MFC Fans Only Non-Demons AFL Discussion – 2024

[Bluelegs]

I agree, but I’m pretty sure such a policy wouldn’t be worth the paper it is written on. I’m sure these ideas have been considered and discarded for that reason.

I haven’t a clue what the best solution is to the mess we are seeing. I would like the AFL to do a genuine, independent review into all of this mess to determine what they want from the game and what rules they need to make it consistent.

I know that you and I may have some differing views on rulings, particularly where injuries happen. But I think both of us would prefer consistency to understand what is considered right or wrong. That way all of us can decide whether to have their TV on or off for now or forever. The week to week interpretation is killing it for me.

There's gotta be a line here. The AFL can't wash their hands of their responsibilities to health and safety but the players have to accept a certain level of risk in playing a contact sport.

 

[Topkent]

I agree, but I’m pretty sure such a policy wouldn’t be worth the paper it is written on. I’m sure these ideas have been considered and discarded for that reason.

I haven’t a clue what the best solution is to the mess we are seeing. I would like the AFL to do a genuine, independent review into all of this mess to determine what they want from the game and what rules they need to make it consistent.

I know that you and I may have some differing views on rulings, particularly where injuries happen. But I think both of us would prefer consistency to understand what is considered right or wrong. That way all of us can decide whether to have their TV on or off for now or forever. The week to week interpretation is killing it for me.

I'm sure there's something although my lawyer skills begin and end with knowing if you write allegedly you can say anything you want. But how do combat sports exist then? The NHL has a no fault policy so they can fight on the ice. Either that or forced retirement of anyone with more than 2 concussions then an they can only play on under their own choice? I dunno but there's campaigners suing right now who would have head knocks from marking contests guaranteed, they aren't all off the ball hits. Even Gus hardly got any from bumps, one was from a soccered ball to the face

 

[Topkent]

There's gotta be a line here. The AFL can't wash their hands of their responsibilities to health and safety but the players have to accept a certain level of risk in playing a contact sport.

I hate it but I can accept the off the ball bumps and punches and things being gone, but surely unless you ban marking contests and tackling to the ground you will never ever eliminate concussion. Secretly I hope a heap of players start going for the ball head first and there's a rise in concussions because of poor technique

 

[Proper Gander]

There's gotta be a line here. The AFL can't wash their hands of their responsibilities to health and safety but the players have to accept a certain level of risk in playing a contact sport.

The issues of impact from contact in sport, emergency medical intervention, bumping someone on a tram when full already exist. There are also lots of casual sports and entertainment experiences that use waivers from liability such as bungy-jumping etc (no idea how that is spelled) but the waivers only serve as a warning to the participants - they have no value in a court where there is injury. Statute always trumps contracts, and few of these agreements are even contracts.

Having said that, I agree that it is absolutely time for the AFL to clearly determine a line of what they will permit in Australian football. And tell us what that is. And tell us why. And allow grown up people to decide whether they want to spend time, effort and money on whatever competition they decide it must be.

At the moment they want it both ways. I’m over it and would enjoy some honesty and coherence.

 

[Bluelegs]

I'm sure there's something although my lawyer skills begin and end with knowing if you right allegedly you can say anything you want. But how do combat sports exist then? The NHL has a no fault policy so they can fight on the ice. Either that or forced retirement of anyone with more than 2 concussions then an they can only play on under their own choice? I dunno but there's campaigners suing right now who would have head knocks from marking contests guaranteed, they aren't all off the ball hits. Even Gus hardly got any from bumps, one was from a soccered ball to the face

Stuntmen, defence force jobs, etc. Some professions just have an element of risk you've got to be willing to accept.

 

[Topkent]

Stuntmen, defence force jobs, etc. Some professions just have an element of risk you've got to be willing to accept.

Yeah exactly. Like id rather watch slightly less skills with the element of risk than watch an all skill no contact sport that isn't Aussie rules. Every north american I've met who's seen Aussie rules loves it and it's the sport with ' no rules '
Not any more, it's the sport that's only rules.

 

[Topkent]

Basically it's become a sport where guys are scared to take possession because priors gone, scared to tackle because of concussion risk and scared to contest a 50/50 in the air or ground. It's the exact opposite of where our game started.

 

[Proper Gander]

I'm sure there's something although my lawyer skills begin and end with knowing if you write allegedly you can say anything you want. But how do combat sports exist then? The NHL has a no fault policy so they can fight on the ice. Either that or forced retirement of anyone with more than 2 concussions then a they can only play on under their own choice? I dunno but there's campaigners suing right now who would have head knocks from marking contests guaranteed, they aren't all off the ball hits. Even Gus hardly got any from bumps, one was from a soccered ball to the face

This may be a new record for how many times I agree with you in a 24 hour period.

My lawyer skills are the same as yours. I did a Master of Laws finishing in 2019 or so, but that has no bearing whatsoever on how you would actually perform as a lawyer. I only did it because a) it was quite fun and interesting, b) I’d hit a career ceiling that could only be punched through with more quals, and c) I truly don’t recall what that was about but it seemed a good idea at starting point.

What I did learn is that law doesn’t teach you much about what is fair, just, proportional or right so we are both in the same area of no clue.

If I had to guess about your examples though, I do believe that USA law has more scope for binding agreements that give weight to their policies on contact sport and permit waivers and such. Australia and UK not so much. This is a pretty wild guess based on vague recollection of conversations with mates who may or may not know their stuff.

 

[Proper Gander]

Stuntmen, defence force jobs, etc. Some professions just have an element of risk you've got to be willing to accept.

Agree.

Where the issues arise in Australian Football occur outside the parameters of “acceptable risk”.

WHO decides this week to week? Accredited AFL umpires. The legal issue arises where even though you have accepted the possibility of force against your person in your job, Australian law deems it not applicable where you meet force that shouldn’t occur within your duties which are to play Australian football within the laws of the game.

Who decides what is within the rules of the game? Umpires!

One of the roles of the tribunal which nobody dares mention is to mediate solutions to vast numbers of potential court cases. They seem to succeed in that part. They don’t get credit though because we all know that the reason there are so few assault charges pressed in this game, or in any contact sport, are quite different.

For my part though I just want a consistent message, fair application of the rules and an understanding of what the AFL wants from its players. If I don’t enjoy watching it, fine. I’ll return to my primary sporting investment in obsession over test cricket.

 

[Topkent]

This may be a new record for how many times I agree with you in a 24 hour period.

My lawyer skills are the same as yours. I did a Master of Laws finishing in 2019 or so, but that has no bearing whatsoever on how you would actually perform as a lawyer. I only did it because a) it was quite fun and interesting, b) I’d hit a career ceiling that could only be punched through with more quals, and c) I truly don’t recall what that was about but it seemed a good idea at starting point.

What I did learn is that law doesn’t teach you much about what is fair, just, proportional or right so we are both in the same area of no clue.

If I had to guess about your examples though, I do believe that USA law has more scope for binding agreements that give weight to their policies on contact sport and permit waivers and such. Australia and UK not so much. This is a pretty wild guess based on vague recollection of conversations with mates who may or may not know their stuff.

I don't even understand the retroactive concussion lawsuits. As far as I'm aware even doctors thought concussions were a rub dirt in it injury not that long ago, if in 20 years from now they find chemotherapy isn't best practice and you don't need to blast radiation into people to help them are cancer patients gonna be able to sue?

 

[Topkent]

Agree.

Where the issues arise in Australian Football occur outside the parameters of “acceptable risk”.

WHO decides this week to week? Accredited AFL umpires. The legal issue arises whe even though you have accepted the possibility of force against your person in your job, Australian law deems it not applicable where you meet force that shouldn’t occur within your duties which are to play Australian football within the laws of the game.

Who decides what is within the rules of the game? Umpires!

One of the roles of the tribunal which nobody dares mention is to mediate solutions to vast numbers of potential court cases. They seem to succeed in that part. They don’t get credit though because we all know that the reason there are so few assault charges pressed in this game, or in any contact sport, are quite different.

For my part though I just want a consistent message, fair application of the rules and an understanding of what the AFL wants from its players. If I don’t enjoy watching it, fine. I’ll return to my primary sporting investment in obsession over test cricket.

AFL's scared of losing junior numbers if they promote violence or say they want no contact but I never really understood that argument. More kids play soccer and that was supposed to be a huge threat, no one gives a **** about soccer still, the girls team sure but I'm not sure they'll ever be as popular again as the home world Cup. Mean while the UFC and mix martial arts is the fastest growing sport in the world and has almost no youth participation..

 

[Demon Attack]

The campaigners playing AFL are adults earning 6 figures. If they don't want to accept some risk they can go dig holes for a living.

 

[Topkent]

The campaigners playing AFL are adults earning 6 figures. If they don't want to accept some risk they can go dig holes for a living.

Me laser level tipped over and nogganed me the other week, dangerous game digging holes.

 

[Proper Gander]

I don't even understand the retroactive concussion lawsuits. As far as I'm aware even doctors thought concussions were a rub dirt in it injury not that long ago, if in 20 years from now they find chemotherapy isn't best practice and you don't need to blast radiation into people to help them are cancer patients gonna be able to sue?

Definitely.

Thalidomide was genuinely considered safe for use in pregnancy. The people born afflicted with the results could, and did sue.

It’s a tricky one whether to seek recompense from someone who just got it wrong rather than for someone who deliberately hid or obscured the facts for their own reasons (like big tobacco). But court action in thes cases is focussed on restoring balance, like the scales of justice, so a genuine victim always has the benefit of the doubt.

AFL doesn’t really have this problem now, other than some longer term Steven Smith disputes which we haven’t seen rulings. I doubt we ever will - payouts and non-disclosure will probably be the method to deal with those.

The real problem that the AFL has is that it took so long to recognise CTE, or maybe it did recognise it but put it in the too hard basket. I went to a game more than a decade ago with my doggy supporter friend at marvel and saw Lewis knocked out and even fitting after a collision and then sent out to play in the final quarter. I didn’t have much knowledge then but it totally freaked me out. And this was more than a decade after the CTE issues had been established as a serious issue in American football.

I have no solutions to this. I don’t want to watch touch footy, but I also don’t want careers to end in the Brayshaw manner. At this point I just want the AFL to have the balls to decide where they stand, apply their decisions consistently and give adult people a chance to then decide whether they want to follow or not.

And I totally don’t want to see more crap about landmark ruling by the crappy tribunal on actions and injuries. It only highlights the lack of thought that has been in the sport for the last 20 years. Make a bloody decision about what is or is not cool. Tell us. Tell the players first - they don’t know how to play the game this year because the vibe changes every week.

 

[Proper Gander]

AFL's scared of losing junior numbers if they promote violence or say they want no contact but I never really understood that argument. More kids play soccer and that was supposed to be a huge threat, no one gives a **** about soccer still, the girls team sure but I'm not sure they'll ever be as popular again as the home world Cup. Mean while the UFC and mix martial arts is the fastest growing sport in the world and has almost no youth participation..

Pretty sure the scare off youngsters (or their mums) is a made up argument. I’ve not seen any survey data behind it.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

The AFL has the same problem as the NFL. They've spent a very long time hiding evidence so that when they do get sued they'll be extra ****ed once their shit is dug up in discovery.

 

[melbun]

Victorian OH&S laws are draconian. Presumably, this is what scares the AFL more than anything else.

 

[Crusty Demon]

Victorian OH&S laws are draconian. Presumably, this is what scares the AFL more than anything else.

Yeah SEN had a lawyer on the other day explaining why there are so many reasons getting a player to sign a waiver in regards to not suing the AFL will be immediately thrown out of court. It's up to the employer to provide a safe workplace. Whether we like it or not, the concussion, head knock issues aren't going away or being fixed by getting any player to sign a waiver. Players just have to find a way to tackle or bump without injuring the opponent or knocking the head. If that means less contact or players pulling back from attacking the ball or player more, then that's the game we have moving forward. Only a handful of players been suspended due to dangerous tackles or bumps this season. So players are already getting better at it.

 

[melbun]

Yeah SEN had a lawyer on the other day explaining why there are so many reasons getting a player to sign a waiver in regards to not suing the AFL will be immediately thrown out of court. It's up to the employer to provide a safe workplace. Whether we like it or not, the concussion, head knock issues aren't going away or being fixed by getting any player to sign a waiver. Players just have to find a way to tackle or bump without injuring the opponent or knocking the head. If that means less contact or players pulling back from attacking the ball or player more, then that's the game we have moving forward. Only a handful of players been suspended due to dangerous tackles or bumps this season. So players are already getting better at it.

If the AFL is based in the NT or NZ does this solve the problem?

 

[Bluelegs]

Yeah SEN had a lawyer on the other day explaining why there are so many reasons getting a player to sign a waiver in regards to not suing the AFL will be immediately thrown out of court. It's up to the employer to provide a safe workplace. Whether we like it or not, the concussion, head knock issues aren't going away or being fixed by getting any player to sign a waiver. Players just have to find a way to tackle or bump without injuring the opponent or knocking the head. If that means less contact or players pulling back from attacking the ball or player more, then that's the game we have moving forward. Only a handful of players been suspended due to dangerous tackles or bumps this season. So players are already getting better at it.

Couldn't a player sue over any injury sustained while playing? A hamstring, an ACL? How do you define a safe workplace when that workplace is a contact sport?

 

[Topkent]

Couldn't a player sue over any injury sustained while playing? A hamstring, an ACL? How do you define a safe workplace when that workplace is a contact sport?

Yeah that's a load. That means you can sue if a player takes mark of the year on you and hits you in the head. Why can't Petracca sue for broken ribs and damaged spleen? The safe workplace nonsense can be taken to the nth degree. What about players with persistent shoulder damage?

 

[Crusty Demon]

Couldn't a player sue over any injury sustained while playing? A hamstring, an ACL? How do you define a safe workplace when that workplace is a contact sport?

I'm not a lawyer mate. No idea. Just repeating what was said on SEN. Getting players signing a waiver isn't going to make any difference. If they have issues from head knocks, then the AFL are still liable regardless. I believe The Ox mentioned one time that ex players with old injuries do get some compensation. Although i have no idea where that money comes from or how much it is. That was awhile ago now he said that, but i can't recall if he said it was medical expenses that were covered or partly covered and who exactly is entitled to that money. Concussions and head trauma is a whole new ball game.

 

[melbun]

I think the best way to reduce concussions is to soften the grounds.

The AFL currently specifies a harness standard for grounds. So if you get concussion from your head hitting a hard ground then, yes, blame the AFL.

 

[stEdy]

Soft grounds creates new issues - and making the grounds softer (but still hard enough to reasonably play footy on) will make little difference to concussion where a lot of impacts are from other players shoulders/knees/hips etc

 

[Crusty Demon]

The campaigners playing AFL are adults earning 6 figures. If they don't want to accept some risk they can go dig holes for a living.

I don't know if anyone who cops brain injuries should just accept it because they earn 6 figures kicking a football around. The governing body still has to make it as safe as possible. We're going through some teething problems with what is acceptable and not acceptable in regards to bumping and tackling. I think we've got there with bumping, but the game is still finding it's way with the tackling side of things. And there's always a risk factor when playing any sport, especially contact sport like AFL and rugby. As long as it's within the rules of the game, and that's what the game is working through now. Players are already adapting. Whether it's as good a spectacle or not, well that's up to each individual supporter. I love the brutality of the past, but clearly there's an issue with head trauma that needed to be addressed.