Discussion 2023 General AFL Discussion

[StFly]

Intrigued to see what they make of the Sicily tackle. I genuinely have no idea what they'll decide.

This is what I'm waiting for now, Mansell is dicked as he stated he braced for contact, ergo, bumped in AFL parlance.

 

[gringo2011]

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.

His long neck makes him more susceptible, perhaps they should make him wear a neck brace and a helmet. He could hurt someone with his jack in the box head.

 

[Grav]

Intrigued to see what they make of the Sicily tackle. I genuinely have no idea what they'll decide.

Reckon he would be stiff to get rubbed out as well, threw himself at McCluggage in an attempt to stop him from breaking away.
Unfortunate the way he went down, I saw it as a dead set unlucky accident.

 

[phantom13]

Seriously hope the umpire that paid the free against butler gets dropped, ridiculous decision.

I think Sicily is gone just because of the “sling” action. Not that he actually slung McCluggage but that motion is pretty much banned now plus McCluggage was properly concussed, just don’t see how it gets cleared.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Seriously hope the umpire that paid the free against butler gets dropped, ridiculous decision.

I think Sicily is gone just because of the “sling” action. Not that he actually slung McCluggage but that motion is pretty much banned now plus McCluggage was properly concussed, just don’t see how it gets cleared.

Umpire makes an instantaneous decision in the game - Christian is the one who sits down with a slow mo and heaps of camera angles and decides whether its reportable or not.

And once again his judgement has been questionable.

 

[Plugger35]

Reckon he would be stiff to get rubbed out as well, threw himself at McCluggage in an attempt to stop him from breaking away.
Unfortunate the way he went down, I saw it as a dead set unlucky accident.

I didn't think there was anything wrong with his tackle either but when McCluggage went down with a head/neck injury I knew he would be in trouble.

For the good of the game and for my Supercoach team I hope he gets off without a suspension but I have less confidence in him getting off than Butler.

 

[phantom13]

Umpire makes an instantaneous decision in the game - Christian is the one who sits down with a slow mo and heaps of camera angles and decides whether its reportable or not.

And once again his judgement has been questionable.

Chrisso is a ****ing stooge, the whole mro/mrp system needs an overhaul but that won’t happen this week.

That umpire shouldn’t be near the elite level.

 

[sammm]

"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

Well we had Jack Rush QC.

 

[sammm]

This is what I'm waiting for now, Mansell is dicked as he stated he braced for contact, ergo, bumped in AFL parlance.

And he got 3 matches

 

[my name was taken]

Dont like the Mansell one either.

I agree with whomever on the telecast said Aish made no effort to protect himself.

The collision was always coming and who won the ball was really only determined in the last split second. The suspension is probably 'technically' correct with how things are going recently but something needs to be written into the 'would a reasonable player' arguments, it can't be only the offending parties responsibility to be a 'reasonable player'. Would a reasonable player brace for expected contact in this scenario? A question that is never asked, duty of care goes both ways

 

[pebblesofsand]

Chrisso is a ******* stooge, the whole mro/mrp system needs an overhaul but that won’t happen this week.

That umpire shouldn’t be near the elite level.

You're right about the whole thing needing an overhaul.

Looks like Mansell has copped three weeks because Aish's headband came off!!!

 

[phantom13]

I’d love to know how they reconcile the Mansell one when Hunter Clark

11

Hunter Clark

Age

25

Ht

186cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.5

4star

K

9.5

4star

HB

8.0

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

2.9

4star

CL

1.3

3star

D

16.0

4star

K

9.6

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

3.1

3star

T

2.9

4star

CL

1.9

4star

D

13.2

4star

K

6.6

3star

HB

6.6

4star

M

2.2

3star

T

2.0

4star

CL

0.0

1star

has his face caved in by McKay a couple years back and somehow that was fine.

 

[Joffaboy]

You're right about the whole thing needing an overhaul.

Looks like Mansell has copped three weeks because Aish's headband came off!!!

Aish to miss in excess of a week, at least two.

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[StFly]

And he got 3 matches

As we knew with Paddy, when you try and protect yourself in any capacity, even if the person is coming at you at a rate of knots, if a pint of you collects their face, you are gone in the AFL as you bumped them either intentionally or carelessly. Mansells problem was he stated he braced instead of stating that he was contesting the ball.

I’d love to know how they reconcile the Mansell one when Hunter Clark has his face caved in by McKay a couple years back and somehow that was fine.

McKay had a sliver of pinky on ball, so they reasoned it was a contest as opposed to this one where Aish had ball and Mansell indicated "I braced" instead of the "I touched the ball with a fraction of a mm by using my shoulder to rearrange a face" that McKay did. At least, that'd be the AFL logic.

 

[phantom13]

As we knew with Paddy, when you try and protect yourself in any capacity, even if the person is coming at you at a rate of knots, if a pint of you collects their face, you are gone in the AFL as you bumped them either intentionally or carelessly. Mansells problem was he stated he braced instead of stating that he was contesting the ball.



McKay had a sliver of pinky on ball, so they reasoned it was a contest as opposed to this one where Aish had ball and Mansell indicated "I braced" instead of the "I touched the ball with a fraction of a mm by using my shoulder to rearrange a face" that McKay did. At least, that'd be the AFL logic.

Touched the ball Clark had in his hands but you’re right that would be the argument

 

[gringo2011]

Umpire makes an instantaneous decision in the game - Christian is the one who sits down with a slow mo and heaps of camera angles and decides whether its reportable or not.

And once again his judgement has been questionable.

Pretty sure he's only in the role so they don't have to pay out the compo for his brain trauma.

 

[gringo2011]

Chrisso is a ******* stooge, the whole mro/mrp system needs an overhaul but that won’t happen this week.

That umpire shouldn’t be near the elite level.

Now they need as many umpires as players we are digging in the bin. They are finding hobos in bin-bag beds and throwing the fluro on them.

 

[George]

This is great news, but what needs to happen is for the AFL to appoint a Footy Boss (Brad Scotts old job), and fix this mess once and for all so we don't get multiple players each week facing the tribunal for clear football actions.

21 suspensions they were saying last night on 360 lol. The game is a borefest and total joke

 

[Saint Kidding]

My thoughts on the tackling/concussion dilemma the AFL has on it's hands.

The current approach of suspending tacklers if there is any hint of a head knock isn't working. With the speed of the game and the split seconds of decision making time involved it's a bit like Russian roulette. Very fair players may well be the unlucky tackler with no malice intended.

I think the answer is to make a shift back to rewarding the tackler very quickly if the ball isn't disposed of immediately or if a prior opportunity existed. I know that the crowd enjoys a strong tackle breaker such as a Dusty "don't argue", but if it's not a clean out it needs to become a quick "holding the ball".

We also need to see an end to 360deg plus rotations of a player while he finds a teammate to handball to. Sorry, that takes too long. Gone.

Dodged a tackle? Fantastic! But a second tackle has zero leeway. Gone.

Couldn't dispose of the ball because it conveniently got knocked/thrown/guided out in the tackle? Tough luck. Gone. Hold on to it tighter or don't allow yourself to be tackled.

Player sees tackler and tries to run around them? They had prior. If they get caught, they are gone.

Player stands in the tackle until a teammate runs past for the handball? Nup, didn't immediately dispose of the ball. Gone.

In essence the AFL needs to reward the tackler if the player with the ball has any prior opportunity to dispose of the football and doesn't take it. Thereby removing the need to pin arms or take the player to ground or linger in the tackle. Hopefully the would reduce the risk of concussions from tackles.

It wouldn't be a big change, just a quicker application of the rules with less leeway for the player being tackled.

 

[gringo2011]

My thoughts on the tackling/concussion dilemma the AFL has on it's hands.

The current approach of suspending tacklers if there is any hint of a head knock isn't working. With the speed of the game and the split seconds of decision making time involved it's a bit like Russian roulette. Very fair players may well be the unlucky tackler with no malice intended.

I think the answer is to make a shift back to rewarding the tackler very quickly if the ball isn't disposed of immediately or if a prior opportunity existed. I know that the crowd enjoys a strong tackle breaker such as a Dusty "don't argue", but if it's not a clean out it needs to become a quick "holding the ball".

We also need to see an end to 360deg plus rotations of a player while he finds a teammate to handball to. Sorry, that takes too long. Gone.

Dodged a tackle? Fantastic! But a second tackle has zero leeway. Gone.

Couldn't dispose of the ball because it conveniently got knocked/thrown/guided out in the tackle? Tough luck. Gone. Hold on to it tighter or don't allow yourself to be tackled.

Player sees tackler and tries to run around them? They had prior. If they get caught, they are gone.

Player stands in the tackle until a teammate runs past for the handball? Nup, didn't immediately dispose of the ball. Gone.

In essence the AFL needs to reward the tackler if the player with the ball has any prior opportunity to dispose of the football and doesn't take it. Thereby removing the need to pin arms or take the player to ground or linger in the tackle. Hopefully the would reduce the risk of concussions from tackles.

It wouldn't be a big change, just a quicker application of the rules with less leeway for the player being tackled.

I think that the problems in that is that stupid AFL laws o the games thing. They have a protect the ball winner first focus. I think it will happen though.

 

[sunny3193]

My thoughts on the tackling/concussion dilemma the AFL has on it's hands.

The current approach of suspending tacklers if there is any hint of a head knock isn't working. With the speed of the game and the split seconds of decision making time involved it's a bit like Russian roulette. Very fair players may well be the unlucky tackler with no malice intended.

I think the answer is to make a shift back to rewarding the tackler very quickly if the ball isn't disposed of immediately or if a prior opportunity existed. I know that the crowd enjoys a strong tackle breaker such as a Dusty "don't argue", but if it's not a clean out it needs to become a quick "holding the ball".

We also need to see an end to 360deg plus rotations of a player while he finds a teammate to handball to. Sorry, that takes too long. Gone.

Dodged a tackle? Fantastic! But a second tackle has zero leeway. Gone.

Couldn't dispose of the ball because it conveniently got knocked/thrown/guided out in the tackle? Tough luck. Gone. Hold on to it tighter or don't allow yourself to be tackled.

Player sees tackler and tries to run around them? They had prior. If they get caught, they are gone.

Player stands in the tackle until a teammate runs past for the handball? Nup, didn't immediately dispose of the ball. Gone.

In essence the AFL needs to reward the tackler if the player with the ball has any prior opportunity to dispose of the football and doesn't take it. Thereby removing the need to pin arms or take the player to ground or linger in the tackle. Hopefully the would reduce the risk of concussions from tackles.

It wouldn't be a big change, just a quicker application of the rules with less leeway for the player being tackled.

This sounds so simple, and dare I say it, retrograde.
Like the rules of an earlier era.
Seems like I have seen football played in this standard before.
What are the consequences of such a change, the detrimental consequences?
Any?

 

[Saint Kidding]

I think that the problems in that is that stupid AFL laws o the games thing. They have a protect the ball winner first focus. I think it will happen though.

Agreed. I'm happy to protect the ball winner in that a player shouldn't be penalized where there is genuinely no prior opportunity. I'd hate to see a situation where the ball is on the ground and no one is prepared to pick it up.

How often do we see a player being tackled, retaining possession, whilst the crowd is yelling baaaaaalllllllll!. The umpire is beginning the take the "holding the ball stance", and then the ball magically pops out, or worse, the tackler has taken a second action to strengthen his case. Too slow and part of the problem.

 

[g_TRAIN]

Dont like the Mansell one either.

I agree with whomever on the telecast said Aish made no effort to protect himself.

The collision was always coming and who won the ball was really only determined in the last split second. The suspension is probably 'technically' correct with how things are going recently but something needs to be written into the 'would a reasonable player' arguments, it can't be only the offending parties responsibility to be a 'reasonable player'. Would a reasonable player brace for expected contact in this scenario? A question that is never asked, duty of care goes both ways

Agree

Like how in the feck does Pickett only get 2 weeks earlier in the year when he basically launched himself like a missile at the opposition player and here Mansell does little more than turn and brace for contact and gets 3?

 

[phantom13]

Putting aside that it was Will Hoskin Elliott who is about as tough and hard as tissue paper i actually think Lachie Hunter barreling through him on Monday was a product of players being in two minds when they tackle.

Hunter copped a hospital handball that once upon a time the tackler (Hoskin Elliott in this example) would have dropped the shoulder and put it straight through Hunters ribs, absolutely buried him but now... Hes approaching thinking "I cant hit him too hard, i dont want to push him in the back, if he rolls his shoulders ill get him high, if he turns as i tackle him its a sling, i cant dump him" ends up completely flat footed trying to arm tackle and gets barrelled over, gets himself hurt and looks like a fool.

 

[Saint Kidding]

This sounds so simple, and dare I say it, retrograde.
Like the rules of an earlier era.
Seems like I have seen football played in this standard before.
What are the consequences of such a change, the detrimental consequences?
Any?

Possibly a painful amount of free kicks initially. But I suspect players an coaches would adapt pretty quickly.

An added bonus could be less bumps. Why risk a bump when a well executed tackle will either be rewarded, or the hurried disposal has a better chance of turnover than it does now?