No Oppo Supporters General AFL discussion and other club news

[moginie]

Am I wrong that a Tribunal should not be "based on prioritising the health and safety of our players"?

It's a body to settle disputes. If it has a remit to prioritise the health and safety of players over actually determining whether the incident falls inside or outside of the rules of the AFL it's more of a Kangaroo Court.

You could certainly argue that it is the remit of the MRP, but not the Tribunal.

Well, the only thing I learnt from this round of football is that you can get away with only a one week suspension if you elbow someone in the back of the head as long as you don't do it hard enough.

The one preventable thug act isn't policed comparatively.

 

[MasterSamurai]

These chicken wing tackles are gonna be serious problem if the AFL don't clamp down on them. How surprising is it that the cats are doing it more than anyone else and getting away with it?
Also, the Cameron suspension is awful. He did NOT drive that player to the ground, he just tackled front on and Duggan momentum fell backwards. Maybe a week for rough conduct but that's about it for mine. AFL have ex players suing them, as we speak there's plenty more cases incoming so they are going hard at players causing head injury through tackles. İntention is taken out of it, which means you can't be too aggressive or strong in your attempts to tackle. Absolute shit show for mine.

 

[Books]

Yeah that’s why the trading of draft picks for older players was very short sighted by the club it shouldn’t have happened.

Yep.
We pushed out "older" players and got unsalted peanuts in return.
Then we paid a King's ransom for Wingard. No fault of Chad's but it was poor management.

Huge credit to Mitchell and sleepy Mark.

 

[Books]

These chicken wing tackles are gonna be serious problem if the AFL don't clamp down on them. How surprising is it that the cats are doing it more than anyone else and getting away with it?
Also, the Cameron suspension is awful. He did NOT drive that player to the ground, he just tackled front on and Duggan momentum fell backwards. Maybe a week for rough conduct but that's about it for mine. AFL have ex players suing them, as we speak there's plenty more cases incoming so they are going hard at players causing head injury through tackles. İntention is taken out of it, which means you can't be too aggressive or strong in your attempts to tackle. Absolute shit show for mine.

The chicken wing will be stamped out... just as soon as a Geelong player gets injured.

 

[Balardong]

Both Dear and Watson had better rated games this week (according to AFL player ratings)

Dear possibly cost Watson a nomination with that touched goal (tbf - not touched). Quite a few highlights for a RS nom reel from the weekend.

Humphries had 23 disposals at an incredible 96% efficiency, and had 13 marks (the most by any player on the ground) in the prime time Friday night game at the "G", not to mention his many one percenters. Clearly he was the correct nomination for the Rising Star award this week

 

[hardway]

These chicken wing tackles are gonna be serious problem if the AFL don't clamp down on them. How surprising is it that the cats are doing it more than anyone else and getting away with it?
Also, the Cameron suspension is awful. He did NOT drive that player to the ground, he just tackled front on and Duggan momentum fell backwards. Maybe a week for rough conduct but that's about it for mine. AFL have ex players suing them, as we speak there's plenty more cases incoming so they are going hard at players causing head injury through tackles. İntention is taken out of it, which means you can't be too aggressive or strong in your attempts to tackle. Absolute shit show for mine.

The game is hijacked by lawyers and insurance companies. Untill players sign waivers that they understand the risks of playing this sport the game is doomed.

 

[KermitJagger]

Humphries had 23 disposals at an incredible 96% efficiency, and had 13 marks (the most by any player on the ground) in the prime time Friday night game at the "G", not to mention his many one percenters. Clearly he was the correct nomination for the Rising Star award this week

Not that Rising Star nominations really matter but 13 marks and 96% disposal efficiency means very little when 11 of those marks were taken in defence off sideways kicks, none contested, and the majority of the disposals were similarly unambitious. Geelong took 145 marks in total, good for I think the second most of any team in any game this season? The average across all of their defenders that game was 10.

Either way, normally I'm against crapping on opposition supporters that come onto this board but the thread is clearly labelled "No Oppo Supporters" so kindly trundle away please.

 

[KermitJagger]

Prepare to lose your mind as Lawson Humphries marks a sideways kick, kicks it sideways, and then marks a sideways kick, kicks it sideways. The crowd goes mild.

 

[Gaston]

Between this comment and the one about umpiring being in the best state, Dillon is clearly living on another planet.

Like many others before him, just because your Dad was a great administrator, doesn't mean you will be too.

 

[peetoo]

Mention tonight potential indigenous team game during pre season. One option against a ‘multicultural’ team

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Mention tonight potential indigenous team game during pre season. One option against a ‘multicultural’ team

It’s embarrassing when the NRL continually rips off ideas the AFL has done - it’s even worse when the AFL lifts ideas from the NRL because it’s the last governing body you should try and emulate.

 

[jenniferHAWKinS]

Cameron got off and rightly so. Hopefully Bedford gets off (for the good of the game and the tackle) even though he gets to play against us.

 

[peetoo]

Cameron got off and rightly so. Hopefully Bedford gets off (for the good of the game and the tackle) even though he gets to play against us.

If they’d done a token 1 game ban lions might not have challenged

They owe Sicily for last year, same meat different gravy

 

[jenniferHAWKinS]

If they’d done a token 1 game ban lions might not have challenged

They owe Sicily for last year, same meat different gravy

GWS would have accepted 1 week, stupidly that was the basis of their appeal the other night

 

[KermitJagger]

Turns out that the Tribunal should just be a body to settle disputes and not have a remit "based on prioritising the health and safety of our players" as Andrew Dillon called it.

It's embarrassing that he was confident enough to announce that the system is rigged, and predictable that an error of law was found because the Tribunal wasn't adjudicating based on the laws of the game as it should.

 

[arupist]

Sanity prevails with both Cameron and Bedford getting off.

 

[NewkTheLot]

Lot of legalese tonight to get to the common sense outcome.

All it means practically is that the tribunal will now get another box to make sure they tick when giving their reasons so that the next similar appeal loses but nonetheless a good night for the game.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Lot of legalese tonight to get to the common sense outcome.

All it means practically is that the tribunal will now get another box to make sure they tick when giving their reasons so that the next similar appeal loses but nonetheless a good night for the game.

When the lawyers get involved they all disappear up their own arses.

They try and add the grey but just add in heaps of layers of conditions which all have subjectivity (like 'reasonable force') applied to it.

Since that Maynard tosser got off we now hear peopple talking about 'football act' and 'non-football act'. Nobody ever used these terms before - but it was enough for Maynard to destroy a bloke and get no penalty for it.
But another 'football act' (i.e. Sicily's tackle) doesn't get the same legal applied to it.

Lawyers just keep adding layers and layers until the essence/context of the situation is long forgotten. I hate them being involved in footy things. They never make the game or the situation better.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Actually Humphries had 343m gained and 4 inside 50's. On Footy Furnace on Sunday night Leigh Matthews said his highlight for the round was Humphries game. I think Lethal's a pretty good judge.

Hi Lawson.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Since that Maynard tosser got off we now hear peopple talking about 'football act' and 'non-football act'. Nobody ever used these terms before - but it was enough for Maynard to destroy a bloke and get no penalty for it.
But another 'football act' (i.e. Sicily's tackle) doesn't get the same legal applied to it.

This is essentially exactly how things should be looked at though. Not legally - but was something related to a physical contact sport which has resulted in injury or was the player acting outside that realm.

Neither Maynard nor Cameron should have been suspended regardless of the outcome of the act. Whether the argument is legal technicalities or biomechanic explanations (in the case of Maynard) - the simplicity of it is it's a contact sport and things might go awry and it is needless to exact revenge on the player simply playing the game of footy.

What should get punished, and taking into account protecting the head, is acts that are outside the rules. Needless high bumps where the prime intent is to hurt the bloke not impact the contest. And instead of giving those players a couple of weeks - start to throw the book at them. It's beyond absurd that a player using a slur in a VFL game cops a similar suspension to Jimmy Webster whose hit on Jy Simpkin was beyond ridiculous. I am not defending players using slurs - but punishing a bloke for saying the wrong thing in the heat of the moment versus a guy who tried to take the player's head off for no good reason is stupidly inconsistent.

If the AFL wants to get serious about protecting the head - fine - start penalising players like Webster by handing out a sentence that will make players think twice. Webster should have got 12 weeks minimum. Start rubbing out genuinely violent acts and stop punishing players because a player unfortunately got a head knock in a legitimate tackle.

 

[play2win]

This is essentially exactly how things should be looked at though. Not legally - but was something related to a physical contact sport which has resulted in injury or was the player acting outside that realm.

Neither Maynard nor Cameron should have been suspended regardless of the outcome of the act. Whether the argument is legal technicalities or biomechanic explanations (in the case of Maynard) - the simplicity of it is it's a contact sport and things might go awry and it is needless to exact revenge on the player simply playing the game of footy.

What should get punished, and taking into account protecting the head, is acts that are outside the rules. Needless high bumps where the prime intent is to hurt the bloke not impact the contest. And instead of giving those players a couple of weeks - start to throw the book at them. It's beyond absurd that a player using a slur in a VFL game cops a similar suspension to Jimmy Webster whose hit on Jy Simpkin was beyond ridiculous. I am not defending players using slurs - but punishing a bloke for saying the wrong thing in the heat of the moment versus a guy who tried to take the player's head off for no good reason is stupidly inconsistent.

If the AFL wants to get serious about protecting the head - fine - start penalising players like Webster by handing out a sentence that will make players think twice. Webster should have got 12 weeks minimum. Start rubbing out genuinely violent acts and stop punishing players because a player unfortunately got a head knock in a legitimate tackle.

Completely agree. The other bewildering outcome from this weeks tribunal was the raised elbow to the back of the head - 1 week. It was a deliberate action that could have been a whole lot worse, and yet it hardly grabbed any attention and only copped a week.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Sanity prevails with both Cameron and Bedford getting off.

Bedford should not have got off.

Just wait until one of our players does the same thing and cops three weeks.

 

[play2win]

Bedford should not have got off.

Just wait until one of our players does the same thing and cops three weeks.

Tackling technique is getting more and more important, that is a great video and simple response to the brain dead media who always bring out the line “that’s a perfect tackle, what was Toby supposed to do?”. The exact kind of educational content the afl should be putting out there.

 

[Sixpence]

It's easy to do in a demo, but in a live game where you're coming from all different angles and tackling a player who's twisting and turning themselves to try and evade, I don't think it's reasonable to say he should have twisted his body the other way mid tackle. The expectation for players to contort themselves mid-tackle is becoming a bit much. Bedford getting off is absolutely the correct decision.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

It's easy to do in a demo, but in a live game where you're coming from all different angles and tackling a player who's twisting and turning themselves to try and evade, I don't think it's reasonable to say he should have twisted his body the other way mid tackle. The expectation for players to contort themselves mid-tackle is becoming a bit much. Bedford getting off is absolutely the correct decision.

He pinned the arms, the head hit the ground. We all know that’s being outlawed.

Based on the knowledge that players are aware of another way to tackle so that this doesn’t happen he had other options.
Dangerfield should not have gotten off either.

It was the wrong decision for the appeal board to let him off, and what will make it worse for us is that we will have a player who doesn’t adjust their technique, pins the arms, gets weeks and we will NOT appeal it.