Player Watch Nathan Kreuger

Remove this Banner Ad

Dead Eye Didak said:
He can't play round 1, as he needs to sit out for 12 days with the concussion protocols, plus l wouldn't be surprised if he gets a week for the bump anyway. He looked very good though, and look forward to seeing what he produces this season....
Click to expand...
He’s eligible for Rd 1 if he gets a fine. Apparently you’re eligible on day 12 (according to Fox). I’m 50/50 on whether he goes my guess is rough conduct low impact, careless and high contact. It needs to be graded medium impact for him to get a week which is where the 50/50 comes into it.

Edit: you just got me TRS
 
Scodog10 said:
He’s eligible for Rd 1 if he gets a fine. Apparently you’re eligible on day 12 (according to Fox). I’m 50/50 on whether he goes my guess is rough conduct low impact, careless and high contact. It needs to be graded medium impact for him to get a week which is where the 50/50 comes into it.

Edit: you just got me TRS
Click to expand...
The rule on the concussion protocol is that players can return on the 12th day - which reads a bit more like bible scripture than a legal rule. Would have preferred they say you have to sit out 11 days.

Posted this in the Maynard thread, but the tribunal has new guidelines on assessing the impact of bumps:

any Careless or Intentional Forceful Front-On Conduct or Rough Conduct (High Bumps) where High Contact has been made and that has the potential to cause injury will usually be classified as either Medium, High or Severe Impact (i.e. not Low Impact) even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low.

On that basis I reckon even though he came off worse for wear, the Kreuger impact has to be at least Medium, more likely high. The only way he gets off is if they downgrade the contact from accidental as "it was reasonable for the player to contest the ball in that way".
 

Log in to remove this ad.

sideswipe said:
The rule on the concussion protocol is that players can return on the 12th day - which reads a bit more like bible scripture than a legal rule. Would have preferred they say you have to sit out 11 days.

Posted this in the Maynard thread, but the tribunal has new guidelines on assessing the impact of bumps:

any Careless or Intentional Forceful Front-On Conduct or Rough Conduct (High Bumps) where High Contact has been made and that has the potential to cause injury will usually be classified as either Medium, High or Severe Impact (i.e. not Low Impact) even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low.

On that basis I reckon even though he came off worse for wear, the Kreuger impact has to be at least Medium, more likely high. The only way he gets off is if they downgrade the contact from accidental as "it was reasonable for the player to contest the ball in that way".
Click to expand...
The concussion test should be trying to comprehend the concussion protocol
 
Scodog10 said:
He’s eligible for Rd 1 if he gets a fine. Apparently you’re eligible on day 12 (according to Fox). I’m 50/50 on whether he goes my guess is rough conduct low impact, careless and high contact. It needs to be graded medium impact for him to get a week which is where the 50/50 comes into it.

Edit: you just got me TRS
Click to expand...
He'll be unlucky to go as I think he was playing the ball until the last second when he knew he wasn't getting there first and braced for contact. But the bloke was pretty groggy - wouldn't that make it medium impact?
 
Dead Eye Didak said:
He can't play round 1, as he needs to sit out for 12 days with the concussion protocols, plus l wouldn't be surprised if he gets a week for the bump anyway. He looked very good though, and look forward to seeing what he produces this season....
Click to expand...

Club has said he could play
 
sideswipe said:
The rule on the concussion protocol is that players can return on the 12th day - which reads a bit more like bible scripture than a legal rule. Would have preferred they say you have to sit out 11 days.

Posted this in the Maynard thread, but the tribunal has new guidelines on assessing the impact of bumps:

any Careless or Intentional Forceful Front-On Conduct or Rough Conduct (High Bumps) where High Contact has been made and that has the potential to cause injury will usually be classified as either Medium, High or Severe Impact (i.e. not Low Impact) even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low.

On that basis I reckon even though he came off worse for wear, the Kreuger impact has to be at least Medium, more likely high. The only way he gets off is if they downgrade the contact from accidental as "it was reasonable for the player to contest the ball in that way".
Click to expand...
I wasn’t aware of the update on impact so he has to go because whilst it was reasonable to bump in that way by choosing to do so the act was careless. I’m not sure I like the change to the contact interpretation, but it at least makes sense.

I’m more interested in how Maynard’s is classified because Lloyd was concussed when his head hit the ground so the contact itself wasn’t high impact, however is it deemed a football action and low impact that happened to throw Lloyd off balance or a non football action with medium contact. Basically one or two weeks. That’s without knowing the provisions for arguing an accident due to the first contact being with the ball which I assume will be hard to argue anyway because it was a swinging arm…
 
Scodog10 said:
I wasn’t aware of the update on impact so he has to go because whilst it was reasonable to bump in that way by choosing to do so the act was careless. I’m not sure I like the change to the contact interpretation, but it at least makes sense.

I’m more interested in how Maynard’s is classified because Lloyd was concussed when his head hit the ground so the contact itself wasn’t high impact, however is it deemed a football action and low impact that happened to throw Lloyd off balance or a non football action with medium contact. Basically one or two weeks. That’s without knowing the provisions for arguing an accident due to the first contact being with the ball which I assume will be hard to argue anyway because it was a swinging arm…
Click to expand...
Been having some fun in the Maynard thread with that one. The contact gets assessed on what happened to Lloyd because of the contact. Here is the tribunal guideline excerpt,

"...consideration will be given not only to the impact between the offending Player and the Victim Player, but also any other impact to the Victim Player as a result of such impact". Put in legalspeak, the question is would the impact/injury have occurred but for Maynard's contact? If the answer is no, then Maynard is responsible for the result.

I see it at best as careless high contact high impact. 2 weeks.
 
sideswipe said:
Been having some fun in the Maynard thread with that one. The contact gets assessed on what happened to Lloyd because of the contact. Here is the tribunal guideline excerpt,

"...consideration will be given not only to the impact between the offending Player and the Victim Player, but also any other impact to the Victim Player as a result of such impact". Put in legalspeak, the question is would the impact/injury have occurred but for Maynard's contact? If the answer is no, then Maynard is responsible for the result.

I see it at best as careless high contact high impact. 2 weeks.
Click to expand...
That law only states it’s a consideration. For instance in considering that a football action* I would deem the contact of the players head with the ground as incidental to Maynard’s contact (much the same as I would someone being concussed from being kneed in the head when another player is taking a speccy).

Whilst the MRO’s view is likely to be different to mine I think this is one where the guidelines aren’t correct because there still needs to be scope for a player to undertake a football action and not be charged with a reportable offence due to unforeseen consequences.

*all hypothetical though because I’m still not sure I consider what he did a football action. Also not arguing that you’re wrong with any of this because I know it’s right, but rather how it’s interpreted.
 
Scodog10 said:
That law only states it’s a consideration. For instance in considering that a football action* I would deem the contact of the players head with the ground as incidental to Maynard’s contact (much the same as I would someone being concussed from being kneed in the head when another player is taking a speccy).

Whilst the MRO’s view is likely to be different to mine I think this is one where the guidelines aren’t correct because there still needs to be scope for a player to undertake a football action and not be charged with a reportable offence due to unforeseen consequences.

*all hypothetical though because I’m still not sure I consider what he did a football action. Also not arguing that you’re wrong with any of this because I know it’s right, but rather how it’s interpreted.
Click to expand...
Whether or not it is a "football action" - a term that I have not seen defined - goes to more around assessing whether intentional/careless/accidental.

The impact assessment is pretty cut and dried - based on those guidelines and the "but for' principle on which the guideline would have been based. If Lloyd's scone wouldn't have hit the ground but for Maynard's spoil, Maynard caused Lloyd to be knocked out.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sideswipe said:
Whether or not it is a "football action" - a term that I have not seen defined - goes to more around assessing whether intentional/careless/accidental.

The impact assessment is pretty cut and dried - based on those guidelines and the "but for' principle on which the guideline would have been based. If Lloyd's scone wouldn't have hit the ground but for Maynard's spoil, Maynard caused Lloyd to be knocked out.
Click to expand...
Spoil, marking attempt, fair tackle, fair bump etc. they’re football actions a swinging arm where contact is made with the ball first is marginal (I err toward it not being a football action BTW). Where that becomes relevant to contact was your question “would the impact/injury have occurred but for Maynard's contact?” Maynard is well within his rights to spoil and in the process of executing a spoil Lloyd could still have been injured hence why it’s a consideration only when it comes to contact and why football actions are taken into account.

A hypothetical. You’re of a vintage to remember Doull well I assume? I’m not so I’m wary of speaking out of turn, but I believe he had a move where he’d run with the flight jump and spin to spoil? That to him was a legitimate football action that he’d perfected and if in the process of doing that he bumped into a player side on who fell over and was concussed when their head hit the ground the way you’re interpreting the rules that would be high impact despite no free kick being warranted…
 
Scodog10 said:
Spoil, marking attempt, fair tackle, fair bump etc. they’re football actions a swinging arm where contact is made with the ball first is marginal (I err toward it not being a football action BTW). Where that becomes relevant to contact was your question “would the impact/injury have occurred but for Maynard's contact?” Maynard is well within his rights to spoil and in the process of executing a spoil Lloyd could still have been injured hence why it’s a consideration only when it comes to contact and why football actions are taken into account.

A hypothetical. You’re of a vintage to remember Doull well I assume? I’m not so I’m wary of speaking out of turn, but I believe he had a move where he’d run with the flight jump and spin to spoil? That to him was a legitimate football action that he’d perfected and if in the process of doing that he bumped into a player side on who fell over and was concussed when their head hit the ground the way you’re interpreting the rules that would be high impact despite no free kick being warranted…
Click to expand...
You are over-complicating it. It is unquestionable that there is sufficient causation between Maynard's act and Lloyd hitting the deck. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise. That it was the contact with the ground which caused the injury is akin to saying I didn't kill a driver when i bumped another car off the road. "It was the phone poll that done it."

Your Doull example (ugh, why bring him up btw?) is again a different situation. I can't recall the exact balletic move you are describing but if you are saying a spoil that was within the rules but also made head high contact, then it doesn't make it to being assessed.
 
Scodog10 said:
I’m more interested in how Maynard’s is classified because Lloyd was concussed when his head hit the ground so the contact itself wasn’t high impact, however is it deemed a football action and low impact that happened to throw Lloyd off balance or a non football action with medium contact. Basically one or two weeks. That’s without knowing the provisions for arguing an accident due to the first contact being with the ball which I assume will be hard to argue anyway because it was a swinging arm…
Click to expand...

Even if they rule out the impact of the ground - The question would be - how do we know? Did the head hit the ground solely because he was put off balance? Would he have landed that limply if he hadn't been made groggy by a whack in the head?
 
Scodog10 said:
A hypothetical. You’re of a vintage to remember Doull well I assume? I’m not so I’m wary of speaking out of turn, but I believe he had a move where he’d run with the flight jump and spin to spoil? That to him was a legitimate football action that he’d perfected and if in the process of doing that he bumped into a player side on who fell over and was concussed when their head hit the ground the way you’re interpreting the rules that would be high impact despite no free kick being warranted…
Click to expand...
It'd be high impact, but it wouldn't be deemed as careless, so there would be no suspension - you're allowed to knock blokes over without repercussion regardless of how they fall - you just can't iknock them over by smashing them in the head.

If in the act of spinning, he had a stray elbow out which smashed the bloke in the head and then the bloke's head hit the ground, then he'd be in trouble.
 
Last edited:
sideswipe said:
You are over-complicating it. It is unquestionable that there is sufficient causation between Maynard's act and Lloyd hitting the deck. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise. That it was the contact with the ground which caused the injury is akin to saying I didn't kill a driver when i bumped another car off the road. "It was the phone poll that done it."

Your Doull example (ugh, why bring him up btw?) is again a different situation. I can't recall the exact balletic move you are describing but if you are saying a spoil that was within the rules but also made head high contact, then it doesn't make it to being assessed.
Click to expand...
If a person changing lanes when they’re legally allowed to with poor technique causes the other driver to veer off the road do you think they should be charged with murder? Because poor technique is what Maynard used in attempting to spoil. Unfortunately none of this stuff can be as simplified as we’d all like it to be. As always it’s fun to clash sabres with you and even though you haven’t swayed my POV you have definitely informed me 👍
 
Scodog10 said:
If a person changing lanes when they’re legally allowed to with poor technique causes the other driver to veer off the road do you think they should be charged with murder? Because poor technique is what Maynard used in attempting to spoil. Unfortunately none of this stuff can be as simplified as we’d all like it to be. As always it’s fun to clash sabres with you and even though you haven’t swayed my POV you have definitely informed me 👍
Click to expand...
No to murder, yes to culpable driving causing death. Up to 20 years.
 
Dead Eye Didak said:
He can't play round 1, as he needs to sit out for 12 days with the concussion protocols, plus l wouldn't be surprised if he gets a week for the bump anyway. He looked very good though, and look forward to seeing what he produces this season....
Click to expand...
He can actually play Round 1.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch Nathan Kreuger

Similar threads

Footy Is The Win
Analysis The loss of Nathan Murphy
Replies
10
Views
463
cfc19902010
cfc19902010

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top