advice of their doctors.
At the senior level, the AFL relies on regulations intended to change player movements to reduce the likelihood of head contact.
Some of the AFL regulations intended to reduce head injuries include:
New definition of charging (2000)
Emphasis on protecting player on ground from being contacted from front on (2003)
Bumping/making forceful contact from front on/bumping player with head over the ball (2007)
Stricter policing of dangerous tackles (2007)
High contact classification given to incidents where head hits the ground (2009)
Rough conduct [head-high bump] (2009, 2010 & 2011)
New guideline under rough conduct for dangerous tackles (2010)
Interchange substitute rule (2011)
Clarity on negligent and reckless dangerous tackles including sling tackles (2012)
Increased penalty for striking incidents behind play (2012)
In addition, the AFL was one of the first professional sports to introduce a rule which prohibits clubs from playing a medically unfit player, whereby the club doctor is the only club person with the authority to make that decision. Sanctions of up to $50,000 apply for each individual breach within this rule.
Revised concussion management guidelines were introduced at the beginning of the 201 Season which require a more conservative approach to the management of concussion and return to play decisions. Along with setting a positive example at AFL level, these guidelines have also had a significant positive impact at community level.
AFL Level concussion management guidelines:
Player diagnosed with concussion cannot take any further part in the game
Players with transient symptoms are assessed to determine if they are due to concussion (e.g. blurred vision, dizziness, unsteadiness)
If brain function is normal they may be allowed to continue playing, with ongoing monitoring for signs of concussion
Post-concussion management in week following injury through a period of rest to allow recovery; monitoring for recovery of symptoms and signs; use of cognitive tests to estimate recovery of brain function; graduated return to activity with monitoring for recurrence of symptoms; final medical clearance before resuming full contact training and/or playing.
All players to undergo computerised baseline tests during pre-season and following injury
The United States football league's helmet regulations
The NFL requires all players to wear helmets. As of 2010, the regulations were changes to prevent players using their helmets to assault other players. The reworded rules prohibit a player from launching himself off the ground and using his helmet to strike a player in a defenceless posture in the head or neck. The old rule only applied to receivers getting hit, but now it will apply to everyone.
Also in 2010, the NFL rules now require that when a player loses his helmet, the play is immediately whistled dead. Also, during field-goal and extra-point attempts, the defence cannot position any player on the line directly across from the snapper, who is considered to be in a defenceless position.
The league has implemented more stringent return-to-play guidelines for players who suffer concussions, and each team must consult with an independent neurologist whenever there is a head injury.
Internet information
On May 14, 2009, The Sydney Morning Herald published an article by Terry Smyth titled, 'Dressed for battle'. The article looks at the reservations being raised about the effectiveness of using helmets in football and soccer.
The full text of the article can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/national/dressed-for-battle-20090513-b3eq.html
On March 21, 2011, The Herald Sun published a news report by Gillian McGee titled 'Retired Demons star Daniel Bell seeking brain damage compensation'. The report looks at the compensation claim placed by Daniel Bell for impaired mental function said to have resulted from multiple concussions incurred while playing AFL football.'
The full text of this report can be found at http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/retired-demons-star-daniel-bell-seeking-brain-damage-compensation/story-e6frf9jf-1226031105638
On April 4, 2011, the online discussion magazine The Conversation published a comment by Con Hrysomallis, a lecturer in the School of Sport and Exercise Science at Victoria University. The comment is titled 'Should helmets be used in AFL?'
Hrysomallis argues that more research needs to be done into how to reduce head injuries in contact sport.
The full text of this article can be found at http://theconversation.edu.au/should-helmets-be-used-in-afl-620
On November 11, 2009, the sporting supplement of The Wall Street Journal ran an article titled, 'Is It Time to Retire the Football Helmet?' which considers current arguments against using helmets in the NFL, where they are mandatory.
The full text of the article can be found at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527881984299454.html
On May 12, 2012, the ABC's current affairs program Four Corners televised 'Hard Knocks' which examines the possible long-term harm caused players in contact sports who have suffered brain injuries.
The report can be accessed at http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/05/10/3499950.htm
On May 17, 2012, the sports comment magazine Roar published an opinion piece by John Davidson titled 'Footy codes need to improve player safety'
The article is a response to the Four Corner's program 'Hard knocks' and call on rugby union, league and the AFL to do more to protect players from head injury.
The full text of the opinion piece can be found at http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/05/17/footy-codes-need-to-improve-player-safety/
On June 2, 2012, The Sydney Morning Herald published a background piece by Chris Johnston titled 'To helmet or not? Junior footy is divided on a vexed question'. The analysis looks at arguments for and against requiring young Australian Rules players to wear helmets.
The full text of this article can be found at http://m.smh.com.au/victoria/to-helmet-or-not-junior-footy-is-divided-on-a-vexed-question-20120601-1zng3.html
On June 4, 2012, The Sydney Morning Herald published a report by Samantha Lane titled, 'US concussion study may not apply to AFL: doctor'. The report looks at claims by Dr Hugh Seward, the head of the AFL's Medical Officers Association, that head injury finding in the United States NRL may not be relevant to the AFL in Australia.
The full text of this report can be found at http://m.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/us-concussion-study-may-not-apply-to-afl-doctor-20120603-1zq6h.html
On June 14, 2012, The Moyne Gazette published a comment by Anthony Brady arguing that all junior AFL players should be required to wear helmets. In a poll accompanying the opinion piece 86% of those who took the poll voted in favour of mandatory helmets for junior players.
The full text of this opinion piece can be found at http://www.moynegazette.com.au/news/local/news/general/helmets-for-junior-football-opinion-and-poll/2589498.aspx
In 2012 the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) published an article by Frederic Gilbert and Bradley J Partridge titled 'The need to tackle concussion in Australian football codes'.
The article looks at evidence of player head injury derived from the American National football League. It surveys the steps that have already been taken to address the problem and argues that a more collaborative, research-based approach needs to be adopted.
The full text of the report can be found at https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2012/196/9/need-tackle-concussion-australian-football-codes
In 2012 the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) published an article by Andrew H Kaye and Paul McCrory titled 'Does football cause brain damage?'
The article suggests that evidence of long-term brain damage from contact sports is not yet conclusive and that helmets have not been shown to reduce the incidence of injury.
The full text of this article can be found at https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2012/196/9/does-football-cause-brain-damage
Arguments in favour of introducing helmets
1. There has been an increase in head injuries among AFL players
The AFL's annual injury survey has showed that injury rates in 2011 saw a marked change in the types of injuries sustained in AFL competition.
The trends in both injury incidence and prevalence remained in line with 2010 results but the 2011 year saw a statistically significant fall in hamstring injuries and all leg muscle strains, matched by an increase in the incidence of PCL knee injuries and concussion.
Long-term studies reveal an entrenched pattern of head injuries associated with Australian Rules football. Concussion is a relatively common injury with six to seven concussions per team per season.
In a recent survey of former players carried out for the Players' Association, of those former players who sustain serious injury almost seventy-five percent reported sustaining at least one concussion during their career, and four out of five of those said they had suffered multiple concussions.
2. Head injuries sustained in Australian Rules football can cause serious long-term harm to players.
Experience in the United States with those playing in their National Football League is beginning to suggest that head injuries incurred while playing contact sports such as Australian Rules football can cause life-long harm to players and may hasten their deaths.
Post-mortem evidence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in the brains of American National Football League players who suffered concussions while playing has intensified concerns about the risks of playing Australian Rules football. Chris Nowinski, the co-director of Boston University's Centre for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy, has stated he is convinced Australian footballers would suffer from the same brain condition - CTE - that has now been proven in high-profile United States sportsmen due to multiple head knocks.
Mr Nowinski has stated, 'This disease has been found in boxers, ice hockey players, a soccer player, American football players ... so to assume this couldn't be caused by head traumas that occur in Australian rules football would be na‹ve.'
CTE is a degenerative brain disease caused by repeated head trauma and characterised by the depositing in the brain of injury-related proteins. CTE produces symptoms similar to those of early-onset dementia. It has also been associated with other forms of intellectual impairment and with depression. Some NFL players with post-mortem evidence of CTE have committed suicide.
An increasing number of AFL players is seeking compensation for brain injuries. For example, former Melbourne player Daniel Bell is currently seeking compensation from his old club after he was diagnosed with brain damage. He claims the injury has been linked to a history of concussions he sustained during his career. A neuropsychologist found his cognitive function has deteriorated significantly.
Bell, aged 25, played 66 games with Melbourne and now struggles to remember words and names when he is tired or he feels strained. Club doctor Andrew Gaff found Bell had received between eight and 10 concussions during his time at Melbourne. Bell himself believes he may have suffered as many as 25 concussions.
West Coast premiership player Dean Kemp and Adelaide premiership player Chad Rintoul are two other former AFL players who have won injury compensation after repeated concussions ended their careers. Former Adelaide player Scott Stevens was forced to retire in 2011 with the after-effects of concussion and ex-Fremantle player Daniel Gilmore has also sought compensation.
Such instances have led to growing community and medical concern. A recent article published in the Medical Journal of Australia has concluded, 'Australia's football codes need to attend to the cumulative effects of years of chronic or subtle brain injuries among their players at the elite and amateur levels. There is a medical and ethical imperative for all football codes to minimise the risks of head injuries and concussion among players.'
3. The number of concussions and subconcussions is under-reported
It has been claimed that there are a variety of factors that are likely to contribute to the under-reporting of head injuries in the AFL.
Firstly, it has been suggested that some players may fail to report an injury received.
There is said to be pressure upon players to continue playing. Football is often their principal livelihood and to continue to be selected they may well believe that they must appear fit and ready to compete.
It has also been suggested that many players, at all levels from junior players to elite professionals, may not realise they have been injured until they begin to experience serious symptoms. This claim is made in particular in relation to sub-concussive injury. Bob Cantu, a neurosurgeon from Boston University, has stated, 'These are injuries where the accelerations are not at a level to produce symptoms that we recognise as concussion symptoms, but sub-concussive blows can cumulatively lead to damage to the brain.'
The latest available AFL injury data indicated that the concussion rate at the elite level was about one newly concussed player per team every two seasons, but it is feared that this figure is misleading because a concussion was only recorded if it caused a player to miss a future match.
It is also feared that the tougher concussion guidelines of the AFL and NRL may encourage under-reporting. Nathan Gibbs, team doctor for the AFL's Sydney Swans, says a player who is dazed by a blow to the head but recovers quickly can be categorised as non-concussed even though his symptoms suggest concussion. The temptation, he believes, will be for team doctors to classify mildly concussed players as non-concussed, rather than order them to sit out the game.
The probably significant incidence of under-reporting of brain injuries has been used as an argument in favour of protective head-gear. It is claimed that under-reporting means it is not always possible to allow players to recover from a brain injury before they play again. It is argued that what is required is a highly pro-active approach, one which includes the use of helmets, and which is designed to prevent injuries occurring in the first place.
4. There are some helmets that can reduce the likelihood of head injury
There have been persistent claims that helmets are ineffective in preventing brain injury in contact sports. However, developments in helmet technology have produced some better helmets which can achieve the desired effects.
Novel technologies are being used in the helmets of American football players to detect and prevent concussions by measuring the impact force of sustained blows.
Testing has been done on a number of soft-shell, padded helmets of the type needed for Australian Rules football. The testing involved an artificial head with internal sensors that measured the shock absorption of the helmets during drop-tests simulating the impact energy likely to produce a concussion.
It was found that only one of the seven helmets tested was likely to reduce the risk of head injury and this helmet had the thickest padding and foam density. Based on the laboratory results, most padded helmets were not thick enough or firm enough to significantly reduce injury risk, but one was adequate.
Those who support the compulsory introduction of helmets into Australian Rules football have been very encouraged by this result. They argue that it demonstrates that claims that helmets cannot protect from head injury are incorrect and that what is required is the proper establishment of a set of standards for AFL helmets so that those that are purchased are effective.
5. Education is needed as part of any program to reduce the risks associated with Australian Rules football
It has been claimed that education has to be part of any program designed to reduce head injuries among AFL players at any level of competition.
There is reported to be resistance to the wearing of helmets because of cost, discomfort and reduced vision and hearing. Where helmets have been trialled it has been difficult to gauge their effectiveness because of only partial compliance. Even were helmets made compulsory it would still be necessary to promote their wear by stressing the dangers of head injuries and the benefits that helmets offer.
It has also been claimed that it would remain necessary to continue to promote safe play in order to counter the compensation effect that occurs when players believe that they are safe because they are wearing a helmet and therefore play with greater vigour and take more risks.
The AFL has taken a variety of measures to increase community and player awareness of the risks of concussion and of the advantages of helmet use. These measures include updated Community Management guidelines; the development of joint AFL-AFLMOA position statement on helmets and mouthguards; the updating of relevant sections of AFL and Community website to provide detailed information on AFL rule changes, research projects, and health and wellness programs and policies; the inclusion of a concussion awareness module as part of coach accreditation; pre-season education workshops conducted by club doctors with AFL playing groups; laws of the game briefings with AFL club match committees and player leadership groups; face-to-face education of parents and community level players about symptoms of concussion to be potentially incorporated into current suite of broader community education sessions and the development of player and parent concussion information sheets.
Arguments against introducing helmets
1. Changes have been made to make Australian Rules football a safer sport
A variety of changes have been made to AFL rules in order to ensure that the game is as safe as possible and head injuries are unlikely to occur.
Over the last fifteen years front-on contact to the head has been banned; off-the-ball incidents deemed intentional are now penalised; ruckmen have been constrained at centre bounces; the bump is close to extinction; there is to be no vilification; illicit and performance-enhancing drug codes have been established.
Recent Laws and Tribunal changes to protect the head and neck include the following:
New definition of charging (2000)
Emphasis on protecting player on ground from being contacted from front on (2003)
Bumping/making forceful contact from front on/bumping player with head over the ball (2007)
Stricter policing of dangerous tackles (2007)
High contact classification given to incidents where head hits the ground (2009)
Rough conduct [head-high bump] (2009, 2010 & 2011)
New guideline under rough conduct for dangerous tackles (2010)
Interchange substitute rule (2011)
Clarity on negligent and reckless dangerous tackles including sling tackles (2012)
Increased penalty for striking incidents behind play (2012)
Commentators on the game have claimed that the result of all these changes is that AFL football is now a far safer sport and head injuries are far less common.
Patrick Smith, writing in The Australian on May 18, 2012, has stated, 'The result is that football is better now than it ever was. Fitter and faster, cleaner and fairer.'
RMIT Medical Sciences lecturer Brett Gordon has also claimed that, although recent injuries in suburban and country games are concerning, the number of incidents is small considering how many people played footy on weekends. Mr Gordon has stated, 'It's still a relatively safe sport.'
In junior competition the rules are even stricter. There is no tackling or bumping allowed in under nines and tens games. For teams under eleven, AFL football is effectively a non-contact sport.
Some commentators have noted that such restrictions make helmets unnecessary. St Kilda City president, Don Robertson, has claimed that the 'non-contact' nature of the younger grades means helmets are not necessary and that he is happy to abide by the AFL's lack of policy.
2. There are regulations in place to protect players who have been injured
In early 2012, both the AFL and NRL changed their rules to forbid concussed players from playing on, and since June 2012 rugby union players must pass a seven-step test before they can return to play.
The junior AFL rules state, 'Any player showing the signs or symptoms of concussion should be removed from the field immediately and referred to a medical practitioner.
A player, who has suffered concussion with or without losing consciousness, should not participate in any match or training session until he or she is fully recovered and has been cleared by a thorough medical examination. Junior clubs must cite a medical clearance before allowing a player who has suffered concussion to resume playing.'
There are precautions set in place, including the provision of first aid personnel to ensure the safety of players. The junior code requires, 'Junior leagues should ensure a person with current first aid qualifications is available at all junior games and seek medical opinion when:
the health of a participant is questionable;
recovery from illness/injury is uncertain; and
a participant is injured during training/competition.
When medical advice cannot be obtained, the junior league and/or club should not allow the young person to participate.
A first aid kit must be available at training and competition venues. Sport-specific rescue equipment should also be accessible. Emergencies should be formally reported, discussed, and changes made to procedures if needed.'
3. The use of helmets can encourage head injuries
It has been suggested that the wearing of helmets can encourage reckless play because footballers erroneously believe that they are safe from head injury.
A recent study of head injuries incurred in the AFL compared to the United States football code, the NFL, found that while AFL players appear to get more shoulder and knee injuries the helmeted NFL players are about 25% more likely to sustain a head injury.
Andrew McIntosh, a researcher at the University of New South Wales has suggested there may be a greater prevalence of head injuries in the American game because the players hit each other with forces up to 100% greater.
Dr. McIntosh, an Associate Professor in Biomechanics at the School of Safety Science, the University of New South Wales, has claimed, "If they [the NFL players] didn't have helmets on, they wouldn't do that...They'd know they'd injure themselves.'
Dr McIntosh has further stated, 'There is some speculation that people wearing headgear may feel less vulnerable and might play more aggressively. We did surveys on a lot of players and that was a message we got, and we're doing a study along those lines at the moment.
We're looking at headgear, shoulder pads, skiing, snowboarding and other areas where people have a whole lot of protective equipment and, for example, start skiing faster or do crazy things because they feel safer and that they can take more risks.'
4. Football helmets are unlikely to provide protection from a blow to the head
Research has found that padded 'scrum cap' headgear worn by rugby players does not reduce the risk of concussion or head injury.
The study, led by Dr Andrew McIntosh, a biomechanics expert with the University of New South Wales School of Risk and Safety Sciences, and supported by the Australian Rugby Union, monitored the performance of more than 4000 rugby union players aged 12 to 20, some with headgear, some without, over 29,000 hours of playing time in normal competition. The study found there was no difference in the rate of concussion or head injury between the two groups.
Dr McIntosh has stated, 'Headgear might protect players against superficial head wounds, but if parents and players expect to get protection against concussion or anything more serious, the current range of headgear won't provide that protection.'
Unlike bicycle and motorcycle helmets, which must meet Australian standards, football headgear meets no particular standard. Dr McIntosh has stated, 'We did trial modified headgear, which was slightly thicker and denser, but the study didn't show a significant reduction in head injury or concussion...'
For sports like Australian Rules football, the helmet can not have a hard outer shell because it would then pose a potential impact hazard to other players. Thus only non-rigid, padded helmets are suitable for this sport. Based on the laboratory results, most padded helmets were not thick enough or firm enough to significantly reduce injury risk.
An article published in 2012 in the Medical Journal of Australia concluded, 'There is no good clinical evidence that currently available protective equipment (especially soft-shell helmets) will prevent football-related concussion. Two randomised controlled trials have demonstrated the lack of efficacy of helmets in preventing concussion in rugby and Australian football, and extensive laboratory studies have shown that current helmets have little or no protective capability in this regard.'
5. Subconcussion can occur without a blow to the head
Many of those who suffer brain injury as a result of AFL football or other contact sports have not received a blow to the head.
It has been claimed that repeated body to body contact causes a jarring of the brain inside the cranium. The brain is jolted against the bony brain case. Repeated small blows of this kind are claimed to cause serious harm.
Gina Geffen, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Queensland and a long-time researcher on sports concussion has stated, 'The severity of impacts does vary between the football codes but the same principle applies to all of them, which is that repeated impacts - with or without head contact - cause the brain to be shaken within the skull.'
This form of injury, sometimes referred to as subconcussion is believed to be very common and is not affected by the wearing of a protective helmet. Neil Cochrane, a neurosurgeon, has stated, 'Concussion [or subconcussion] is a brain-shaking phenomenon more than anything else, and padding around your head doesn't stop how much your brain shakes inside your head when you have an impact.'
Therefore, there are those who conclude that the wearing of a helmet should not be mandated among AFL players at any level as it has little to no capacity to reduce head injuries and the harm that these injuries cause to players.
Further implications
The issue of head injuries in contact sports such as AFL football is still far from resolved. It appears further research is needed to establish the extent of the risks. It is interesting that some AFL players have indicted that they will donate their brains, post-mortem, for research into the problem. This follows similar donations made by NRL players in the United States.
To this point the AFL has made a number of changes to the rules of the game to reduce the likelihood of brain injury; however, in the absence of a clear understanding of what level of body contact is needed to cause injury it is not possible to be confident that such rule changes will bring about the desired results.
The AFL has also made changes to its practices to ensure that players who are concussed during a game are sent off for the rest of that game. However, there is some concern that team doctors may be conservative in their diagnosis of concussion because they do not wish to bench a valuable player. The $50,000 fine that clubs can incur for allowing a concussed player to continue playing may serve to discourage such behaviour.
Equally likely to encourage the AFL to continue to address the issue is the growing number of players who are seeking financial compensation from the AFL for long-term brain damage which they claim is the result of brain injuries incurred while playing Australian Rules football.
The effectiveness of helmets is also disputed. Tests, now nine years old, have indicated that most helmets have no effect in reducing brain injury. However, this finding, used to justify the AFL's reluctance to require players to wear helmets, ignores the study's finding that one helmet did appear to reduce the likelihood of brain injury. Supporters of the more general introduction of helmets argue that rather than complaining that most helmets are ineffective there should be continued research to develop helmets that do work.
There is the related problem that even if helmets were to be made compulsory there would need to be a continuation of the AFL's player education campaign to teach players, coaches, parents and all community members what is required in order to play safely. There is concern that without this, even if helmets were introduced, all that is likely to occur is that players would play more vigorously and dangerously because they believed that helmets protected them.
The issue of head injury in the AFL is part of a larger cultural shift the game is seeking to undergo so that violent, dangerous play is no longer seen as adding to the excitement of the spectacle. Thus reducing head injuries joins reducing sexism, racism and off-field player hooliganism as value shifts the game needs to achieve to continue to draw a wide spectator base and to attract skilled young players at all levels of competition.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
H/SUN, September 7, 2011, page 11, news item (photo of on-field stroke victim) by Alex White, `Distressed mum's plea / Make footy kids wear helmets'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/make-footy-kids-wear-helmets-says-mum/story-fn7x8me2-1226130887211
H/SUN, September 6, 2011, page 7, news items, `Girl, 14, suffers stroke after knock to her head / Family prays for miracle'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/footballer-in-critical-condition-after-head-knock-at-suburban-match/story-fn7x8me2-1226129404016
AGE, September 6, 2011, page 3, news item (photos incl ref to junior footballer's death) by Andy Park, `Two young footballers on critical list'.
http://m.smh.com.au/victoria/two-young-footballers-on-critical-list-20110905-1jubk.html
AUST, September 3, 2011, Australian Magazine insert, page 14, analysis by R Guilliatt, `School of hard knocks'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/school-of-hard-knocks-for-football-players/story-e6frg8h6-1226126645745
H/SUN, March 2, 2012, page 15, comment by Andrew Rule, `Mind games'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/how-brain-trauma-can-destroy-athletes/story-fnbkrbz6-1226286661029
AGE, May 10, 2012, page 16, editorial, `Grey area puts grey matter at risk'. (Online readers: scroll down to second editorial on page)
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/new-gambling-body-should-place-policy-bets-20120509-1ycxo.html
AGE, May 13, 2012, page 9, news item by Deborah Gough, `Football may be hazardous to your health'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/football-may-be-hazardous-to-your-health-20120512-1yjsw.html
AGE, May 30, 2012, page 3, news item by Jon Pierik, `Football seeks to protect the brain'.
http://m.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/football-seeks-to-protect-the-brain-20120529-1zhk3.html
AGE, June 2, 2012, page 18, editorial, `Protecting young heads'. (Online readers: scroll down to second editorial on page)
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/obama-v-romney-the-battle-begins-20120601-1zn9v.html?skin=text-only
AGE, June 2, 2012, page 1, news item (photo) by Chris Johnston, `To helmet or not? Junior footy is divided on a vexed question'.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/to-helmet-or-not-junior-footy-is-divided-on-a-vexed-question-20120601-1zng3.html