Brodie Grundy's tackle- what's the verdict?

[Gone Critical]

Leave the game as it is. Athletes know what they're getting into when they decide to play a contact sport. The sport has been fine for 100+ years.

Ban the Ziebell tackles and that's it. A regular pinned tackle regardless of outcome has always been fine. Those just can't be helped.

Not only that, these are the ******* pros. The rules are the same all the way from under 9s -under 28s why the hell should the adults have a different set?

How many old footy players become mushrooms? Sweet **** all. Leave the ruddy game as it is. Contact happens, incidents happen, injuries happen.

Ask any player if they want all this circus around tackles. 99.9% will give an emphatic"no".

I have a lot of sympathy for your view. When I grew up breaking your arm on the school swing or rope or whatever was a rite of passage not a reason to sue the school. Times have moved on and the AFL cant stick their head in the sand and pretend we dont know or care about the results of repeated head trauma.

The game is different also. The players are bigger, faster , stronger and hit with much more impact. As to how many players end up as "mushrooms" it seems its a bigger risk than anyone has realised in the past and will only get worse. Once you know that how can the AFL not act.

 

[loki04]

Agree with the sentiment. When I saw it on Sunday I felt Grundy was safe but that was before understanding the current tribunal guidelines. Once you read them it was a pretty foregone conclusion he would get the 3 down to 2. They don't leave much wriggle room re how it feels unfortunately.

I think there is multiple arguments being made and people confusing the 2 or 3.

1) is should that tackle be suspendable at all? ie the new rules around a perceived dangerous tackle are they a correct set of guidelines, many including myself say no.

2) The arguments of whether it deserves suspension to the letter of the wording now, looking at that then yes due to pinning the arms Brown had no way to protect the head which was whiplashed after the body slammed into the ground. There is no wiggle room here and under current law he is gone.

3) The counter argument that 5 players across the weekend were reviewed for identical "actions" in the tackle yet did not even get sighted. So now the ruling is not being applied because injury did not happen. So what is it the action is reportable and suspension or is it not?

4) having the sole determiner for time served in suspension (and whether it is suspendable at all) based around outcomes ignoring variables in the game (ie browns own contributions, hardness of the ground, pinning the arms to hold in the ball correct free paid) is ridiculous way to adjudicate it. Brown hitting his head was incidental contact you could replicate that tackle and have a different outcome.

Arguments 1 and 2 are being mixed up.

 

[Unknown Identity]

Ben Brown looks likely to play this week..

So exact same outcome as Dangerfield tackle.

Hmmm..

 

[biggiemediums]

I have a lot of sympathy for your view. When I grew up breaking your arm on the school swing or rope or whatever was a rite of passage not a reason to sue the school. Times have moved on and the AFL cant stick their head in the sand and pretend we dont know or care about the results of repeated head trauma.

The game is different also. The players are bigger, faster , stronger and hit with much more impact. As to how many players end up as "mushrooms" it seems its a bigger risk than anyone has realised in the past and will only get worse. Once you know that how can the AFL not act.

Because its a ****ing optional sport for people to play. No one is forced to take it up as a career.

Players don't sign up thinking "Okay I'll play, but only if they make it so head trauma is less... Even if it kills the enjoyment out of the sport".

 

[TradeDraft]

Club is Gutless not Appealing

 

[loki04]

I have a lot of sympathy for your view. When I grew up breaking your arm on the school swing or rope or whatever was a rite of passage not a reason to sue the school. Times have moved on and the AFL cant stick their head in the sand and pretend we dont know or care about the results of repeated head trauma.

The game is different also. The players are bigger, faster , stronger and hit with much more impact. As to how many players end up as "mushrooms" it seems its a bigger risk than anyone has realised in the past and will only get worse. Once you know that how can the AFL not act.

Clear distinction there GC is "repeated", did brown suffer repeated head trauma in that 1 off incident? the 4% of NFL players to get CTE were of a certain position on the field and they received 1200-1500 head hits a season. An AFL player wouldn't even get close to that number over their lifetime.

So 96% of players never had an issue with CTE.

On top of this they are discovering that some people are more predisposed to get the condition then others even high blood pressure has been shown to upset the chemical balance in the brain in some people.

I made the thread on this subject to stop the widespread mis-information and fear mongering on this topic. I certainly believed it was much more prominent then it really is thanks to watching the movie "concussion" which stretched the truth on things (obviously to make a more compelling story).

Interesting of all sports Jockeys are the most highest risk of concussion another thing I learnt from the article which was from a former Collingwood club Doctor and southern hemispheres leading expert on it.

 

[JB1975]

Because its a ******* optional sport for people to play. No one is forced to take it up as a career.

Players don't sign up thinking "Okay I'll play, but only if they make it so head trauma is less... Even if it kills the enjoyment out of the sport".

People choose all sorts of jobs, but this doesn't mean that their employer doesn't have a duty to take care of them. People choose to go to public events, but that doesn't mean that the people/organisations which run those events don't have a duty to ensure safety.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sympathetic with your view and share your frustrations. I just think that if the AFL is going to be guided by a duty of care, that there be as much clarity about what the hell that duty is (and who owes it) as possible.

 

[loki04]

There are some legitimate issues that need to be addressed by the clubs, the AFL, and the AFLPA, all of which have a duty of care to the players who make the game what it is. The increasing evidence of the effects of head trauma upon NFL players is something our own sport can't ignore.

I suppose the question then becomes, 'How do we perform that duty of care?' Your reading of the guidelines is right, but what bothers me a bit is that too much of this duty of care falls upon players who are instructed, encouraged, and indeed obligated to tackle in the way that Grundy tackled. That such players are only deemed to have breached a duty of care when the person being tackled suffers an injury seems somewhat awkward and more than slightly unjust.

Maybe the AFL should assume the duty of care by being more specific in its guidelines of what is/isn't a legitimate tackle. If pinning the arms creates too much danger, then maybe the rules need to clearly stipulate that pinning the arms is not allowed. Such a rule would help to ensure clarity, the safety of the players, and it might also lessen the number of stoppages.

Im sure no one on this board read the articles in the thread I made.

NFL had 4% of all players alive and dead get CTE, 1200-1500 hits to the head a season from certain a position where the bulk come from and of those they are now learning certain people are more predisposed then others.

Concussion is a complex chemical released in the brain. Do yourself a favour and read the articles then come back and talk on the issue more informed as people are overstating it and oversimplifying it.

I agree with much of the rest. If the AFL do choose to go down that route "no arm pinning" the game will suffer another major blow.

 

[loki04]

Ben Brown looks likely to play this week..

So exact same outcome as Dangerfield tackle.

Hmmm..

He likely could of re-took the field when he was giving the thumbs up to the crowd on the way off, the stretcher and hospital visit is becoming precautionary.

Had it been 2007 instead of 2017, no doubts he would of played on in that game.

 

[JB1975]

Im sure no one on this board read the articles in the thread I made.

NFL had 4% of all players alive and dead get CTE, 1200-1500 hits to the head a season from certain a position where the bulk come from and of those they are now learning certain people are more predisposed then others.

Concussion is a complex chemical released in the brain. Do yourself a favour and read the articles then come back and talk on the issue more informed as people are overstating it and oversimplifying it.

More info the better, so I'll check it out in time, but I'll quickly suggest that a player's predisposition to head trauma (that phrase doesn't sound right) doesn't diminish a duty of care, although it could obviously help in prevention.

 

[TheSierBear]

With 3 games left and no chance at finals we should have challenged unless Grundy was adamant he didn't want to.

My take. Taking it to court is stressful business, and someone with an aware mind such as Grundy probably reasons that all in all it's not worth all the stress.
The guy is studying Physiology, it's starting to get busy and before he knows it they'll be exams. A couple of weeks off not a bad thing for him, concentrate on studies, kick around a footy in a few weeks for the Melbourne game then back to exams, a few beer gardens a splif or two down at La Torbe and he's living another kind of dream. That's my guess on why it's not challenged.

 

[loki04]

More info the better, so I'll check it out in time, but I'll quickly suggest that a player's predisposition to head trauma (that phrase doesn't sound right) doesn't diminish a duty of care, although it could obviously help in prevention.

They are more predisposed to get concussed (i dare say the chemical release) after being knocked out and more predisposed to then suffer CTE long term effects.

Being knocked out doesn't necessarily follow that you will be concussed. They are separate but both from trauma.

No. it might not diminish duty of care but it shows that the small percentage of the population who get it are prone to.
Maybe if you know you have a predisposition (if they can find a way to test it in the future) you don't enter a contact sport and let those who can enjoy the sport for what it is.

"Duty of care" in a contact sport is such a fine line before you go to far and its no longer the sport you recognised and loved.

 

[underbelly]

Dangerfield 1 week suspension, Kruezer 1 week out with concussion
Grundy 2 week suspension, Brown most likely fit to play

 

[Robroy22]

My take is they had it explained to them that any challenge this time was a loser.
The AFL don't want this decision going any other way.

 

[Countrypie]

My take. Taking it to court is stressful business, and someone with an aware mind such as Grundy probably reasons that all in all it's not worth all the stress.
The guy is studying Physiology, it's starting to get busy and before he knows it they'll be exams. A couple of weeks off not a bad thing for him, concentrate on studies, kick around a footy in a few weeks for the Melbourne game then back to exams, a few beer gardens a splif or two down at La Torbe and he's living another kind of dream. That's my guess on why it's not challenged.

Yep. I also think in some regards Grundy may think its a fair cop. he was quite shaken by the incident. THere's a stromg possibility that ha just said let it be.

 

[35Daicos]

Dangerfield 1 week suspension, Kruezer 1 week out with concussion
Grundy 2 week suspension, Brown most likely fit to play

Kreuzer did play on the weekend, he made the best players as well.

 

[MyManLynch]

Dangerfield 1 week suspension, Kruezer 1 week out with concussion
Grundy 2 week suspension, Brown most likely fit to play

Yer...but Grundy's a thug...

 

[Anzacday]

My take is they had it explained to them that any challenge this time was a loser.
The AFL don't want this decision going any other way.

We have a winner.

 

[underbelly]

Kreuzer did play on the weekend, he made the best players as well.

my bad then......sorry.....pissed at the whole thing. If Side Show Bob had been more efficient with his disposal, we wouldn't be in this situation

 

[Scodog10]

loki04 thats all great, but without peer reviewed journals from neurologists counter to protecting the head my POV will remain as is.

Put yourself in the shoes of Brown's family awaiting the results of CT scans following the incident fearing the worst and hoping for the best. Explaining the difference between concussion and a "KO" will fall on deaf ears I feel. If rules protecting the head prevent only one head trauma moving into the future they have served the purpose well. All other discussion is best left in the other thread you created.

In terms of the discussion around his suspension. As the rules stand the correct decision to deem the incident worthy of a report was made, but the grading was up for debate. We decided not to challenge so it's extremely cut and dried as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Unknown Identity]

Dangerfield 1 week suspension, Kruezer 1 week out with concussion
Grundy 2 week suspension, Brown most likely fit to play

Kreuzer played the following week.

But yes, how it equals 3 down to 2 weeks is an absolute farce.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

My take. Taking it to court is stressful business, and someone with an aware mind such as Grundy probably reasons that all in all it's not worth all the stress.
The guy is studying Physiology, it's starting to get busy and before he knows it they'll be exams. A couple of weeks off not a bad thing for him, concentrate on studies, kick around a footy in a few weeks for the Melbourne game then back to exams, a few beer gardens a splif or two down at La Torbe and he's living another kind of dream. That's my guess on why it's not challenged.

I think the major reason the club didn't challenge is a matter of odds.
Like the Casino the odds are in favour of the house.

Club appeals, more likely odds, club loses. Hence, Grundy plays one less game of AFL in his career than he was going to.

On that basis, fair call. Our team and Grundy just have to wear the two games.
But it's better than three.

 

[CFC2010]

The AFL imposing its power once again......disapointed we didn't appeal but I guess the AFL made that decision for us.

Backyard competition..........with pub rules!

 

[35Daicos]

my bad then......sorry.....pissed at the whole thing. If Side Show Bob had been more efficient with his disposal, we wouldn't be in this situation

I'm bitterly disappointed we've had a quality player suspended for a couple of weeks when his absence could cost us another win or two. But as soon as Brown's head hit the turf and he couldn't get up the outcome of this was inevitable.

Supporters often tend to feel some great injustice has been handed down when one of their players gets rubbed out, but I am a bit amused when some (I'm not referring to you by the way) act as if it's just their club that's being picked on. e.g. I'd be seriously annoyed if I was an Essendon fan with Zach Merrett being outed for one game for what I thought was a rather minor indiscretion. As well as ending the Brownlow hopes of one of the awards' favourites, it makes their task of winning a vital game against Adelaide this week so much tougher. I'm not totally sure, but I would have thought he had a decent record and a suspension for that incident is probably far harsher than the one we have to cop.

 

[MyManLynch]

Luckily we are not in the finals hunt...or imagine if that happened in September & we were indeed playing finals...could make the difference of a Premiership.