Opinion 2018 Non-Crows Discussion - Part 2: Tom Doedee, Rising Star Nominee & Port's New Major Sponsor

[Geoffa32]

So on the paer board.... this was said: "I saw on twitter that we have brought in 15 million extra revenue due to China but agree I want a Premiership".

Is that right? Didn't they only make a profit of something like $14,000?

15m Yuan......maybe.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Grooster24]

Report: Former Gold Coast Suns player set to launch bombshell case

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/r...e/news-story/9430c75e5ff6cddaf7316019be4cf8ce

 

[GreyCrow]

Report: Former Gold Coast Suns player set to launch bombshell case

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/report-former-gold-coast-suns-player-set-to-launch-bombshell-case/news-story/9430c75e5ff6cddaf7316019be4cf8ce

On the Racial abuse the AFL is protected as it had policies in place. The sexual Harassment component is back on the club.

 

[arrowman]

Report: Former Gold Coast Suns player set to launch bombshell case

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/report-former-gold-coast-suns-player-set-to-launch-bombshell-case/news-story/9430c75e5ff6cddaf7316019be4cf8ce

Yes, I just saw that. Could get interesting. Also this, from the AFL website in 2014:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-02-25/making-a-stand

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Report: Former Gold Coast Suns player set to launch bombshell case

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/report-former-gold-coast-suns-player-set-to-launch-bombshell-case/news-story/9430c75e5ff6cddaf7316019be4cf8ce

I'd be interested to know what the sexual harassment was in this context, because I'm not bright enough to read between the lines in the article to understand what it may relate to.

 

[Freewayflyer]

Serious? Yep it's very serious. If you think it's ok to have the intent to hurt by driving the head and neck into the ground - then you are the joke.

Spinal injury and brain damage - that's what we are talking about.

I don't like players being made to brutally "earn it" when standing in the hole either. Putting your knee through someone's kidneys or into the back of their neck intentionally is showing no duty of care at all.

If you believe that is "part of footy" ... I would suggest you talk to some past players about the long term problems they have started to endure. I for one welcome the sport making changes to minimise these types of acts on the sporting arena. It's not a blood sport, and players should not have to put their long term health on the line for premiership points.

Yep it is a great point you make - deliberately hurting or trying to hurt someone in a game of football is rightly becoming an outdated concept.

And in addition to your last point, nor should families have to watch and deal with unnecessary injuries of family members from deliberate or reckless acts on a football field.

 

[the universal]

Report: Former Gold Coast Suns player set to launch bombshell case

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/report-former-gold-coast-suns-player-set-to-launch-bombshell-case/news-story/9430c75e5ff6cddaf7316019be4cf8ce

I sincerely wish him luck here. Sounds pretty awful - not too dissimilar to the allegations against those two Chelsea youth coaches going on currently.

 

[Rotayjay]

Apart from having a respect policy (which it does), how is the entire AFL and all its clubs responsible for what a bunch of dickheads said in the rooms?

We're becoming a very litigious society in which the blame goes to whoever has the most assets to sue, not who is morally blameworthy.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

I sincerely wish him luck here. Sounds pretty awful - not too dissimilar to the allegations against those two Chelsea youth coaches going on currently.

Yep, racism and sexual harassment, in any context, is not cool, let alone having to deal with it as part of your job. It would be even worse when you're just starting out and feel like you don't want to "rock the boat".

 

[Bicks]

Apart from having a respect policy (which it does), how is the entire AFL and all its clubs responsible for what a bunch of dickheads said in the rooms?

We're becoming a very litigious society in which the blame goes to whoever has the most assets to sue, not who is morally blameworthy.

It's the world we live in now where everything has a $$$$ value. What happened to him is uncool and blatantly wrong but reading the article it would seem that he's failed in all his sporting pursuits since to earn a living so this seems to me to be attempt to make some $$$'s as the deciding decision given the time that's passed. Perhaps moving on and getting gainful employment outside of his sporting aspirations like so many other footballers have to do might be the way to go for Joel.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Apart from having a respect policy (which it does), how is the entire AFL and all its clubs responsible for what a bunch of dickheads said in the rooms?

We're becoming a very litigious society in which the blame goes to whoever has the most assets to sue, not who is morally blameworthy.

The racial comments happened on the field, from the article linked to.

 

[displacedaussie]

Apart from having a respect policy (which it does), how is the entire AFL and all its clubs responsible for what a bunch of dickheads said in the rooms?

We're becoming a very litigious society in which the blame goes to whoever has the most assets to sue, not who is morally blameworthy.

The issue is not what a bunch of dickheads said in the rooms - it's that his club and the AFL repeatedly failed to stop the abuse despite repeated requests for help by the player.

It seems reasonable to hold both the club and the AFL to account in this situation.

 

[PasswordisTaco]

Serious? Yep it's very serious. If you think it's ok to have the intent to hurt by driving the head and neck into the ground - then you are the joke.

Spinal injury and brain damage - that's what we are talking about.

I don't like players being made to brutally "earn it" when standing in the hole either. Putting your knee through someone's kidneys or into the back of their neck intentionally is showing no duty of care at all.

If you believe that is "part of footy" ... I would suggest you talk to some past players about the long term problems they have started to endure. I for one welcome the sport making changes to minimise these types of acts on the sporting arena. It's not a blood sport, and players should not have to put their long term health on the line for premiership points.

He didn't 'drive his head and neck into the ground', he tackled him hard in the back to make sure he felt it and the momentum rolled him forward. It was a free kick, nothing more. That could happen in literally every game played on a weekend but because he rolled forward it's the one picked out as suspension worthy. Yeah fair enough, some players from yesteryear do now have long term problems. But they also played in an era where it was common for blokes to roundhouse hit a bloke from behind simply cause he got to the ball before you, run at each other with elbows raised and clothesline a bloke running past you because he sidestepped you and they barely even got a free kick for it. Leigh 'Player of the century' Matthews (I don't imagine he got his Lethal nickname for being a really caring bloke) spent his whole career doing it.

Look I'm not suggesting there should be no duty of care at all or the examples stated above are the conditions for an ideal game of footy to be played in, there absolutely should be prevention of wanton violence, unnecessarily dangerous tackles and players throwing haymakers etc, but where is the line drawn? This is too far, NicNat did what he has been trained to do since under 12s and tackled him hard, he landed on top of him and he happened to roll forward underneath him. What else was he supposed to do in that situation? Let him go and possibly get a kick off that resulted in a run down the field and a goal against? That goes against everything that a footy player is trained to do! If a player is there with the ball you tackle him, and you make sure he feels it.

Big hits and hard tackles have always been an integral aspect of the game, as much as you might like to think that they're not.

You can think it's not meant to be a violent sport and players shouldn't hurt their opponents all you want, reality and history is against you. I don't 'believe' it is part of footy, it IS part of footy, and it ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

Do yourself a favour and go watch some of the best modern football played in the 2014 GF highlights. Notice how gentle and caring Hawthorn were with Sydney? I didn't.

 

[MarcusP2]

You can think it's not meant to be a violent sport and players shouldn't hurt their opponents all you want, reality and history is against you. I don't 'believe' it is part of footy, it IS part of footy, and it ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

Do yourself a favour and go watch some of the best modern football played in the 2014 GF highlights. Notice how gentle and caring Hawthorn were with Sydney? I didn't.

To the highlighted...who cares? History was against Nicky Winmar having to put up with racist crowd taunts too. History was against taking concussed players off the field because it wasn't tough. As you say plays that were accepted in history are long dead, and for good reason.

Just because something 'has always been that way' is a logical fallacy (appeal to tradition). It's not an argument as to why something should continue.

 

[Bicks]

The issue is not what a bunch of dickheads said in the rooms - it's that his club and the AFL repeatedly failed to stop the abuse despite repeated requests for help by the player.

It seems reasonable to hold both the club and the AFL to account in this situation.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/sherman-banned-over-racist-abuse-20110627-1gn1l.html

The AFL said the unnamed Suns player had accepted Sherman's apology and the penalty meted out.Sherman joined the Bulldogs in 2010 in a trade from the Brisbane Lions.

The Bulldog's suspension is the first in the AFL for racial vilification since Peter Everitt, playing for St Kilda, was found guilty of abusing Melbourne's Scott Chisholm in 1999.

Everitt took the step of voluntarily standing down from four AFL matches after admitting guilt when charged with racially vilifying Chisholm.

 

[SydCrow]

He didn't 'drive his head and neck into the ground', he tackled him hard in the back to make sure he felt it and the momentum rolled him forward. It was a free kick, nothing more. That could happen in literally every game played on a weekend but because he rolled forward it's the one picked out as suspension worthy. Yeah fair enough, some players from yesteryear do now have long term problems. But they also played in an era where it was common for blokes to roundhouse hit a bloke from behind simply cause he got to the ball before you, run at each other with elbows raised and clothesline a bloke running past you because he sidestepped you and they barely even got a free kick for it. Leigh 'Player of the century' Matthews (I don't imagine he got his Lethal nickname for being a really caring bloke) spent his whole career doing it.

Look I'm not suggesting there should be no duty of care at all or the examples stated above are the conditions for an ideal game of footy to be played in, there absolutely should be prevention of wanton violence, unnecessarily dangerous tackles and players throwing haymakers etc, but where is the line drawn? This is too far, NicNat did what he has been trained to do since under 12s and tackled him hard, he landed on top of him and he happened to roll forward underneath him. What else was he supposed to do in that situation? Let him go and possibly get a kick off that resulted in a run down the field and a goal against? That goes against everything that a footy player is trained to do! If a player is there with the ball you tackle him, and you make sure he feels it.

Big hits and hard tackles have always been an integral aspect of the game, as much as you might like to think that they're not.

You can think it's not meant to be a violent sport and players shouldn't hurt their opponents all you want, reality and history is against you. I don't 'believe' it is part of footy, it IS part of footy, and it ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

Do yourself a favour and go watch some of the best modern football played in the 2014 GF highlights. Notice how gentle and caring Hawthorn were with Sydney? I didn't.

It has nothing to do with being hard at the ball. It is simply a matter of protecting the head. Head high stuff hasn't been part of footy for years now. And rightly so. Nobody wants to see players with concussion and/or long term brain damage.

 

[PasswordisTaco]

To the highlighted...who cares? History was against Nicky Winmar having to put up with racist crowd taunts too. History was against taking concussed players off the field because it wasn't tough. As you say plays that were accepted in history are long dead, and for good reason.

Just because something 'has always been that way' is a logical fallacy (appeal to tradition). It's not an argument as to why something should continue.

We aren't talking about king hits and racial abuse, we're talking about an integral part of the game. Bumps and tackles are violent acts by their very name. They literally cannot be done any other way in this sport. A soft and gentle bump is a bump that you bounce straight off and onto your arse from, a soft and gentle tackle is a tackle that gets easily broken and a kick or handball given away.

Look I'm not suggesting there should be no duty of care at all or the examples stated above are the conditions for an ideal game of footy to be played in, there absolutely should be prevention of wanton violence, unnecessarily dangerous tackles and players throwing haymakers etc, but where is the line drawn?

 

[MarcusP2]

They can be done other ways because there are dozens of tackles a game.

 

[Apsaalooke]

So on the paer board.... this was said: "I saw on twitter that we have brought in 15 million extra revenue due to China but agree I want a Premiership".

Is that right? Didn't they only make a profit of something like $14,000?

Koch said on radio earlier this year they made a slight loss from China

 

[Cuddlahhobotang]

Listening to SEN this afternoon caller "whos going to refund my $1000 on joe daniher to win the coleman"

 

[PasswordisTaco]

They can be done other ways because there are dozens of tackles a game.

What way could he have tackled him from that position and not landed in his back? Keeping in mind he's near on twice the size of him (not literally of course but you know what I mean) His only other option was letting him go, which for an AFL player trained his whole life to do the opposite is simply not an option.

 

[headache1]

They can be done other ways because there are dozens of tackles a game.

But how do you tackle somebody from behind who is trying to run away from you, other than how Nic Nat executed it?

 

[GreyCrow]

I thought Nic made every effort to roll away from his body after they landed. He could have kept going into the spine but he attempted the side roll off

 

[MarcusP2]

But how do you tackle somebody from behind who is trying to run away from you, other than how Nic Nat executed it?

Any time you launch yourself forward you're running the risk of faceplanting the other player.

 

[PasswordisTaco]

I thought Nic made every effort to roll away from his body after they landed. He could have kept going into the spine but he attempted the side roll off

It actually could've been far, far worse than it ended up being. He could've planted his feet and swung him backwards, or stuck his weight into him on the ground during the rollover. He actually went to every effort to make sure he wasn't seriously injured.

Any time you launch yourself forward you're running the risk of faceplanting the other player.

Interesting you link a video with Dangerfield getting tripped and nearly smashing his head on the ground in it as an 'acceptable' rundown tackle.

This wasn't the question posed though, how does NIC NAT from the position he was in against a player half the size of him tackle him in any other way?