MRP / Trib. James Sicily tackle on Hugh McCluggage

[Lingsface]

apologies to Chief, but not sure the AFL care that much about BF.

and whilst you're right, you won't find a mass boycott because Sicily got 3 weeks.
average punter doesn't care that much

he is talking about the bigger picture, it turns into auskick where you just tag or wrap your arms around and stand there. It will take away from the contest that we love and watch for.

 

[Crankyhawk]

it'll never be risk free
but thats not really the aim
its damage limitation.

Then start penalising those who duck into tackles and risk concussing themselves. If they did that I might take the afls concern’s seriously. But they don’t so I won’t.

 

[Flog_Toolist]

NRL has the right balance. If it’s an illegal hit - you’re in trouble. If it’s legal - it’s bad luck.

A similar doctrine has existing in tort law (negligence) for many a moon too. It's called Volenti Non Fit Injuria or Voluntary Assumption of Risk.

A boxer consents to being punched in the boxing ring but not hit with an iron bar. Just like Peter Caven never expected to be dining on Pluggers elbow at full speed.

The problem I have is that the AFL tribunal makes poor decisions. Cripps chose to bump and elbow a bloke in the nose concussing him out of the game , and gets off and wins a brownlow.

Sicily chooses to tackle a bloke and gets three weeks.

Compare the pair. The penalties are disproportionate.

The concussion outcomes are not distinguishable. But according to the AFL they are.

Volenti non fit injuria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Then start penalising those who duck into tackles and risk concussing themselves. If they did that I might take the afls concern’s seriously. But they don’t so I won’t.

Well there goes Joel Selwood’s career.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

I wrote about the grounds being a contributing factor in another post but deleted it. It's true though, grounds aren't soft and muddy like they used to be. Why are so many players knocked out these days after hitting the ground? Happens far more frequently than prior years.

On the money here. The grounds are deliberately constructed to make the game more attractive for television, including being harder and faster. Perhaps the crackdown on dangerous tackles is a smokescreen for the AFL to hide behind as they are complicit in creating a dangerous environment.

 

[citizen-erased]

I can tell you mate, for 100% certain that once they ban players going for the speccy which results in concussing the guy in front (and it’s just a matter of time) then that is pretty much the end of the sport as we know it.

What player would even go for a hanger knowing that any misjudgement at all will result in a ban from the game? There are too many variables and no coach would instruct them to do it.

It’s one thing to say “get on board” but I don’t think there is an adequate understanding of what we are all, fans and players alike, signing up to.

Yes, we need to protect the head where it’s reasonable to do so but we are asking players to completely overhaul the way they have spent 10-20 years learning how to play the game. We also need to understand that there is an element of risk that as humans we absorb in choosing to participate. The AFL is hell-bent on making the game risk free and this is simply not possible.

In fact, in their relentless pursuit of making the game risk free it is a matter of time before a player is seriously injured because they pulled out or did not go hard enough into a contested situation for fear of the outcome.

im being a little facetious on the mark thing. i don't think they'd go after it.
you get maybe 1-2 a year where a knee really does damage in a marking contest.

I think the next thing is how long players have to miss
Doc does a test, you miss a week. maybe 2
Fail it and it's 4.

As you say, it'll never be risk free.
But as an organisation, they're responsible to keep removing as much risk as possible. It's over handed at the moment, but that approach has worked to change ingrained behaviour quickly (see Dissent rule)

 

[citizen-erased]

he is talking about the bigger picture, it turns into auskick where you just tag or wrap your arms around and stand there. It will take away from the contest that we love and watch for.

a lot of tackles are that now.
its been a clear change. The player will tackle, dig in, try hold the player up, or if they bring them down they'll ensure they land on them and not the ground.

ive noticed it a lot this year
Sicily tries it too here as well. he just didn't have control because he was on the ground already

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

im being a little facetious on the mark thing. i don't think they'd go after it.
you get maybe 1-2 a year where a knee really does damage in a marking contest.

I think the next thing is how long players have to miss
Doc does a test, you miss a week. maybe 2
Fail it and it's 4.

As you say, it'll never be risk free.
But as an organisation, they're responsible to keep removing as much risk as possible. It's over handed at the moment, but that approach has worked to change ingrained behaviour quickly (see Dissent rule)

I reckon they’ll go after it for sure.

They’re afraid of the dark, the mob that run the AFL.

 

[citizen-erased]

A similar doctrine has existing in tort law (negligence) for many a moon too. It's called Volenti Non Fit Injuria or Voluntary Assumption of Risk.

A boxer consents to being punched in the boxing ring but not hit with an iron bar. Just like Peter Caven never expected to be dining on Pluggers elbow at full speed.

The problem I have is that the AFL tribunal makes poor decisions. Cripps chose to bump and elbow a bloke in the nose concussing him out of the game , and gets off and wins a brownlow.

Sicily chooses to tackle a bloke and gets three weeks.

Compare the pair. The penalties are disproportionate.

The concussion outcomes are not distinguishable. But according to the AFL they are.

Volenti non fit injuria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

i dont think Cripps' action was excused.
it was an error in the paper work that got him off

remains a joke, but well done to the lawyers. Carlton can do something right

 

[citizen-erased]

I reckon they’ll go after it for sure.

They’re afraid of the dark, the mob that run the AFL.

ive heard noise (Garry Lyon has mentioned it once or twice)

i dont think it happens enough to warrant. but if they got a spate, then you'd guarantee a reaction

 

[Flog_Toolist]

Carlton can do something right

Looks like they're as good at tribunal penalty evasion as they are at tax evasion.

 

[citizen-erased]

Then start penalising those who duck into tackles and risk concussing themselves. If they did that I might take the afls concern’s seriously. But they don’t so I won’t.

i reckon that comes next via mandatory spells for any player who has a concussion test, and longer for those that fail it

i can see the 12 days pushing to a month soon enough.

 

[citizen-erased]

Like tax evasion

they got busted for that though.

their lawyers have the tribunal clocked.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

outside my area of expertise, but does injury and compensation extend out to long term health issues?

i guess my question is where does this class action stand.
It's chasing $1bn and the AFL has paid out in the past.
how does it have legs if this provision exists?

Short answer - I'm not sure. Googling doesn't offer much help even after reading through the Writ filed by Margalit on behalf of Rooke earlier this year.

Class actions can be commenced in Vic under the Supreme Court Act (1986) but I don't know what sits behind that - not sure if it proceeds then they have to seek damages due to negligence under the Wrongs Act (1958) which is the legislation which governs non-work related personal injury (such as medical negligence etc).

They could be going for negligence under the serious injury provisions of workers comp but I don't think that's the case. It also complicates things in that these legislations are generally state based but VFL/AFL players can be based and play out of other states. I guess it may depend on where AFL head office is based but that's starting to get very technical and it's after midnight

 

[Flog_Toolist]

they got busted for that though.

Since when?

Luke Sayers is still pulling in plenty of contracts with Governments like in the last couple of months.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

apologies to Chief, but not sure the AFL care that much about BF.

and whilst you're right, you won't find a mass boycott because Sicily got 3 weeks.
average punter doesn't care that much

No one will boycott on one decision. But it is death by a thousand cuts and these decisions lead to disengagement which ultimately leads to people not showing up or watching on tv. The only reason a lot of people remain engaged is because of club loyalty and habit but disengaging with the game means ratings and ultimately dollars drop when people stop watching games other than those their team is participating in.

 

[citizen-erased]

Short answer - I'm not sure. Googling doesn't offer much help even after reading through the Writ filed by Margalit on behalf of Rooke earlier this year.

Class actions can be commenced in Vic under the Supreme Court Act (1986) but I don't know what sits behind that - not sure if it proceeds then they have to seek damages due to negligence under the Wrongs Act (1958) which is the legislation which governs non-work related personal injury (such as medical negligence etc).

They could be going for negligence under the serious injury provisions of workers comp but I don't think that's the case. It also complicates things in that these legislations are generally state based but VFL/AFL players can be based and play out of other states. I guess it may depend on where AFL head office is based but that's starting to get very technical and it's after midnight

curious on what the Smith case/payout was based on.

i assumed AFL injury exemptions meant players with ****ed knees late in life can't sue, but concussion is different. as it's not an injury per se...or at least wasn't cos players were generally sent back out unless they were a liability.
and there was no protocol to take a week or two off

a quick glance and it was paid out under TPD, and there is focus on not so much the AFL allowing the tackle, but the treatment and return to play of the concussed player
So maybe the strategy is reduce the tackles to reduce the concussions, then introduce lengthy periods for concussed players (monitor for 1-2 weeks, any concussion = 4+ out)

 

[citizen-erased]

No one will boycott on one decision. But it is death by a thousand cuts and these decisions lead to disengagement which ultimately leads to people not showing up or watching on tv. The only reason a lot of people remain engaged is because of club loyalty and habit but disengaging with the game means ratings and ultimately dollars drop when people stop watching games other than those their team is participating in.

i liken it to fifa on playstation for me
game has given me the shits with the tweaks for the last 6 years.
i swore off it in 2019.

i've still managed to buy 20, 21, 22 and 23.
habit, and as much as i dont like it for some things, its still fifa.

AFL will still be AFL for people.
There are lines. AFLX was one. The AFL isnt stupid and know where there line is.
i don't think this is one. End of the day, their intentions are good. CTE is ugly and horrific.

 

[Hawks_4478]

The hawks obviously aren’t going to be playing finals this year, so it doesn’t bother me seeing him suspended.

But this crackdown on tackles is going to be very cruel to someone this finals series. Someone will be suspended and miss a big game

 

[Flog_Toolist]

But this crackdown on tackles is going to be very cruel to someone this finals series. Someone will be suspended and miss a big game

No doubt. The AFL have no consistency in their rulings.

I can remember when Ian Collins personally intervened to ensure Chris Grant didn't win a brownlow due to a love tap on Nick Holland a quarter of a century ago.

I hope Callum Ah Chee sues the AFL and the Carlton Football Club for head trauma.

I also hope Hawthorn appeal this decision, not just for Sicily's sake but for the sake of the game.

 

[Mat Mann]

crazy this was cited let alone 3 weeks

 

[hawkman]

The hawks obviously aren’t going to be playing finals this year, so it doesn’t bother me seeing him suspended.

But this crackdown on tackles is going to be very cruel to someone this finals series. Someone will be suspended and miss a big game

It will be let go in finals. It will need to be a concussion to be suspended. The 1 weekers that have happened all year will be missed

 

[CarterS]

This 'ruining the fabric of the game' stuff, please.

How many tackles got laid on the weekend and how many were taken to the tribunal? The tackle isn't being outlawed.

Fact 1 - He pinned his arm.
Fact 2 - He hit the ground head first.

Always gone based on those two facts. It's been made clear that if you pin an arm you have a duty to make sure the player doesn't hit the ground head first and considering what we know about concussions it's fair enough.

Saying all of that I think 1 or 2 weeks would have been appropriate, 3 seems a touch excessive.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

This 'ruining the fabric of the game' stuff, please.

How many tackles got laid on the weekend and how many were taken to the tribunal? The tackle isn't being outlawed.

Fact 1 - He pinned his arm.
Fact 2 - He hit the ground head first.

Always gone based on those two facts. It's been made clear that if you pin an arm you have a duty to make sure the player doesn't hit the ground head first and considering what we know about concussions it's fair enough.

Saying all of that I think 1 or 2 weeks would have been appropriate, 3 seems a touch excessive.

It was an accident amongst a bunch of bodies.
This was not a suspendable tackle. 99% of people can see this (even the flogs in the media for the most part dont think it was suspension worthy)

 

[CarterS]

It was an accident amongst a bunch of bodies.
This was not a suspendable tackle. 99% of people can see this (even the flogs in the media for the most part dont think it was suspension worthy)

You dont have to prove intent for it to a suspendable tackle, plenty have gone based on accidents. Even the tribunal itself said there was no intent.