Discussion 2023 General AFL Discussion

[my name was taken]

Rush (Saints): Did you have any option not to tackle?

Butler: No. I'd get dropped.


****ing gold

 

[StFly]

Rush (Saints): Did you have any option not to tackle?

Butler: No. I'd get dropped.


******* gold

Imagine if the response was "No, they'd say I was Bryce Gibbs."

 

[XhazzafootyX]

David zita is such a tryhard

 

[dudeintheswamp]

Didn't realise Butler is currently number one in the AFL for pressure points in forward fifty.

 

[StFly]

Wow leading much AFL?

How many seconds can a man brace for contact on the way down, show me on coconuts held by pigeons that crested mountains you flog.

Edit: and perhaps the better question would have been did you understand the AFL memo about dangerous tackles, as we all know AFL house is a bunch of illiterate 2 year olds.

 

[jwikked]

"Dan Butler confirms his name is Dan Butler."
huge if true

 

[Dard Ball Get]

Clear from the admin’s comments Dan is done. Hilarious. Desperately need more non-football people involved in football. Admin make everything better.

 

[my name was taken]

" Flynn (AFL) says Butler could've released Blakey after he dropped the ball or not driven Blakey into the ground with the force that he did. "

Let's factor in that this is the person who is making generalised statements about what could be done in the heat of the moment in a professional AFL match.

Perhaps stick to the legislation side and not to the players side.

 

[jwikked]

"Flynn (AFL) says Butler could've released Blakey after he dropped the ball or not driven Blakey into the ground with the force that he did."

Worth noting Flynn has likely never stepped foot on a footy field, certainly not at the top level.

 

[dudeintheswamp]

What a crock of sh*t.

Flynn (AFL): Even though there wasn't any injury suffered, there was a potential to cause a concussion or neck injury given the force that was used.

 

[Geary Is GOAT]

"Dan Butler confirms his name is Dan Butler."
huge if true

It's ridiculous that our tribunal is so infested with legalese.

A footballer having to confirm his name/identity like he's on trial for murder in the Supreme Court.

It's a hearing about a tackle in a game of football for ****s sake.

 

[my name was taken]

A footballer having to confirm his name/identity like he's on trial for murder in the Supreme Court.

"Sally has extensive trial experience in the County Court and Supreme Court of Victoria and has appeared in a number of murder trials in the Supreme Court."

AFL picked their lawyer perfectly for that, if that isn't overkill I dont know what is

 

[Plugger35]

" Flynn (AFL) says Butler could've released Blakey after he dropped the ball or not driven Blakey into the ground with the force that he did. "

Let's factor in that this is the person who is making generalised statements about what could be done in the heat of the moment in a professional AFL match.

Perhaps stick to the legislation side and not to the players side.

These legal muppets don't seem to realise that these decisions on how to tackle are made in a split second on the field, players don't have time to weigh up the pros and cons of their actions like they do in a tribunal case using the benefit of slow motion replays.

 

[StFly]

What a crock of sh*t.

Flynn (AFL): Even though there wasn't any injury suffered, there was a potential to cause a concussion or neck injury given the force that was used.

I have a neck injury from sleeping and muscle going ping, I obviously don;t play contact sports because I don;t trust my body, Blakey should do the same if he gets a neck injury from that. Utter baby giraffe moment.

 

[my name was taken]

'Rush (Saints) says Butler's record make for "exceptional and compelling circumstances" that should overturn the charge, even if the Tribunal finds it was a dangerous tackle.'

I mean we all have talked about the good bloke clause to take the piss out of decisions but has anyone ever tried to have it enforced officially lol

 

[StFly]

'Rush (Saints) says Butler's record make for "exceptional and compelling circumstances" that should overturn the charge, even if the Tribunal finds it was a dangerous tackle.'

I mean we all have talked about the good bloke clause to take the piss out of decisions but has anyone ever tried to have it enforced officially lol

Dangerfield when he ran 40m full tilt to jump and split a player straight up the middle, he was such a good bloke that he only had eyes for the ball and wouldn't hurt a kitten and that player shouldn't have been there to touch such greatness.

That was he general vibe of that discussion from memory, what was it 4 years back?


Categorically untrue since Blakey had the ball and had just stepped a tackle to move forward himself, thus having momentum when tackle initiated. You'd think a lawyer would know better than to use all encompassing statements.

 

[saint_]

What a crock of sh*t.

Flynn (AFL): Even though there wasn't any injury suffered, there was a potential to cause a concussion or neck injury given the force that was used.

If that's the case, then every single tackle that a player is tackled to the ground should be reported as it may 'potentially' cause a concussion or neck injury. Such a dumb argument by Flynn.

 

[Riewoldt]

I have a bad feeling about this one. This could be the worst suspension I've ever seen.

 

[my name was taken]

If that's the case, then every single tackle that a player is tackled to the ground should be reported as it may 'potentially' cause a concussion or neck injury. Such a dumb argument by Flynn.

'Potential' is such a dangerous word to create precedent around.

Anyone getting behind the wheel of a car has the potential to kill someone on that trip regardless of how perfect they drive.

Its a sport that involves tackling, potential is everywhere. Hell I play basketball weekly and you sign a waiver for potential injury when you register as a player - surely the AFL consider they can eradicate concussion

 

[bergholt]

Its a sport that involves tackling, potential is everywhere. Hell I play basketball weekly and you sign a waiver for potential injury when you register as a player - surely the AFL consider they can eradicate concussion

Nah an org can only have that waived away if they've taken all reasonable steps to make the activity safe in the first place. For instance you can't get someone to sign a waiver for a high ropes course and then be ok if you're negligent in screwing in all the fixtures. All this tribunal stuff is the AFL minimising the future risk for the org - blame the lawyers.

 

[StFly]

If I'm on that panel I'm hung up on that AFL rep thinking Butler was the only one with momentum in the contact, and that fact plus that there was leading questions into open ended statements to spin a narrative would lead me to say throw it out, as the other mob had evidence even if it was only marginally related to have basis in fact.

Like double motion? I mean sure, if you count a tackle having 2 hands on and by end of 1 hand got removed, that is a second action mechanically, but section action in the original motion? Nah.

And the killer for mine would be that she only said lairds tackle was different, like sure as different people involved, but did you give a damn about any other statement made in that text? No? Must be legit then.

 

[Confuscius]

Its a matter of time before speckies are banned

How can they sit there and say it has potential to cause injury. When are we going to accept that accidents happen? Its a part of stepping foot on the field

Then for this woman whos never played afl at the top level whatsoever to sit there and tell a premiership player that his tackle "falls far below what a reasonable player would consider as prudent in all of the circumstances" is just offensive. Did any "reasonable players" get asked? It is an absolute sham

 

[jwikked]

If Butler being the only one with momentum is a problem, does that mean that you can't tackle stationary players lol?

What a flipping joke the AFL have become.

 

[my name was taken]

Its a matter of time before speckies are banned

How can they sit there and say it has potential to cause injury. When are we going to accept that accidents happen? Its a part of stepping foot on the field

Then for this woman whos never played afl at the top level whatsoever to sit there and tell a premiership player that his tackle "falls far below what a reasonable player would consider as prudent in all of the circumstances" is just offensive. Did any "reasonable players" get asked? It is an absolute sham

Perhaps an AFLPA representative should be around for questioning in all tribunal cases.

 

[my name was taken]

If Butler being the only one with momentum is a problem, does that mean that you can't tackle stationary players lol?

What a *ing joke the AFL have become.

AFL in a decade will be afl version of flag football