Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVI

[Mercurial89]

Not quite how it works.

The AFL is an employer. The players are employees. Any industry (even dangerous ones) imposes an onus on the employer to take reasonable steps to mitigate risk to employees.

Mitigate risk yes, when it comes to sport however there is a fine line between mitigation and outright changing the sport to remove I entirely.
The AFL can show they have made steps to eliminate head impacts through tough suspensions and outlawing of certain acts.

Not being able to bring a player to ground is a fairly significant change that will be flirted with.
I'd assume we reach a point where if a player is stationary it will be made illegal to bring them to the ground.

What people need to accept however is that players and teams are going to try and eek out an advantage wherever possible. So any changes may encourage players to try and draw frees, exhibit A being head high contact. For some weird reason we have moved into an era where it's encouraged and seen as a skill rather than what it used to be.

I think potentially something that needs to be explored is a stronger interpretation of holding the ball. In fact much of today's "issues" regarding injury, umpiring etc all stem from how we adjudicate that whole area.

I'd like to see trialled, If a player has an arm pinned, and chooses to hold onto the ball that they give up their right to protections under the dangerous tackle ruling.
It could go the wrong way with encouraging people to tackle rather than win the ball and it could also lead to flicks and throws disguised as attempts to dispose of the ball but I think there's something that could be done around the whole piece.

 

[Saint]

They’re doing their chances no harm by moving Sheezel to half forward and letting Aaron Hall run around like a headless chook and racking up cheapies.

I wouldn’t rule out GWS or the Weagles such are their injuries but when North don’t bring the physical heat they absolutely stink.

Aaron Hall is the worst player in the AFL. Has no intention of doing anything other than racking up meaningless stats.

If you had him and Hewett playing one-on-one on the MCG, the ball would never leave the centre square as they handballed backwards to nobody for hours on end.

 

[citizen-erased]

biggest challenge in all this tackle/concussion is players in the moment aren't thinking about it

If they can get a free by holding on to the tackle, they will.
if they can get a free by dropping to the ground and not protecting themselves, they will.
And umps are in an impossible situation on which way to call it

im not a fan of the whole head hits ground or doesn't when it comes to the MRO. Part of it then means the tackled players negligence (and potentially even contribution) to the tackle could get an opponent suspended when they're trying to milk a free

Only thing i can think of is 2 rules
Suspend when tackled player's head hits the ground in line with what we do today
And mandate a sub & either 2 weeks out for a non-concussed player or 4 for a concussed player, and if delayed onset concussion occurs, that extends from 2-4.
Would require a deeper sub bench.
But it incentivises players looking after themselves over a free kick

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

20 yo young man from SA with a history of concussions…tragic…you can’t stuff around with concussions…

Edit: link heading unfortunately out of date as he has passed away

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/south-australian-footballer-left-fighting-for-life-after-horror-onfield-footy-collision/news-story/fbb465b54f7fad9550a528f35c2ac3f9

 

[faible]

Mitigate risk yes, when it comes to sport however there is a fine line between mitigation and outright changing the sport to remove I entirely.
The AFL can show they have made steps to eliminate head impacts through tough suspensions and outlawing of certain acts.

Not being able to bring a player to ground is a fairly significant change that will be flirted with.
I'd assume we reach a point where if a player is stationary it will be made illegal to bring them to the ground.

What people need to accept however is that players and teams are going to try and eek out an advantage wherever possible. So any changes may encourage players to try and draw frees, exhibit A being head high contact. For some weird reason we have moved into an era where it's encouraged and seen as a skill rather than what it used to be.

I think potentially something that needs to be explored is a stronger interpretation of holding the ball. In fact much of today's "issues" regarding injury, umpiring etc all stem from how we adjudicate that whole area.

I'd like to see trialled, If a player has an arm pinned, and chooses to hold onto the ball that they give up their right to protections under the dangerous tackle ruling.
It could go the wrong way with encouraging people to tackle rather than win the ball and it could also lead to flicks and throws disguised as attempts to dispose of the ball but I think there's something that could be done around the whole piece.

Are they changing the sport though?

Ultimately it's Australian Rules Football. Not Australian Rules Tackling. If we reach the point where aggressively bringing a player to ground is deemed unsafe for the long-term health of the player, is that really 'changing the sport'?

I'd have said the hallmarks of watching the sport are the long-kicking, the high-marking, the handball. Tackling is a fair way down on the list of distinctive things about AFL. Hell, a lot of the people protesting about how the game used to be better to watch in the 80s forget that players hardly tackled back then compared to today.

There's also nothing at all about players being unable to be brought to ground in what the AFL is trying to do, it's all about trying to protect the head whilst still protecting the player who is in possession of the ball. The onus should never be on the player with the ball to protect themselves from a poorly executed tackle in order to avoid the tackler being suspended.

I do agree that the umpires need to be calling holding the ball or a ball-up quicker, that should be an area the AFL tighten right up. I'd rather a stoppage than players given an eternity to dispose / not dispose of the ball and have the tackler engage a secondary motion to take the player to ground because the umpire hasn't made a call. That's on the AFL, they dictate how the umpires interpret the rules.

 

[Mercurial89]

Are they changing the sport though?

Ultimately it's Australian Rules Football. Not Australian Rules Tackling. If we reach the point where aggressively bringing a player to ground is deemed unsafe for the long-term health of the player, is that really 'changing the sport'?

I'd have said the hallmarks of watching the sport are the long-kicking, the high-marking, the handball. Tackling is a fair way down on the list of distinctive things about AFL. Hell, a lot of the people protesting about how the game used to be better to watch in the 80s forget that players hardly tackled back then compared to today.

There's also nothing at all about players being unable to be brought to ground in what the AFL is trying to do, it's all about trying to protect the head whilst still protecting the player who is in possession of the ball. The onus should never be on the player with the ball to protect themselves from a poorly executed tackle in order to avoid the tackler being suspended.

I do agree that the umpires need to be calling holding the ball or a ball-up quicker, that should be an area the AFL tighten right up. I'd rather a stoppage than players given an eternity to dispose / not dispose of the ball and have the tackler engage a secondary motion to take the player to ground because the umpire hasn't made a call. That's on the AFL, they dictate how the umpires interpret the rules.

You say it yourself, a poorly executed tackle.
But a short time ago these weren't poorly executed tackles, in fact they still aren't "poorly executed" tackles they are too good in that they are stopping disposal and bringing a player to ground.
They are only poorly executed due to our new stance on head contact.
Which if we are following through to conclusion of the AFL doing "reasonable steps" means that we should be knocking out the head hits.
That would mean knees to back of the head in high marking contests, if you bump someone and they hit their head or you have a head clash = gone, tackle someone to the ground and they hit their head? Gone.
Those are major changes to the way the game is played and the overall appeal of the game.
Happy if people want to go that way. Surprised but if that's where we want to get to? Ok.

If people wanted to watch just kicking marking and goals, good luck to them.

I may be alone, I like tackling In the game. It adds the strength aspect to the game and is a way for you to exert your will over another player or team.
Example, what Geelong do to us repeatedly. Too big too strong. But it's good to watch that battle.

If we want to get to a glorified circle work, with everyone a runners body with very little physical presence then I don't think that is AFL. Personally, understand others may love that.
Which is where we will get to if we follow this down the road to it's conclusion.

I'm not saying do nothing, however these need to be thought out, looked at as the overall health of the game not just "head knock bad" that we get to.

We also need to understand that if we are going to protect legally against it you need to think about the whole thing.
Player A gets smashed head high by player B in a front on bump. All over the news.
Easy to legislate, no one wants that in the game.
Play A sues for concussions after career is done. Ok get it.

Player A smothers ball and gets concussion.
Player B plays defence and routinely through career backs back into packs in defence. Takes some brutal hits, never gets knocked out.
Both players sue for concussion related injuries from playing AFL. Do they get paid?

Player A late arrival to the game, worked as a tradie for 5 years enters at 26.
First game gets slid into in a contest. Breaks both tib/fib in both legs and stuffs his right knee. Absolute car crash of an injury.
Can't play again. Can't go back to his job.
Sues AFL.
Does he get paid? Why? Why not?
Different than a head injury.


Edit: I also degree about onus on player. It should always be on a player to protect themselves.

 

[Lore]

If people wanted to watch just kicking marking and goals, good luck to them.

they don't

exhibit A: AFLX

 

[faible]

You say it yourself, a poorly executed tackle.
But a short time ago these weren't poorly executed tackles, in fact they still aren't "poorly executed" tackles they are too good in that they are stopping disposal and bringing a player to ground.
They are only poorly executed due to our new stance on head contact.
Which if we are following through to conclusion of the AFL doing "reasonable steps" means that we should be knocking out the head hits.
That would mean knees to back of the head in high marking contests, if you bump someone and they hit their head or you have a head clash = gone, tackle someone to the ground and they hit their head? Gone.
Those are major changes to the way the game is played and the overall appeal of the game.
Happy if people want to go that way. Surprised but if that's where we want to get to? Ok.

If people wanted to watch just kicking marking and goals, good luck to them.

I may be alone, I like tackling In the game. It adds the strength aspect to the game and is a way for you to exert your will over another player or team.
Example, what Geelong do to us repeatedly. Too big too strong. But it's good to watch that battle.

If we want to get to a glorified circle work, with everyone a runners body with very little physical presence then I don't think that is AFL. Personally, understand others may love that.
Which is where we will get to if we follow this down the road to it's conclusion.

I'm not saying do nothing, however these need to be thought out, looked at as the overall health of the game not just "head knock bad" that we get to.

We also need to understand that if we are going to protect legally against it you need to think about the whole thing.
Player A gets smashed head high by player B in a front on bump. All over the news.
Easy to legislate, no one wants that in the game.
Play A sues for concussions after career is done. Ok get it.

Player A smothers ball and gets concussion.
Player B plays defence and routinely through career backs back into packs in defence. Takes some brutal hits, never gets knocked out.
Both players sue for concussion related injuries from playing AFL. Do they get paid?

Player A late arrival to the game, worked as a tradie for 5 years enters at 26.
First game gets slid into in a contest. Breaks both tib/fib in both legs and stuffs his right knee. Absolute car crash of an injury.
Can't play again. Can't go back to his job.
Sues AFL.
Does he get paid? Why? Why not?
Different than a head injury.

I'd argue the bolded is a real strawman argument, as I've not seen anyone arguing for that.

No one is advocating for accidental and unavoidable head knocks or clashes to be removed from the game, not even the AFL.

If you want to tackle a player to ground, do it in such a way that their head isn't going to make contact with it. That will mean some players need to adjust their tackling technique, AMT isn't a big man but his tackling technique allows him to bring players to ground quickly and pretty consistently safely.
If you want to bump a player, do it in such a way that you don't collect them in the head. Again, AMT is a good example (also in this case it helps that he's shorter) who manages to regularly execute strong bumps but not collect his opponent high in the process.

In all situations the onus in on the player making the choice to bump, or tackle, or <other thing> to not unreasonably and unnecessarily cause their opponent to hit their head. We also expect AFL players not to slide in to their opponents legs, trip them, spear tackle them, kick their opponent in the face during a marking contest, or any manner of other rules designed around protecting the health and wellbeing of players from unreasonable and unnecessary contact.

The rule from the AFL side is very clear; if you choose to bump or tackle a player, and don't execute it well enough to avoid your opponent hitting their head, you're liable to have your actions looked at to see whether you could have avoided it happening or not. If it was avoidable, such as where we see sling tackles with a secondary motion after the initial tackle, you cop a suspension for executing it poorly. If two players not looking at each other happen to run in to one another and clash heads and are both knocked out, neither is getting suspended.

The biggest issue the AFL has IMO isn't what they're trying to do, it's the inconsistent application of it. Merrett and Adams getting a week is fine, so long as every single other incident that happens of the same thing also gets a week.

 

[Lore]

The rule from the AFL side is very clear; if you choose to bump or tackle a player, and don't execute it well enough to avoid your opponent hitting their head, you're liable to have your actions looked at to see whether you could have avoided it happening or not. If it was avoidable, such as where we see sling tackles with a secondary motion after the initial tackle, you cop a suspension for executing it poorly. If two players not looking at each other happen to run in to one another and clash heads and are both knocked out, neither is getting suspended.

This is the bit that's interesting from a deliberate (actually it's "intentional") vs careless point of view.

Didn't Shiel get suspended a year or two ago for a bump that was classified as intentional because he elected to bump, even though he didn't choose to catch the other player high? I think that's a consistent classification for bumps fwiw, if you elect to bump you're automatically on the intentional side of the scale.

So should it then be, 'if you elect to bring the player to ground, it will be graded as intentional'? Like you can still do it, but if it results in even a low impact head contact with the ground, it goes under intentional, and results in a suspension.




Gets rid of the 'potential' nonsense, gives the only out as a 'negligible' impact (which covers off situations like a run-down tackle where the head doesn't really contact the ground), and it works because there's no way that someone electing to tackle to the ground isn't playing the man in the first place, just as much as a bump with no eyes on the ball.

 

[Dudoro]

At what point will fans realise that it is likely based on relationships MRO and tribunal staff have with clubs and who works there that has a large weight on suspensions.
Richmond, Carlton and Geelong seem to be three clubs that get away with incidents regularly. How many times has Lynch and Cotchin got away with incidents in the past few years?

 

[Lore]

At what point will fans realise that it is likely based on relationships MRO and tribunal staff have with clubs and who works there that has a large weight on suspensions.
Richmond, Carlton and Geelong seem to be three clubs that get away with incidents regularly. How many times has Lynch and Cotchin got away with incidents in the past few years?

The MRO is a Collingwood man, I doubt he's playing favourites with their historic arch rivals.

 

[faible]

The MRO is a Collingwood man, I doubt he's playing favourites with their historic arch rivals.

4D chess innit, he's hiding his Collingwood bias by having a Geelong, Richmond and Carlton bias.

 

[Dudoro]

The MRO is a Collingwood man, I doubt he's playing favourites with their historic arch rivals.

You do realise probably half of employees hate their former employer?
But as I said connections with clubs likely comes into it. And I'm not just talking about Michael Christian. Look who is on Tribunal.

 

[Lore]

You do realise probably half of employees hate their former employer?
But as I said connections with clubs likely comes into it. And I'm not just talking about Michael Christian. Look who is on Tribunal.

Sounds like tinfoil hattery so far.

Who has had the same type of incident with all the same factors and got a lighter grading from the Tribunal as a Carlton, Richmond and Geelong player that other clubs haven't got?

And can you prove that it's consistently all players from those three clubs, or is it a Dangerfield discount that Gary Rohan doesn't benefit from?

 

[citizen-erased]

im surprised the AFL don't mandate that the MRO/tribunal have a non-bias/conflict of interest approach

i.e. can't adjudicate on cases involving former club, or suspensions that could result in a game missed against a former club
I.e. Christian can't review Merrett given he plays collingwood the next week, Loewe couldn't sit on the tribunal for Caminiti.

Optics and all.

 

[frodos gardener]

If former players want to sue, let them sue. In my view, the AFL should not alter the game as a result of potential or actual lawsuits.

What I do think the AFL should alter the game based on is a moral duty of care to players, and some of the rule changes have gone some way to achieving a safer game than otherwise would've been the case.

I agree with Lore that the potential to cause injury stuff should be eliminated; it introduces too much complexity and subjectivity regardless of how well written the rules are.

So if a player tackles the ball carrier and executes a take-down tackle with what looks like excessive force, but the ball carrier does not hit his head, then there should be no sanction. Maybe that comes down to luck, but it also removes the variance that comes with attempting to judge the level of force and all the mitigating factors that come into play, and therefore should mean a system that is more consistent in its decisions.

 

[rumply]

I reckon I saw around 4-5 of these, maybe more, over the weekend. They all have to go if Zac had to go.

 

[The Dustbin]

 

[citizen-erased]

Im not sure what Voss is trying to build, but i think the ship has sailed on it as a modern game plan

You need pace in ball movement and clean skills with a lot of dare. Carlton have none of this outside Saad.
McRae, both Scott's and Ross have implemented this in sides that were quite lack lustre of late.

It's the tweak of the Dees 2021 game plan where they'd hit a patch and just keep scoring.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

View attachment 1668712

Crazy that Gold Coast's first ever win back in 2011 was against Port Adelaide and they haven't beaten them since. Not as crazy as what happened the following week of course.

 

[VelvetSledge]

Touk Miller

11

Touk Miller

Age

28

Ht

178cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

21.7

5star

K

9.5

4star

HB

12.3

5star

M

3.7

4star

T

5.4

5star

CL

4.2

5star

D

22.0

5star

K

11.4

4star

HB

10.6

5star

M

2.9

3star

T

4.8

5star

CL

4.1

5star

D

17.8

5star

K

5.8

3star

HB

12.0

5star

M

3.0

3star

T

3.8

5star

CL

3.0

5star

with a lateral meniscus tear.

That’s just about curtains on his season

 

[Phone]

This is the bit that's interesting from a deliberate (actually it's "intentional") vs careless point of view.

Didn't Shiel get suspended a year or two ago for a bump that was classified as intentional because he elected to bump, even though he didn't choose to catch the other player high? I think that's a consistent classification for bumps fwiw, if you elect to bump you're automatically on the intentional side of the scale.

So should it then be, 'if you elect to bring the player to ground, it will be graded as intentional'? Like you can still do it, but if it results in even a low impact head contact with the ground, it goes under intentional, and results in a suspension.

View attachment 1668788


Gets rid of the 'potential' nonsense, gives the only out as a 'negligible' impact (which covers off situations like a run-down tackle where the head doesn't really contact the ground), and it works because there's no way that someone electing to tackle to the ground isn't playing the man in the first place, just as much as a bump with no eyes on the ball.

I don't know about this one, a Shiel bump from a few years ago was a topic because he got 'high' impact when the player returned to the field a few minutes, so that threw everyone in a spin. They might be another one I'm forgetting about. But "intentional" charges for bumps used to be very rare. Things might have changed in the past few years, as I've stopped keeping track of this stuff, but basically to get "intentional" conduct, it needs to be found that the player intentionally committed a reportable action. And bumps are legal actions. Unless you end up getting it wrong ("careless"). The exception are off-the-ball bumps (more than 5 meters from the ball), as that is not a legal bump. So below, Brown got intentional for this bump, but I don't think too many other bumps have. And the thing about reportable actions are, they are obviously violations of the rules, and so free-kicks should be paid (although umps have been lousy on paying free-kicks for dangerous tackles from Jack Trengove's tackle a decade ago to today)



I think carving out a part of tackling that would always be a reportable action is pretty difficult. To do 'if you elect to bring the player to ground, it will be graded as intentional' would mean banning all tackles that take the player to ground. So you'd need to include something "front or side on" or something, as you couldn't just have umpires not pay free-kicks for reportable actions

We went through this debate 10 years ago with Jack Trengove when certain people around the game tried to argue that everyone had been taught to slam heads as hard as possible into the ground, which was obvious bull and which the game has mostly adapted to. For whatever reason we have some growing pains right now but I don't think it requires too much surgery right now. Taylor Adams, Callan Ward and Zach's tackles have basically been a suspendable action for years now imo. I think the reform focus should be on the AFL's duty of care to players, via the on field umpires, which needs working on. The obvious example is how we get injured players off the field, which is a joke and usually involves the umpires refusing to stop play no matter how obvious it is a player is injured or how far they have to travel to the interchange gate, and it's a miracle a serious accident hasn't happened yet. And then obviously this is where the "blow the whistle sooner" debate comes in.

 

[Mercurial89]

If former players want to sue, let them sue. In my view, the AFL should not alter the game as a result of potential or actual lawsuits.

What I do think the AFL should alter the game based on is a moral duty of care to players, and some of the rule changes have gone some way to achieving a safer game than otherwise would've been the case.

I agree with Lore that the potential to cause injury stuff should be eliminated; it introduces too much complexity and subjectivity regardless of how well written the rules are.

So if a player tackles the ball carrier and executes a take-down tackle with what looks like excessive force, but the ball carrier does not hit his head, then there should be no sanction. Maybe that comes down to luck, but it also removes the variance that comes with attempting to judge the level of force and all the mitigating factors that come into play, and therefore should mean a system that is more consistent in its decisions.

What you are asking for is outcome based punishment as opposed to punishing the action.

Which is what many have been arguing against for years with the AFL.

 

[Mercurial89]

Touk Miller with a lateral meniscus tear.

That’s just about curtains on his season

But easier to come back from than an Acl at least?

It could very well be curtains for dew though.

 

[ant555]

Not quite how it works.

The AFL is an employer. The players are employees. Any industry (even dangerous ones) imposes an onus on the employer to take reasonable steps to mitigate risk to employees.

No common sense discussion please.

Being serious for a moment I think the fact that the NFL is paying out hundreds of millions should be the indicator that this is not just a minor matter. As you say they are an employer . They will be bound by the same rules in the end.