Lynch seeks glove exemption

[Noidenous]

heck me dead are there some morons and first-year philosophy drop-outs in this thread.

Lynch's solution is simple.

Ask his chosen manufacturer to produce a limited run of a glove model he's helped design and get it approved by the AFL as not providing any superhuman grip. If anyone else needs one, I'm sure the manufacturer will retain enough to sell.

It may just become the glove to wear for those with mangled pinkies.

 

[Phantom21]

Could Blade Runner play AFL? Would his prosthetic deem to be an OHS issue?

 

[jacko57]

The strapping goes over the glove, as it would without the glove being there.

except he discards the glove when taking a set shot..........

 

[jacko57]

don't the afl have a list of approved gloves?

Why doesn't he just wear one of those?

That covers it.

If he needs to wear a glove for medical conditions, wear one of the approved ones.

If he thinks he needs one of the banned ones to mark the ball well, and he's trying to use his medical condition to get approval to use a banned type, no way.

 

[Power Raid]

That covers it.

If he needs to wear a glove for medical conditions, wear one of the approved one.

If he thinks he needs one of the banned ones to mark the ball well, and he's trying to use his medical condition to get approval to use a banned type, no way.

Daniel Chick just cut his finger off to continue his career. Why doesn't Lynch just follow suit?

That's the problem with today's generation. Always looking for the easy way out.

Gloves? What a joke

 

[lihei]

I've answered enough people who cannot comprehend a simple implication in my post to not have to waste my time on you. Go back and read the thread so as to not further embarrass yourself.



Righto. 1/10 for making me reply.

11/10 for your reply!

 

[Bert Man]

Lynch should be playing by the rules like everyone else. He should have to suffer like everyone else who wore gloves.

 

[THEROO 09]

Daniel Chick just cut his finger off to continue his career. Why doesn't Lynch just follow suit?

That's the problem with today's generation. Always looking for the easy way out.

Gloves? What a joke

Totally agree the Far Que is a soft **** do what Chick did chop it off, stop winginging and get and play the game if they were any good everyone would be wearing them.P.S.No one wore them for 100 yrs so why now.

 

[ApplecrossWC]

Daniel Chick just cut his finger off to continue his career. Why doesn't Lynch just follow suit?

That's the problem with today's generation. Always looking for the easy way out.

Gloves? What a joke

I agree. If he is that passionate about playing football then rather than trying to break the rules with pathetic excuses he should have his finger amputated. He is lucky to get paid just to kick a football around, he should have some perspective.

 

[Andrew Mc]

except he discards the glove when taking a set shot..........

Ah well, a bit of bad luck for him then. Leave the friggin thing on.

 

[Power Raid]

I agree. If he is that passionate about playing football then rather than trying to break the rules with pathetic excuses he should have his finger amputated. He is lucky to get paid just to kick a football around, he should have some perspective.

yeah, that's it

perspective!

 

[Power Raid]

Totally agree the Far Que is a soft **** do what Chick did chop it off, stop winginging and get and play the game if they were any good everyone would be wearing them.P.S.No one wore them for 100 yrs so why now.

soft says it all really. harden up princess!

 

[ApplecrossWC]

soft says it all really. harden up princess!

For one of the supposed "tough men" (more like sniper), it's farcical he is having a cry about wanting to wear a glove.

 

[MarcusP2]

I'm not searching this whole thread but he should just man up like Torry Holt and play with a regular glove.
http://www.terezowens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Torry-Holt-Finger-Pic.jpg

 

[Old Spice]

The sheep can satisfy themselves with whatever turds they are served up and ask for 2nd and 3rd serves, but for all the hot-air that has been served up over the last 2 pages, no-one has a response to the most basic propositions.

#1 - where is the evidence of significant glove advantage? Where? My bet, and feel free to engage it, is that the AFL got an idea into it's head and commissioned a report. That report showed some infitisimal advantage and gloves were ranked 10-1.

I'd be surpised if a sensible evaluation of the results waranted the investment,let alone the change. But having invested a bunch of money here, there must be an outcome.

#2 - There will always be some miniscule advantage in all manner of sporting apparel. Greater breathability of some uniforms, greater 'directional energy' of football boots (see other studies from glove author Prof Fuss), headband absorbence and sweat.

Any pedant who wants to drill into the entrails will find a big nothing to make a big deal of. I would have thought spending money on playing surfaces rather than pointless studies into football paraphenalia would be more worthwhile.

#3 - some people here are incapable of consistent reasoning. They are okay with resin, strapping, jabs, protective head gear and gel soles, but not with a glove.

OH no, not the uber-glove! It's the elephant in the room isn't it. A frightful advantage that will ruin the game.

That's all we've been talking about the last decade - when will they end this charade. Ludicrous

 

[jonbe54]

The sheep can satisfy themselves with whatever turds they are served up and ask for 2nd and 3rd serves, but for all the hot-air that has been served up over the last 2 pages, no-one has a response to the most basic propositions.

#1 - where is the evidence of significant glove advantage? Where? My bet, and feel free to engage it, is that the AFL got an idea into it's head and commissioned a report. That report showed some infitisimal advantage and gloves were ranked 10-1.

I'd be surpised if a sensible evaluation of the results waranted the investment,let alone the change. But having invested a bunch of money here, there must be an outcome.

#2 - There will always be some miniscule advantage in all manner of sporting apparel. Greater breathability of some uniforms, greater 'directional energy' of football boots (see other studies from glove author Prof Fuss), headband absorbence and sweat.

Any pedant who wants to drill into the entrails will find a big nothing to make a big deal of. I would have thought spending money on playing surfaces rather than pointless studies into football paraphenalia would be more worthwhile.

#3 - some people here are incapable of consistent reasoning. They are okay with resin, strapping, jabs, protective head gear and gel soles, but not with a glove.

OH no, not the uber-glove! It's the elephant in the room isn't it. A frightful advantage that will ruin the game.

That's all we've been talking about the last decade - when will they end this charade. Ludicrous

Not to worry spicey, it gives the haters something to gnash their teeth over and the AFL something to thrust their chest out over.

 

[Pie eyed]

ROFL.
Nearly 300 posts on a glove and a dislocated pinky.
BF at it's best.

 

[Power Raid]

The AFL should ban socks

I think socks are eating away at the very fibre to which makes our game great

 

[Sanders]

Another logically sound post.

The sheep can satisfy themselves with whatever turds they are served up and ask for 2nd and 3rd serves, but for all the hot-air that has been served up over the last 2 pages, no-one has a response to the most basic propositions.

#1 - where is the evidence of significant glove advantage? Where? My bet, and feel free to engage it, is that the AFL got an idea into it's head and commissioned a report. That report showed some infitisimal advantage and gloves were ranked 10-1.

I'd be surpised if a sensible evaluation of the results waranted the investment,let alone the change. But having invested a bunch of money here, there must be an outcome.

I agree with this, but I think it can be looked at an even simpler level

They are trying to figure out which gloves give more grip than the arbitrary median line, and which ones don't.

Its not even how pointless and ludicrous it is to try and decide this, or how on earth do you measure it - but who set the completely made up line of acceptable standard

That's been plucked out of thin air, and then treated as some form of gospel truth.

Even if we could accurately measure the grip created by the human hand, and surely everyone is different, what is the logic for the approved gloves in this context?

Are they an acceptably modest improvement over the bare hand, and if so who made that decision, based on what? Who decided that "X" above the line is ok, but "Y" isn't?

Or are they saying all gloves below the level of the hand are ok? So if you are prepared to accept a slipperiness worse than the bare hand then you can wear what you want?

There is no logic or science to any of this because at some point, someone has just made some base standard up - plucked a line out of the air.

 

[Power Raid]

Another logically sound post.



I agree with this, but I think it can be looked at an even simpler level

They are trying to figure out which gloves give more grip than the arbitrary median line, and which ones don't.

Its not even how pointless and ludicrous it is to try and decide this, or how on earth do you measure it - but who set the completely made up line of acceptable standard

That's been plucked out of thin air, and then treated as some form of gospel truth.

Even if we could accurately measure the grip created by the human hand, and surely everyone is different, what is the logic for the approved gloves in this context?

Are they an acceptably modest improvement over the bare hand, and if so who made that decision, based on what? Who decided that "X" above the line is ok, but "Y" isn't?

Or are they saying all gloves below the level of the hand are ok? So if you are prepared to accept a slipperiness worse than the bare hand then you can wear what you want?

There is no logic or science to any of this because at some point, someone has just made some base standard up - plucked a line out of the air.

I think the match review panel should be in charge of this. They have a history in ensuring arbitrary and contradictory decisions are represented as science.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The helmet gave Burke an unfair advantage of going for the hard ball head first.

Quit while are a looooong way behind, hypocrite.

Lynch has two choices; one is to use an AFL approved glove the other is to not use a glove and just tape his fingers up - there is no medical reason whatsoever for him to need a glove let alone one that has been banned.

 

[Strahany]

Another logically sound post.



I agree with this, but I think it can be looked at an even simpler level

They are trying to figure out which gloves give more grip than the arbitrary median line, and which ones don't.

Its not even how pointless and ludicrous it is to try and decide this, or how on earth do you measure it - but who set the completely made up line of acceptable standard

That's been plucked out of thin air, and then treated as some form of gospel truth.

Even if we could accurately measure the grip created by the human hand, and surely everyone is different, what is the logic for the approved gloves in this context?

Are they an acceptably modest improvement over the bare hand, and if so who made that decision, based on what? Who decided that "X" above the line is ok, but "Y" isn't?

Or are they saying all gloves below the level of the hand are ok? So if you are prepared to accept a slipperiness worse than the bare hand then you can wear what you want?

There is no logic or science to any of this because at some point, someone has just made some base standard up - plucked a line out of the air.

You're kidding when you question how it is even possible to measure the level of grip, right? Grip is merely an extension of frictional forces (with some static attraction, in some cases) between two objects. It's extremely easy to test grip......

Of course everyone is different; for someone who criticises the method of testing these gloves, you have very little grasp of how scientific testing is carried out. There will be variables in almost everything in life; what science does is test whether the subject in question (in this case the grip of the glove) is beyond what could be expected to arise due to this variation, based on probability. i.e A coin toss is rated as a 50/50 chance; just because you flip it 100 times and get 52 heads/48 tails doesn't mean that it isn't 50/50, as that is a small variation that can be accounted for in the laws of probability.

Gloves that are beyond the acceptable variability of "hand grip" would have been banned, whilst anything within that variation, or below, were allowed. As for the "arbitrary median line", and what constitutes an acceptable amount of variation, this is simply and easily established by looking at an average level of grip in a group of male hands. This is stuff a year 7 science class could carry out to a reasonable level of accuracy.


If you're going to question something about this issue, make sure it's not the science behind it because it's as straightforward as you'll get.

 

[QuietB]

Another logically sound post.



I agree with this, but I think it can be looked at an even simpler level

They are trying to figure out which gloves give more grip than the arbitrary median line, and which ones don't.

Its not even how pointless and ludicrous it is to try and decide this, or how on earth do you measure it - but who set the completely made up line of acceptable standard

That's been plucked out of thin air, and then treated as some form of gospel truth.

Even if we could accurately measure the grip created by the human hand, and surely everyone is different, what is the logic for the approved gloves in this context?

Are they an acceptably modest improvement over the bare hand, and if so who made that decision, based on what? Who decided that "X" above the line is ok, but "Y" isn't?

Or are they saying all gloves below the level of the hand are ok? So if you are prepared to accept a slipperiness worse than the bare hand then you can wear what you want?

There is no logic or science to any of this because at some point, someone has just made some base standard up - plucked a line out of the air.

These are all US products and you can bet that they have been tested repeatedly to more detail than anything the AFL could come up with. There was an add (or promo, segment or something) on ESPN for a while showing a comparison between human hands and gloves using a pressure test including old style gloves with good grip and new gloves with unbelievable grip. Cannot remember the numbers but it might have been 100-200% Improved grip performance, maybe more (measured on an NFL ball). The benefit was huge.

 

[Vader]

The sheep can satisfy themselves with whatever turds they are served up and ask for 2nd and 3rd serves, but for all the hot-air that has been served up over the last 2 pages, no-one has a response to the most basic propositions.

#1 - where is the evidence of significant glove advantage? Where? My bet, and feel free to engage it, is that the AFL got an idea into it's head and commissioned a report. That report showed some infitisimal advantage and gloves were ranked 10-1.

I'd be surpised if a sensible evaluation of the results waranted the investment,let alone the change. But having invested a bunch of money here, there must be an outcome.

#2 - There will always be some miniscule advantage in all manner of sporting apparel. Greater breathability of some uniforms, greater 'directional energy' of football boots (see other studies from glove author Prof Fuss), headband absorbence and sweat.

Any pedant who wants to drill into the entrails will find a big nothing to make a big deal of. I would have thought spending money on playing surfaces rather than pointless studies into football paraphenalia would be more worthwhile.

#3 - some people here are incapable of consistent reasoning. They are okay with resin, strapping, jabs, protective head gear and gel soles, but not with a glove.

OH no, not the uber-glove! It's the elephant in the room isn't it. A frightful advantage that will ruin the game.

That's all we've been talking about the last decade - when will they end this charade. Ludicrous

I'm sorry, but this is nothing but unmitigated garbage. Did you even read the AFL's media release which told the public why they made the decision they did?

The gloves were put through numerous tests (4 from memory), in both wet & dry conditions.

The release said that only 2 provided any improvement in the wet - and that improvement was marginal. However, when tested under dry conditions the 6 they banned all showed significant improvement over bare hand grip levels, which is why they were banned.

Just because you can't find the study (which was probably never released to the public - not surprising as it was privately commissioned), doesn't give you the right to accuse the scientists of shoddy science, based on nothing but flawed assumptions and illogical guesses.

Things like headbands, breathable uniforms, gel based soles, give only marginal improvement to the player - 1 or 2% at best. These gloves improve grip levels by greater than 100% (the ESPN documentary quoted figures of up to 400%). That's not marginal, it's a significant performance advantage.

As for resin.. the fact that it's not used and your lack of understanding as to why, reveals major weaknesses in your understanding (and therefore your argument). Increased grip levels come with both benefits and costs. The benefit is that it makes marking and collecting the ball significantly easier. The cost is that it makes disposing of the ball much harder, because the ball tends to stick in the hand at the point of release. This is why players frequently remove their gloves before taking a set shot on goal - they get all the benefit, without the cost. Wearing gloves makes sense for the KPP forward, whose primary job is to mark the ball and kick goals. It makes no sense for a midfielder, who lives and dies by his disposal.

 

[Vader]

Another logically sound post.

No.. it's completely lacking in logic. There's not one shred of common sense contained in the entire post.

They are trying to figure out which gloves give more grip than the arbitrary median line, and which ones don't.

Its not even how pointless and ludicrous it is to try and decide this, or how on earth do you measure it - but who set the completely made up line of acceptable standard

That's been plucked out of thin air, and then treated as some form of gospel truth.

Ummm.. no. Not even close. There's nothing arbitrary about it. There are several tests which can be conducted to test grip & friction levels. The testing the AFL commissioned did 4 such tests.

The fact that you have no understanding of science, the scientific method, or understanding as what tests could be conducted does not diminish the value of the tests, it just demonstrates your ignorance.

Even if we could accurately measure the grip created by the human hand, and surely everyone is different, what is the logic for the approved gloves in this context?

Yes, everyone is different, which is why they would have tested a number of players and used statistical methods to determine an average value and a range over which variation might be reasonably expected.

Now, if the same players were tested again, this time with gloves, and the figures showed a significant (100%) improvement, that should be fairly easy to detect.

Are they an acceptably modest improvement over the bare hand, and if so who made that decision, based on what? Who decided that "X" above the line is ok, but "Y" isn't?

The report says that the banned gloves offered "significantly higher average grip than the bare human hand across four tests". They would not have been banned if the improvement was only "modest". The improvement was deemed to be "significant".

Or are they saying all gloves below the level of the hand are ok? So if you are prepared to accept a slipperiness worse than the bare hand then you can wear what you want?

The gloves which were banned offered a "significant" improvement, "high proportion of silicon on the palms" of the gloves. Gloves which offered no significant improvement were approved for use. Which part of this do you not understand?

There is no logic or science to any of this because at some point, someone has just made some base standard up - plucked a line out of the air.

No.. There is both logic and science involved. Your lack of understanding of the logic & science speaks volumes about you - it says nothing about the testing that the AFL had done by RMIT.

Please, before posting more irrational drivel, read the AFL's media release. You just might learn something.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-01-23/no-love-for-gloves