No Oppo Supporters General AFL discussion and other club news

[Mr Lizard]

Mate it’s an attempted smother, clearly you don’t like this fact because it doesn’t fit into your narrative.

I don't have a narrative, mate.

Previously, I would've considered a smother to be diving across someone's boot as they kick, not jumping up to touch the ball. I'm still learning...it does seem like a stretch of definition.

 

[Off The Couch]

I’m no fan of Maynard’s, think he is a tool but he shouldn’t be missing games because of this.

it’s a weird game we play, where one bloke deliberately raises an elbow to the jaw of another player and gets one week and conversation rages about a bloke copping three weeks for an attempted smother

It’s all arse about face

 

[Mercy Seat]

I’m no fan of Maynard’s, think he is a tool but he shouldn’t be missing games because of this.

it’s a weird game we play, where one bloke deliberately raises an elbow to the jaw of another player and gets one week and conversation rages about a bloke copping three weeks for an attempted smother

It’s all arse about face

It’s all about outcome unfortunately, and the afl don’t really have much of choice.

The AFL will be forking out millions and millions over the coming years for concussion compensation and it’s very likely football directors, coaches, staff will also be liable personally for what’s happened in the past. Just this week we’ve seen club board member freak out that insurance may not cover them when ex players inevitably come after them. We may see people just sit on a board once a fortnight lose their houses and a lot more as a result of this.

Does it suck seeing someone like Maynard rubbed out for something pretty innocuous and a clear football action? Absolutely. But that’s just the future of footy. You knock a player out in just about any action and you’re liable to the consequences. Eventually, players will learn to avoid any form of play that may result in a head high collision.

The game will suffer but less concussions is a good thing for the long term health of players and the viability of the comp.

 

[Marlone]

Who gives a rats arse about a speccy? It's irrelevant. You have to change actions cos you have no point other some nonsense about protecting the game.

He jumped on a bloke and knocked him out. It's not that difficult.

He 'jumped on a bloke"???

Isn't that exactly what Jeremy Howe does?

What's the difference if someone gets hurt as a result? Whether going for a spekky, (which you're allowed to do) or going for a smother (which you're allowed to do)?

You jumped in the air, and someone got hurt. End of story. Three weeks

Or am I missing something?

 

[Yardie]

It’s all about outcome unfortunately, and the afl don’t really have much of choice.

The AFL will be forking out millions and millions over the coming years for concussion compensation and it’s very likely football directors, coaches, staff will also be liable personally for what’s happened in the past. Just this week we’ve seen club board member freak out that insurance may not cover them when ex players inevitably come after them. We may see people just sit on a board once a fortnight lose their houses and a lot more as a result of this.

Does it suck seeing someone like Maynard rubbed out for something pretty innocuous and a clear football action? Absolutely. But that’s just the future of footy. You knock a player out in just about any action and you’re liable to the consequences. Eventually, players will learn to avoid any form of play that may result in a head high collision.

The game will suffer but less concussions is a good thing for the long term health of players.

But it isn't as the AFL are inconsistent. They let both Rampe (concussion) and McCartin (broken jaw), through the tribunal, to receive no weeks.

 

[toomanysquibs]

Mate it’s an attempted smother, clearly you don’t like this fact because it doesn’t fit into your narrative. Brayshaw also moves into his path towards the end of the action so if he was trying to hit Brayshaw he was doing a pretty bad job of it for 95% of the time.

Not sure I’ve seen many players choosing to bump who start off with both hands pointed skywards:

View attachment 1797880View attachment 1797881

So he hit him carrying that form, or tucked his elbow, turned side on and hit a defenseless player directly in the head?

 

[Yardie]

So he hit him carrying that form, or tucked his elbow, turned side on and hit a defenseless player directly in the head?

Question, do you want him to go for causing the concussion? Are you on the outcome bandwagon. That is any concussion results in weeks out of the game. And if so, why do you want that to be the result?

 

[Mercy Seat]

But it isn't as the AFL are inconsistent. They let both Rampe (concussion) and McCartin (broken jaw), through the tribunal, to receive no weeks.

We’re in a transition phase so there’s always going to be grey areas and inconsistencies. With Laura Kane taking the reigns I honestly think we’re headed towards blanket outcomes for any action that results in a concussion.

 

[Marlone]

Eventually, players will learn to avoid any form of play that may result in a head high collision.

Is the upshot of this tenet that Maynard should not have leapt in the air to air to smother because he couldn't guarantee that there would be no head high contact?

I don't know how we can have a high-impact high speed contact sport, whilst also guaranteeing no head high impact. It's impossible, despite the best intentions of the player.

Maynard could not have, (and should not have had to), possibly foreseen that his leap in the air to smother may have resulted in an impact, when both players are focused solely on what the ball is doing.

 

[Mercy Seat]

Is the upshot of this tenet that Maynard should not have leapt in the air to air to smother because he couldn't guarantee that there would be no head high contact?

I don't know how we can have a high-impact high speed contact sport, whilst also guaranteeing no head high impact. It's impossible, despite the best intentions of the player.

Maynard could not have, (and should not have had to), possibly foreseen that his leap in the air to smother may have resulted in an impact, when both players are focused solely on what the ball is doing.

Possibly. The AFL may argue that the moment you leap up in the direction of a player moving towards you, you have a duty of care to that player.

FWIW I think Maynard gets off. Pies will throw everything at it and they’ll relent, possibly at appeal.

But these actions been suspended is the future of footy…

 

[Yardie]

We’re in a transition phase so there’s always going to be grey areas and inconsistencies. With Laura Kane taking the reigns I honestly think we’re headed towards blanket outcomes for any action that results in a concussion.

And that will create a lot of problems with the game. Players will be second guessing themselves on actions.

I'm more on the action orientated approach, the NFL does this, they are quite clear on actions they don't like and adjudicate to those actions (penalties applied even if there is no concussion). If an action not noted before becomes an issue they change the rules to ensure that it is included. I'd like us to go down the same path.

 

[Yardie]

I've been laughing all morning at this extended definition of 'smother'...all those times the guy on the mark jumps up and tries to touch the kick, those are attempted smothers...haven't heard it before but okay, gotcha.

The smother is going the way of the bump. You are still allowed to do it, but you can't smother to the head.

What would you like the outcome to be if the person smothering was concussed by taking a ball to the head?

 

[Mercy Seat]

And that will create a lot of problems with the game. Players will be second guessing themselves on actions.

I'm more on the action orientated approach, the NFL does this, they are quite clear on actions they don't like and adjudicate to those actions (penalties applied even if there is no concussion). If an action not noted before becomes an issue they change the rules to ensure that it is included. I'd like us to go down the same path.

I think we’d all prefer it to be action based, including the afl, but the problem is our sport is way more freestyle and 3 dimensional than most other sports. There’s just so many grey areas and unique possibilities to every contest and collision. That’s why we’re headed to blanket outcome based I think.

 

[toomanysquibs]

Watch out for the specky next. Careless, high contact, almost every occasion...Sorry, Jeremy Howe, where else did you think your knees were going to hit him when you jumped that high? Three weeks for you...

If you attempt a mark, realize you're not going to take the grab, and decide to tuck your arm, turn side on and smash a guy in the head it's already going to be a trip to the tribunal.

The rules already say you can't hit a guy in a marking contest with a hip and shoulder if you miss the ball.

Why is everyone missing the point here?

 

[Mr Lizard]

Brayshaw veered off the line, he moved into Maynard's path.



Brayshaw veered into the path of Maynard's attempted smother.

 

[Yardie]

I think we’d all prefer it to be action based, including the afl, but the problem is our sport is way more freestyle and 3 dimensional than most other sports. There’s just so many grey areas and unique possibilities to every contest and collision. That’s why we’re headed to blanket outcome based I think.

I think you are right and we will overcompensate too far to the detriment of the game. Then I hope we will come back to some middle ground.

 

[toomanysquibs]

Brayshaw veered off the line, he moved into Maynard's path.

View attachment 1797926

This illustrates really well that Brayshaw is off balance and unprotected, and Maynard chose to turn his body and tuck the leading arm.

Absolutely nailed the guy. 15 years ago it's a genius move.

Today they're trying to keep guys in the game longer by protecting the head.

 

[Crankyhawk]

But it isn't as the AFL are inconsistent. They let both Rampe (concussion) and McCartin (broken jaw), through the tribunal, to receive no weeks.

Well there is a red and white consistency there…

 

[Sixpence]

I've been laughing all morning at this extended definition of 'smother'...all those times the guy on the mark jumps up and tries to touch the kick, those are attempted smothers...haven't heard it before but okay, gotcha.

The smother is going the way of the bump. You are still allowed to do it, but you can't smother to the head.

I'm not sure why you find it so difficult to accept that there are different types of smothers? Diving sideways across the boot is NOT the only way to do it. A smother is simply trying to block the ball as it's kicked, which clearly, is what Maynard was trying to do.

When Hodge picked the ball of Griffin's boot and nailed a goal from outside 50, do you think that wasn't a smother? Because it absolutely was.

 

[toomanysquibs]

You always tuck in, to protect your face, abdomen and testicles...you ALWAYS turn side on....

It's the most basic self-preservation instinct for an impact there is.

But I guess if the AFL says you shouldn't, that takes precedence...

The most basic one is probably to tuck the knees if your'e at that height. But I agree, you protect yourself.

You also have to make sure you don't smash the guy in the head with your elbow though.

I like everyone on these boards for the most part too much to want to talk about a Collingwood guy going to the tribunal too much. But I'd be filthy if that had been one of our guys cleaned up in the opening minutes of a big final.

My take is Maynard's eyes lit up like dinner plates, and he took the shot. We used to be told to do that.

The fact we pretty much never see similar examples tells me enough - these guys avoid doing it for a reason week in week out. Guys run at the kicker and jump to smother a few times a week in every game probably.

 

[toomanysquibs]

I'm not sure why you find it so difficult to accept that there are different types of smothers?

This is about as close to an NFL smother as you'll see in AFL, when guys rush the kicker on an extra point and get through the defenders unchecked.

Those guys come fast and can really get up to block the ball, yet they avoid any contact with the kicker.

Different game, rules, size and speed of players. But same principle. You can do it without making contact if you decide to.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Brayshaw veered off the line, he moved into Maynard's path.

View attachment 1797926

Brayshaw veered into the path of Maynard's attempted smother.

He does - in the vision behind the goals he absolutely crosses further into Maynard’s path by moving to his right slightly. Bad accident all round.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Commentator on the box hill v dogs game "they (box hill) don't want to kick it down the line as tim obrien is there"

Do they know Tim obrien has taken bugger all marks in his career?

 

[Mitchell Madness]

This is about as close to an NFL smother as you'll see in AFL, when guys rush the kicker on an extra point and get through the defenders unchecked.

Those guys come fast and can really get up to block the ball, yet they avoid any contact with the kicker.

Different game, rules, size and speed of players. But same principle. You can do it without making contact if you decide to.

And if they touch the kicker or punter in a block attempt. It's a 15 yard penalty and a first down.

 

[play2win]

Brayshaw moved into Maynard to draw the contact and potential downfield free.