No Oppo Supporters 2024 AFL General Discussion

[Nool Carpenna]

Not a lawyer, but that sounds like an unenforceable clause.

Same as those non-compete clauses companies put in contracts.

Yep. imagine what governments and other authorities could get away with if we all just signed off on indemnity clauses for life's inherent risks when we turned 18.

 

[liz]

For all the doomsaying re the tackle and the state of the game, there are over a thousand tackles laid every week of the competition (bye weeks excluded) and that is only tackles that result in a turnover or ball-up. Many more tackles are attempted or misexecuted to give away a free kick.

Yet how many of those have resulted in a suspension? A tiny number.

Furthermore, one of the footy shows this week highlighted how many fewer suspensions there have been for tackles this year compared to last, which suggests players can, and are, adapting.

I wince a bit when I hear a player try to justify their technique at the tribunal by saying that if they hadn’t done that, the opponent would have got a handball away. In the overall scheme of things, which is worse, one tackle not being entirely effective or an opponent missing the rest of the match, at least one more match and maybe more, and possible long term consequences including early retirement or post-retirement cognitive issues?

 

[SM]

Yep. imagine what governments and other authorities could get away with if we all just signed off on indemnity clauses for life's inherent risks when we turned 18.

Eh, a little bit different.

This is a private organisation asking employees to enter into a contract with them in order to work for them. I understand there's still a degree of duty of care to avoid accusations of negligence, but if the playing body would rather not miss 3 weeks for the sorts of tackles Cameron and Bedford have, then not sure what the solution is.

 

[Ed_Gein]

Beyond wild Bedford and Cameron got 3 weeks each for their tackles. 3 weeks!

Tackling is a major part of the sport and unfortunate things like these are going to happen, but what else are Bedford and Cameron supposed to do to prevent injury to the other player when there is zero malice or intent to cause harm to begin with, and they are just performing a regulation tackle in a legal fashion? It's a contact sport.. injuries will occur.

 

[sataris]

Eh, a little bit different.

This is a private organisation asking employees to enter into a contract with them in order to work for them.

Private contracts cannot overrule/override laws. This is why there's always a clause saying "if any part of this contract is void, the rest of the clauses remain in force".

 

[SM]

Private contracts cannot overrule/override laws. This is why there's always a clause saying "if any part of this contract is void, the rest of the clauses remain in force".

They can't until they do. Restraint of trade, tribunals determining punishments for assault, etc.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

Nah, replace the field with a giant trampoline.

And introduce new uniforms...

 

[The Mares Leg]

I have a piece of paper that says legally, I’m not to blame for anything.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

For all the doomsaying re the tackle and the state of the game, there are over a thousand tackles laid every week of the competition (bye weeks excluded) and that is only tackles that result in a turnover or ball-up. Many more tackles are attempted or misexecuted to give away a free kick.

Yet how many of those have resulted in a suspension? A tiny number.

Furthermore, one of the footy shows this week highlighted how many fewer suspensions there have been for tackles this year compared to last, which suggests players can, and are, adapting.

I wince a bit when I hear a player try to justify their technique at the tribunal by saying that if they hadn’t done that, the opponent would have got a handball away. In the overall scheme of things, which is worse, one tackle not being entirely effective or an opponent missing the rest of the match, at least one more match and maybe more, and possible long term consequences including early retirement or post-retirement cognitive issues?

That's the point that I was trying to make in my post. The perception will start to change from players thinking any type of tackle is acceptable in stopping your opponent, to only the right type of tackle being acceptable. So defenders need to be better, and if they're not, then they have to live with the fact that their opponent has evaded the tackle. I'm okay with that as it ultimately protects the player (our players included). And if that gives a slight advantage to the attacker, then the onus is on each team to best utilise that tactical advantage.

Teams will adapt, and the better teams will leverage that to their benefit.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I'm fine with the Cameron one being suspended, honestly it was careless, no need to slam him into the ground that hard, I sort of agree with the tribunal reasoning that he could have softened the impact and released as it was getting out of hand.

Bedford one I'm not okay with as I do feel by going to the side he provided the duty of care to Tarranto. I'd like them to reason what he is expected to do on a chase from behind.

The GC challenge was a joke lets just leave it at that, should have been 5+ weeks not 3, maybe that's what they were challenging for lol

The issue I and many have is Rosas elbows a bloke behind play (non footy act) and only gets a week. Which action is worse? It's not the tackles.

 

[kelpie_X]

The majority of players seem to be baffled by the MRO decisions and seem to be happy enough to accept the inherent risk of playing a contact sport.

But the reality is there will be players in retirement who will change their minds and sue the AFL, which is what is starting to happen now. AFL has no choice.

And those players are weak as piss. Unless they are in a situation like Brayshaw was. That should be payday any day of the week and Maynard should have been given life.

 

[kelpie_X]

I'm fine with the Cameron one being suspended, honestly it was careless, no need to slam him into the ground that hard, I sort of agree with the tribunal reasoning that he could have softened the impact and released as it was getting out of hand.

Bedford one I'm not okay with as I do feel by going to the side he provided the duty of care to Tarranto. I'd like them to reason what he is expected to do on a chase from behind.

The GC challenge was a joke lets just leave it at that, should have been 5+ weeks not 3, maybe that's what they were challenging for lol

The issue I and many have is Rosas elbows a bloke behind play (non footy act) and only gets a week. Which action is worse? It's not the tackles.

Exactly. Cameron could have taken him to his knees instead of driving in. It was negligent and intended to cause harm.

Bedford's was a great tackle with unfortunate outcomes.

And Rosa's punishment and crime should not be compared with Heeney's outcome. So many worlds apart on those examples. MRO and Tribunal are a joke.

 

[Wheresbuddy]

Exactly. Cameron could have taken him to his knees instead of driving in. It was negligent and intended to cause harm.

Bedford's was a great tackle with unfortunate outcomes.

And Rosa's punishment and crime should not be compared with Heeney's outcome. So many worlds apart on those examples. MRO and Tribunal are a joke.

I think tackling someone to ground whilst pinning the arms will go the same way as the sling at the top level.

 

[wolftone57]

I don't think it's because SANFL is too strong it's because of the restrictions over how they put together their SANFL side. Why would they want out of a strong competition? They want to be in a competition which will better develop their kids.

If it is as you say, then if they are second bottom & bottom how are they going to develop youngsters if they get slaughtered every week. I mean, if as you say the VFL is a stronger comp that has what is going to happen. They have no restrictions in the SANFL. They can play who they like. All AFL listed players can play same as in the VFL

On CPH2471 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[caesar88]

And introduce new uniforms...

View attachment 2050590

Not to rant but I went in a zorb ball in Dubai and omg it was the most ****ing fun I have ever had in my whole life. It was down this huge slope so you're just bouncing around inside this ball falling all over the place. My face was literally aching for hours afterwards from how much I was smiling/laughing!

 

[SM]

If it is as you say, then if they are second bottom & bottom how are they going to develop youngsters if they get slaughtered every week. I mean, if as you say the VFL is a stronger comp that has what is going to happen. They have no restrictions in the SANFL. They can play who they like. All AFL listed players can play same as in the VFL

On CPH2471 using BigFooty.com mobile app

In the VFL they would be able to use a better quality of top up which, as I understand it, they are unable to do in the SANFL.

 

[wolftone57]

In the VFL they would be able to use a better quality of top up which, as I understand it, they are unable to do in the SANFL.

I don't see why they can't use good top ups in the SANFL? I'm pretty sure the SANFL & WAFL have the same rules as the VFL so as not to disrupt player development

On CPH2471 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[wolftone57]

In the VFL they would be able to use a better quality of top up which, as I understand it, they are unable to do in the SANFL.

Port were in a GF in 2019

On CPH2471 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SM]

I don't see why they can't use good top ups in the SANFL? I'm pretty sure the SANFL & WAFL have the same rules as the VFL so as not to disrupt player development

On CPH2471 using BigFooty.com mobile app

I'm not quite sure that's true, or not what I read when they were making the case to leave the SANFL. Otherwise you're right, why would they be pushing to leave? What's the benefit to them?

What did Koch mean by this if not that they have different rules to the VFL?

“The two AFL clubs (including Adelaide) play under different rules to the other SANFL clubs which makes success difficult and frankly, has a detrimental impact on the development of our AFL players,” Port Adelaide chairman David Koch said at the club’s best and fairest count this year.

“No other AFL clubs have this imposition on their player development. It is an issue we are working to solve in the near future one way or another, and we will solve it.

“We need to be in the best second tier competition which allows us to develop our players.”

AFL national reserves bombshell nears as Port Adelaide ‘officially applies’ to join VFL

AFL national reserves bombshell nears as Port Adelaide ‘officially applies’ to join VFL

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[caesar88]

Lance Collard from St Kilda (whoever the heck that is) suspended for homophobic comments.

Yet another one.

Perhaps most deflating is the (very likely large) number who haven't been caught.

 

[DeathlyAccurate]

Lance Collard from St Kilda (whoever the heck that is) suspended for homophobic comments.

Yet another one.

Perhaps most deflating is the (very likely large) number who haven't been caught.

Also the amount of people online who think he’s being punished for "hurting someone’s feelings" is disturbing to say the least.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kelpie_X]

I think tackling someone to ground whilst pinning the arms will go the same way as the sling at the top level.

Then the umps better start paying dropping the ball and throws. This will alleviate the need for players to pin both arms.

 

[bedford]

Lance Collard from St Kilda (whoever the heck that is) suspended for homophobic comments.

Yet another one.

Perhaps most deflating is the (very likely large) number who haven't been caught.

It was about 10 Willy players , so it wasn't isolating anyone , so i don't think it was probably ina homophobic thing , just dumb

 

[caesar88]

It was about 10 Willy players , so it wasn't isolating anyone , so i don't think it was probably ina homophobic thing , just dumb

Language matters with cases like this though, even more so than the intent.

If he wanted to throw a dig at the opposition player(s), there are plenty of names he could've called them. Dickhead, arseh*le, idiot, etc.

Instead he went for a word used as a derogatory slur towards an oft-targeted community.

I think the words that exist in a person's vernacular are telling.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

Language matters with cases like this though, even more so than the intent.

If he wanted to throw a dig at the opposition player(s), there are plenty of names he could've called them. Dickhead, arseh*le, idiot, etc.

Instead he went for a word used as a derogatory slur towards an oft-targeted community.

I think the words that exist in a person's vernacular are telling.

I would have called them “clowns” personally. That’s what a group of people from Williamstown are called anyway, “clowns”.