-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Lynch seeks glove exemption
- Thread starter Tas
- Start date
- Tagged users None
O
Old Spice
Guest
PieBeast
Brownlow Medallist
Must have been one hell of a study to come up with concerns about the potential competitive grip advantage.
O
Old Spice
Guest
Watch the closing doors
Hold on, there was some study. But we don't know much about it, or what arbitrary standards and elections were included - or what conclusions were based on what.
Who decided what was acceptable advantage and how much was significant and unfair?
Its like all legislation for legislation sake, self satisfying, self selecting, self justifying.
I'll say again for what must be the 25th time in this thread: if these gloves provided such an unfair advantage, how come next to no one uses them????
That is empirical evidence that the pros are balanced by the cons.
We have drug scandals because everyone wants an advantage - why do players not want this one?
I suggest to you that there is a very good reason why this study was not published - its methods & findings would be subject to fierce debate & challenge
Wouldn't that be annoying?
So, it turned up nothing. And they just reported that there was a "significant higher" average grip levels because they were trying to justify their expenditure that nobody knew they made till they made their media release?
The AFL probably doesn't expect anyone to be doubting the results of the study. If they did, they probably wouldn't care what a couple of people on an internet forum think given they equate an entire engineering discipline to homeopathy. Or, perhaps there is a confidentiality clause because the authors have a paper on the way. I know when I release any of my reports it includes a disclaimer that it is only for the client's internal use and provision of the report to any other party must be approved by us. Who knows?
What did you expect, them to release the paper just so "Old Spice" on Bigfooty is satisfied the results are proper? The AFL commissioned reports on head injuries and has been only quoting them, not releasing them. Do you also not believe that repeated concussions can cause brain damage?
Why withhold?
Its not usual or typical practice
I'll tell you why, because having commissioned it you needed to have something to show for it - and the results were open to wider interpretation.
Yeah, it doesn't provide any grip advantage at all. Which is why Lynch wants his gloves, not another one. Which is why in the NFL almost every receiver or DB wears gloves.
I think Treadrea put it best:
Only forwards can use the gloves (as they take them off going for goals). Or players like Maxwell who are shit kicks anyway. The AFL decided they didn't want that being an issue, so they banned those gloves that provided what they deemed as a significant grip advantage. Thereby removing the potential issue of inequality.
Fierce debate and challenge you reckon? How come there is no debate in the US that gloves increase grip? Where scientific studies exist and have been peer reviewed.
Whether or not you think it is right to ban them is a separate issue to denial of the evidence they provide grip, however you seem to conflate the two a lot.
Why did they need to have something to show for it? Nobody knew it existed until they made their media release...
And virtually no afl player
Different games you may have noticed
Yet he never wore on?
I seem to recall Matty Scarlet & Harley wearing gloves too
Were they forwards?
And yet they withheld all evidence
No one has said they don't provide grip, that's obvious and prosaic in equal measure
Question is unfair advantage, how much is too much
No one disputes boots provide protection, thats not the relevant question
O
Old Spice
Guest
If you are going to state the need for change, at least provide some evidence.
Surely that's the bare minimum required for a serious debate.
I'm happy to have my assumption proved wrong, but give me the evidence. That's something none of the proponents has been able to provide. We've had allusions to articles, but no authorative source. Some people will accept the most flimsy premise.
Surely that's the bare minimum required for a serious debate.
I'm happy to have my assumption proved wrong, but give me the evidence. That's something none of the proponents has been able to provide. We've had allusions to articles, but no authorative source. Some people will accept the most flimsy premise.
I answered my thoughts on that exact point in the post you quoted above.
This is just going around in circles so, I'm out and will wait with bated breath for the results.
By the way, Treadrea did wear a glove...
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #340
Nah, never.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Tredrea
Some anecdotal evidence for you to chew on.
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-gloves-are-off-20120205-1qzuh.html
O
Old Spice
Guest
I answered my thoughts on that exact point in the post you quoted above.
This is just going around in circles so, I'm out and will wait with bated breath for the results.
By the way, Treadrea did wear a glove...
Good point. Can see how cental the glove is in this marking situation.
Also can't believe how long the glove existed without us being aware of its insidious effects. Can't beleive Teadrea got away with it so long. The ultimate football deception.
Yet i've read it again and I can't find anything of the sort. Unsurprisingly.
How's about you spell it out for me answering this straight question
- if it provides such an advantage, why do so few players use them? both defenders & forwards do, in very small numbers.
If players don't think they provide an advantage - as proven by the incontrovertible low usage rate - what sort of advantage is there to argue about?
It won't take long, because you can copy n paste your answer apparently
O
Old Spice
Guest
Don't produce quote marks around a phrase like 'significant higher'. It's not a quote that could have turned up in a serious study. In fact it's not a quote that would appear in a report of a study that can be taken seriously. It's a grammatic brain fart.
You might have a confidentiality clause at your workplace, whatever that might be, but secrecy around a glove study? Please. We'd hate for North Korea to learn about it wouldn't we? It's all top shelf stuff.
The can affect your ball drop. Other players have been quoted as saying as much. It is why no midfielder uses them.
Strahany
Premiership Player
I'm quite enjoying watching this unfold. But if Sanders keeps this fundie-esque attitude up I may have to turn away.
strengthwithin
Team Captain
Attacking the credibility of the study reminds me of this.
Oh no, I dropped the -ly off significantly. The whole argument of everyone in this thread except for you and Sanders is shot.
This is thing. I fully agree there are all sorts of cons that come alongside any potential benefits.
I think we all get that, and on balance the vast majority of players feel its not worth it. Swings & roundabouts.
So how is it an unfair advantage when most decide the cons outweigh the pros?
Most forwards don't like them
Most defenders don't like them
Most ruckman and all onballers don't like them
Its not a benefit without cost. And I don't follow how you can rule on only one part of the equation.
If we saw the study we could see what has been considered, and the problem for the AFL might just be that we could see what has been considered
Oh no, I dropped the -ly off significantly. The whole argument of everyone in this thread except for you and Sanders is shot.
That's not his point.
Its an unquantified relativism. Scientific studies don't trade in those
