They drew the line at gloves that are sticky. Hence Lynch's is banned. You're saying that isn't where they should draw the line, so you're the one saying it should be somewhere else.
-
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
Boots have rules too. Just like the gloves. Which Lynch's are not within.Yeah exactly, your argument has followed itself so far down the worm hole that the only thing that's left is "the AFL did it, so it must be right".
What exactly happened in 2012 that precipitated this? Was it the awesome career best years of Q, Dawes, & Cloke?
What happened to make people stand up, take notice, and say these gloves that everyone can wear, are giving an advantage that must be stopped?
What was the tipping point other than stupid meddling for the sake of it?
#banboots
Are you saying there should be no rules on anything the players wear? Or just gloves? And boots apparently.
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,270
- 62,171
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
Your logic is sound and I agree... as long as Lynch (and others) agree to keep the glove on for the whole game.
To run with your footy boots analogy - would it be fair if we let the forwards wear the same boots as the mids, only for them to take them off when they're going to have a shot at goal and replace them with boots that help them kick straighter, and then replace them again with boots that help them run like a midfielder?
No?
Then why is it fair that a forward has an advantage in a marking contest even if there's three barehanded midfielders going up with him - only for him to be allowed to remove that advantage and have a shot at goal barehanded?
That forward is getting the best of both worlds and it's unfair to the rest of the players on the field. If that forward was forced to deal with the awkward sticky ball drop like a midfielder would in the middle of the action then I would agree it was fair.
That doesn't logically follow at all. Makes no sense.
Why does it matter if all players can put on or take off equipment as they sit fit.
That's trying to find an argument to fit your opinion, not basing your opinion on the argument
Where do you draw the line? Fair question I think, and not easy for sports adminstrators for all sports to answer (think: aluminium cricket bats, broom handled putters, etc). Clearly, the AFL have - after consideration - drawn a line regarding sticky gloves after seeing where they have been heading in NFL.
Are they right or wrong? Does it matter? They've made the ruling and I can't see how they can go back on it when the first player steps up and says they don't like the non-sticky gloves...
I disagree with your point, however I see where you are coming from.
O
Old Spice
Guest
Ah, now now, let's get this right. You stated:
The HS quote is a significant deviation from what you suggest.
You suggest he requests an illegal glove because it is sticky. The HS quote suggests the gloves with lack of grip are rejected because it puts his dodgy finger at risk. You see the distinction, or the connection here of grip and Health and Safety?
O
Old Spice
Guest
So if the AFL decided to run tests on boots, and decided one brand had a slight advantage in slightly wider or longer stops, a re-inforced tongue, softer leather, a gel layer etc. Should those boots be outlawed or should every player be allowed to use them if they choose to?
It's quite evident that footy boots have changed significantly over the last 30 years, just as bathers have changed for swimmers, or running atire in T&F.
It's just Pre-Copernican nutiness to suggest in isolation a glove is some unique apparatus that has to be put an end to.
Sorry, Old Spice, but I don't see the deviation you are referring to. I read the HS quote as saying his reason for rejecting the legal gloves were that they were less sticky than a normal hand and therefore a disadvantage. He, however, has a need to wear gloves to provide protection to his finger and therefore he would be disadvantaged because of his injury.
I don't see the link you suggest that somehow the lack of grip creates an OH&S issue for him (and I can't see how that could be the case).
On the position I believe he is representing - that he is disadvantaged in wearing the approved gloves to help manage an injury - then I respectully suggest he is joining a long list of players hampered and disadvantaged by long term injury management issues.
Obese Arachnid
Diplomatic Immunity
- Jan 11, 2008
- 24,583
- 90,502
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- There are no other teams.
I'm not reading four more pages of this.
Lynch needs to use a glove that is AFL compliant.
Either this is achieved through modifying the stickiness of his preferred glove, along with modification to fit finger requirements or an AFL compliant glove must be found & modified.
Lynch needs to use a glove that is AFL compliant.
Either this is achieved through modifying the stickiness of his preferred glove, along with modification to fit finger requirements or an AFL compliant glove must be found & modified.
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,270
- 62,171
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
Not at all. The fact that certain players can pick and choose when to wear equipment cuts to the very heart of this issue.
Why do you think the NFL doesn't care about wide receivers wearing gloves? Because all they do in any team is catch the ball. And the only people who ever oppose them are also only there to either catch the ball. Barehanded guys like the QB never compete against them.
Yet we're trying to transpose this onto the ultimate egalitarian game of Aussie where any player can compete against any player for a mark at any time, and they can come from any position on the field.
Yet your trying to tell me that a KPP should get an unfair advantage over a mid/defender because they're allowed to wear gloves? Fine, let defenders wear gloves too, but make sure there's a 30 second stop in play after they mark it so they can take their glove off too and have a decent chance at kicking the ball. Otherwise in what way is it fair?
Again, I have nothing against gloves, but if you want to wear them, wear them for the whole match. Don't try cherry pick when you should be allowed to wear them when there's another 24 guys out there who don't have that luxury.
O
Old Spice
Guest
As per the article, the AFL approved gloves 'were actually more slippery than bare hands and therefore a disadvantage'. So, Lynch needs the gloves to give support to his finger, but the ones on offer actually represent a disadvantage as they are more slippery than bare hands.
And as stated above, strapping, resin, jabs etc ae by no means natural, but so long as everyone has access to the same gear, what on god's earth is the problem?
You need to brush up on your comprehension skills:
Not, doesn't protect my hand as well.
- May 3, 2006
- 11,979
- 7,033
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Perth, Donnybrook FC, Steelers
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit
Only that the AFL have banned the stickier gloves... We could debate all day the merits of that, and a myriad of rules that have been introduced in the past few years, and we'd probably not get close to understanding the logic in AFL house.
I wish the Q Stick all the best in getting his case heard - the finger injury looks rough and hope he is able to manage it well. That said, I can't honestly see the AFL giving him dispensation in this case, although my track record in making sense of AFL decisions is not great, so he might get the approval.
They already do this. Boots have been banned by the AFL before.
O
Old Spice
Guest
Is that so. Can you point me to the relevant information?
Strahany
Premiership Player
To compare this "the legal gloves are disadvantageous" issue to something that is already widely used in the game, we should look at strapping of various body parts.
Take the shoulders, for example. A player with shoulder issues that has strapping applied is putting themselves at a disadvantage in marking contests due to having a restricted range of motion in their arms. These players accept this disadvantage because they aknowledge that this is the safest way for them to play the game legally. They do not complain about this disadvantage or request some form of rule change in order for them to go without the strapping, such as being exempt from tackling, so why should Lynch have it any different?
If Lynch wants to play football without putting his finger at risk of further damage he must use one of the gloves that are on offer, and accept the fact that by playing through an injury he will be put at a disadvantage; just like every other injured player. His claim that the slipperiness of legal gloves may actually end up causing further damage doesn't wash with me; play within the rules or go away and get the finger fixed, which he's had plenty of time to do.
Take the shoulders, for example. A player with shoulder issues that has strapping applied is putting themselves at a disadvantage in marking contests due to having a restricted range of motion in their arms. These players accept this disadvantage because they aknowledge that this is the safest way for them to play the game legally. They do not complain about this disadvantage or request some form of rule change in order for them to go without the strapping, such as being exempt from tackling, so why should Lynch have it any different?
If Lynch wants to play football without putting his finger at risk of further damage he must use one of the gloves that are on offer, and accept the fact that by playing through an injury he will be put at a disadvantage; just like every other injured player. His claim that the slipperiness of legal gloves may actually end up causing further damage doesn't wash with me; play within the rules or go away and get the finger fixed, which he's had plenty of time to do.
Anyway boys, this is going around in circles, as with +TheFridge, I don't particularly understand why they made the decision they did. However, I understand why they need to make some equipment rules, just as with the swimmers and their suits.
O
Old Spice
Guest
he
I guess the issue with strapping is it's not applied in order to restrict the 'range of motion in (a players) arms' but to make sure they have the extra support for shoulders in addition to the muscle.
But nice try, OJ says hi.
I guess the issue with strapping is it's not applied in order to restrict the 'range of motion in (a players) arms' but to make sure they have the extra support for shoulders in addition to the muscle.
But nice try, OJ says hi.
O
Old Spice
Guest
I say bring in a full Tudor swimming costume. Everyone has to wear a ruffle, doublet and a codpiece...but not a sticky one.
Well, the banning of metal studs and screw in studs are some obvious examples, albeit based on OH&S grounds rather than performance enhancing grounds.
Argument is spurious though in this instance - the AFL have banned the sticky gloves already. Can't see them reverting back just because one player doesn't like the approved alternatives.
http://technologyinsport-vsc.blogspot.com.au/
As you demonstrate it plainly does not
Inappropriate example. Our game is continuous theirs is about discreet plays
No that's your claim, your words
There is no advantage
[/quote]
Fine, let defenders wear gloves too, but make sure there's a 30 second stop in play after they mark it so they can take their glove off too and have a decent chance at kicking the ball. Otherwise in what way is it fair? [/quote]
Not equivalent. A kpd can get away with just a punch, a forward needs to grab it.
What's more a defender can easily handball off, and does
And still you avoid the real question of advantage when its open to all. Heck not all forwards use them
The positional thing is a nonsense
That's just silly and has no relevance
