Lynch seeks glove exemption

[Donakebab]

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.

This is the only sensible outcome. It would be easier to modify a glove to provide appropriate protection than to modify the stickiness of a glove and have it tested to ensure it reaches the acceptable levels.

 

[jonbe54]

I don't get the relevance of your post. All I was saying is there would be better QCs available to Collingwood than Galbally.

FWIW, if you want brown paper bags, just ask Alex Waislitz for some. He can subtract the cost of them from the money he regularly donates to your club.

Good try but fail

 

[Wooshaman]

Good try but fail

dont worry about it mediumsizered , he'll never understand

 

[QuietB]

I think the picture of Lynch's finger said it all for me.

This is going to be a player who after he retires is going to have a serious case of arthritis in that finger. It's actually quite scary. You'd virtually have to break that finger, wire it together and then hope for the best. It's basically a lost season at the end of a player's career.

Let him play with the glove.

He is allowed to play with a glove - just not the one he wants. If we can put a man on the moon I am sure a football can find a complying glove.

 

[jonbe54]

dont worry about it mediumsizered , he'll never understand

You're about 3 stations behind the train woosh - giddyup

 

[Sanders]

Probably the same reason not everyone takes drugs, even legal drugs and supplements. People do not want to cheat, well, the vast majority.

That you call gloves "cheating" demeans you & your argument

 

[Sanders]

I struggle with the logic that says "afl banned them for a reason"

C'mon

 

[Pie eyed]

Has anyone actually seen Lynches glove up close?
Maybe its been modified so that the ring finger and the little finger go in the same slot?
Maybe he has more padding in his little finger?
Maybe he has a personal sponorship with a certain glove maker, hence not being able to wear a different glove?
Or maybe its just the 'Placibo Effect'?
I know when I ripped the tendon from the bone on one of my hands I used a glove until it healed because it bought your finger into a more upright position.
Any how, I'd put my money on the placibo effect though.

Maybe it's a "companion glove"
Who knows?
Who cares?
The AFL have bigger fish to fry rather than worry about a friggin glove...of any kind.
What about replacing those arsehats Ticketek for starters.
And sack the rules committee.

 

[Vader]

I struggle with the logic that says "afl banned them for a reason"

C'mon

Irrelevant. If you want to debate whether the AFL was right to ban them or not then you should have been posting in the thread discussing it, when it was announced 2 months ago.

The question now is not whether the gloves should be banned, but whether he should be allowed to use a banned glove.

 

[HFF]

A reasonable enough request I would have thought.

 

[Sanders]

Irrelevant. If you want to debate whether the AFL was right to ban them or not then you should have been posting in the thread discussing it, when it was announced 2 months ago.

The question now is not whether the gloves should be banned, but whether he should be allowed to use a banned glove.

The logical construct remains relevant at all times when used as an argument or justification

 

[sirene]

There has been no direct quote from Lynch that he needs a "banned" glove....the only DIRECT quotes from him is him saying he needs a glove and taping..........mmmmmm................but yeah, lets believe the media again..

P.S. Find the direct quote before you digress

 

[Vader]

The logical construct remains relevant at all times when used as an argument or justification

The fact remains that the glove Lynch wears has been declared to be illegal by the AFL. This is not open for debate - the time for that was 2 months ago, when the AFL announced it's decision. The decision is no different than when the cricket authorities banned the aluminium bat, golf banned the broomstick putter and swimming banned the shark skin swimsuit. The gloves were deemed to be performance enhancing, as a result of scientific testing, and were declared illegal. It's no longer up for debate. If that's the point which you wish to debate (and it appears to be the only basis for your argument), then you've missed the boat - it sailed 2 months ago and left you behind.

The only question is whether or not Lynch should get an exemption.

 

[Vader]

A reasonable enough request I would have thought.

Not reasonable at all. Nobody has a problem with him wearing a glove to protect his injured finger. There is no reason at all why the glove he uses has to be one of the gloves on the banned list, when there are plenty of "approved" gloves for him to choose from.

 

[sirene]

The fact remains that the glove Lynch wears has been declared to be illegal by the AFL. This is not open for debate - the time for that was 2 months ago, when the AFL announced it's decision. The decision is no different than when the cricket authorities banned the aluminium bat, golf banned the broomstick putter and swimming banned the shark skin swimsuit. The gloves were deemed to be performance enhancing, as a result of scientific testing, and were declared illegal. It's no longer up for debate. If that's the point which you wish to debate (and it appears to be the only basis for your argument), then you've missed the boat - it sailed 2 months ago and left you behind.

The only question is whether or not Lynch should get an exemption.

Anyone that wants to wear a glove whether legal or not still needs to get permission....Lynch has not said outright that he wants an illegal glove; he has simply says he wants to wear a glove (I do not know which glove he is asking permission for)......ANY GLOVE IN THE AFL YOU NEED TO ASK PERMISSION FOR!!!! Read the bloody articles!

 

[Tbone McGraw]

**** me. I was shocked when they banned gloves available to every single player.

Then to see a 10 page thread on lynch and his glove.

There are too many people with too much time and not much intelligence.

 

[Tas]

That you call gloves "cheating" demeans you & your argument

I don't have an argument, I have an opinion. I don't want players forced to wear gloves to compete on a level playing field.

AFL wouldn't ban them if they didn't give you an advantage.

 

[Vader]

Anyone that wants to wear a glove whether legal or not still needs to get permission....Lynch has not said outright that he wants an illegal glove; he has simply says he wants to wear a glove (I do not know which glove he is asking permission for)......ANY GLOVE IN THE AFL YOU NEED TO ASK PERMISSION FOR!!!! Read the bloody articles!

As far as I'm aware, the bolded statement is flat out wrong. The AFL tested 10 gloves and banned 6 of them. The other 4 were approved for use. As far as I am aware no further permission is required, as long as one of the approved gloves is to be worn.

The AFL has rejected six types of gloves for providing too much grip and has so far approved only four for the new campaign. The banned gloves are Under Armour Blur II, Ironclad Box Handler Safety, Nike Vapor Jet 2.0 Football Receiver, Nike Magnigrip Elite Remix 2.0, Nike Superbad and Gilbert Rugby.
The four approved brands are the Franklin Football, Gilbert Pro Netball, Grays Skinfit Hockey and Rawlings Adult Dynamics Fit 355 Series.

Here are the relevant quotes regarding Lynch's situation, taken from the previously quoted Herald Sun article:

"I have to wear a glove of some description," the 30-year-old Pies recruit said. "I either wear a glove or get my finger chopped off."

This establishes his need to wear a glove of some type, as protection for his injured finger. This appears to be accepted by both sides of the debate.

He said playing without a glove would endanger the finger, and gloves acceptable to the AFL were actually more slippery than bare hands and therefore a disadvantage.

This is not a direct quote - it is the journalist paraphrasing Lynch's words. There is no case made for him to use one of the banned gloves, other than the fact that he's not happy with the alternative. Tough luck.
The Age have also run with the story. Here is their equivalent to the previously quoted paragraph:

Some gloves were not banned, but were understood to not be suitable for Lynch.

Once again, this is the journalist paraphrasing Lynch's words. No reason is given as to why the approved gloves are "not suitable" - but we can safely assume from the Herald Sun's version that there is no medical reason why the approved gloves are unsuitable, only Lynch's disliking for them.

Does he need to use gloves? Yes.
Does he need approval from the AFL to use gloves? Not if they're on the approved list.
Is there any reason why his gloves have to come from the banned list? No such evidence has been provided.

There is no valid reason why he cannot wear an AFL approved glove, other than the fact that he doesn't like them. That is not a good enough reason for the AFL to grant him an exemption.

 

[sirene]

I don't have an argument, I have an opinion. I don't want players forced to wear gloves to compete on a level playing field.

AFL wouldn't ban them if they didn't give you an advantage.

Tas, find me a direct quote from Lynch that says he wants "BANNED" gloves.

 

[sirene]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-gloves-are-off-20120205-1qzuh.html

Only gloves with extra padding and registered with the league to be used for protective purposes are checked by umpires before games.
All other gloves are subject to AFL approval at the start of the year but can then be worn at any stage of the season, the AFL confirmed yesterday.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-gloves-are-off-20120205-1qzuh.html

I will find more, but this gives an idea of what I have found...

 

[Tas]

Tas, find me a direct quote from Lynch that says he wants "BANNED" gloves.

He wouldn't need permission to wear a non-banned glove.

The age article doesn't directly quote him, but said:

Some gloves were not banned, but were understood to not be suitable for Lynch.

​

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/lynch-seeks-glove-exemption-20130219-2epm6.html#ixzz2LXX2Gwfq​

and...​

He said playing without a glove would endanger the finger, and gloves acceptable to the AFL were actually more slippery than bare hands and therefore a disadvantage.

​

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/co...e-new-glove-rule/story-fnelctok-1226581391894​

What isn't said is why he just can't tape the little finger to his other finger, people tape up their fingers all the time.

 

[Tbone McGraw]

Tas, do you really care if lynch wears a glove?There are a lot more important things in life.

 

[Tas]

Tas, do you really care if lynch wears a glove?There are a lot more important things in life.

He isn't that good a player even with a glove, so not really. However, if we start to make exceptions to rules then we open up a can of worms. I don't want us to set a precedent that will be abused by someone who is a good enough player without the glove.

I am sure you guys would be all in favour of it if Hurley or some Carlton player wanted to wear a banned glove if nobody at Collingwood used gloves.

I have to question if you are honest with yourself or are so hypocritical it blinds you to the bleeding obvious. I don't want any north player to wear a glove, medical reason or not. Get it fixed or play with it if it's a pre-existing injury, and some North players do wear gloves.

I have always been against their use.

 

[Power Raid]

And if you can't play without shoulder strapping, you shouldn't play either.

What an abitrary designation!

Is it against the rules to have shoulder stapping?

 

[Sanders]

The fact remains that the glove Lynch wears has been declared to be illegal by the AFL. This is not open for debate - the time for that was 2 months ago, when the AFL announced it's decision. The decision is no different than when the cricket authorities banned the aluminium bat, golf banned the broomstick putter and swimming banned the shark skin swimsuit. The gloves were deemed to be performance enhancing, as a result of scientific testing, and were declared illegal. It's no longer up for debate. If that's the point which you wish to debate (and it appears to be the only basis for your argument), then you've missed the boat - it sailed 2 months ago and left you behind.

The only question is whether or not Lynch should get an exemption.

I'm sorry i don't accept that

Your original point was and remains, that the AFL it is wisdom banned these for good and proper reasons, and we should accept that they know best

That's not acceptable or stable logic in light of their track record

By all means argue that the decision was right, because it was right; not that its right because they made the decision

Saying that the decision has already been made does impact the above

The question of whether Q gets an exemption has direct bearing on the validity of the original reasoning

Reasoning which appears as opaque & transparent as an ACC report