Oppo Camp Non-Eagles Discussion

[Spod]

Three weeks for Bedford is absolutely nuts - unfortunate accident but nothing in it.

Could see one of two for Cameron given he drove Duggan backwards so hard (I also think whistle may have already gone?). Three feels somewhat excessive but possibly appropriate as karma for the last one.

Agree that the AFL needs to come down way harder on deliberate hits like Rosas. Insane to be so light on extremely dangerous cheap shots while going so hard on clumsy tackles.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Agree that the AFL needs to come down way harder on deliberate hits like Rosas. Insane to be so light on extremely dangerous cheap shots while going so hard on clumsy tackles.

They’ve completely lost what the purpose of a suspension is. A suspension punishes bad behaviour and encourages change over time by discouraging people from repeating said behaviour. Generally speaking it’s been pretty successful with most sling tackles as a result.

But then it does nothing about dog shot punches and elbows to the head unless they do the sufficient level of damage. So where’s the behavioural change going to come in?

 

[Tugga27]

Three weeks for Bedford is absolutely nuts - unfortunate accident but nothing in it.

Could see one of two for Cameron given he drove Duggan backwards so hard (I also think whistle may have already gone?). Three feels somewhat excessive but possibly appropriate as karma for the last one.

Agree that the AFL needs to come down way harder on deliberate hits like Rosas. Insane to be so light on extremely dangerous cheap shots while going so hard on clumsy tackles.

Not 100% sure, but think when the player gets concussed, it's automatically graded as severe impact.
So going off the matrix, it pretty much has to be 3 week's I think.

 

[Tugga27]

They’ve completely lost what the purpose of a suspension is. A suspension punishes bad behaviour and encourages change over time by discouraging people from repeating said behaviour. Generally speaking it’s been pretty successful with most sling tackles as a result.

But then it does nothing about dog shot punches and elbows to the head unless they do the sufficient level of damage. So where’s the behavioural change going to come in?

They're the ones where the AFL should use the "potential to cause serious injury" and give them 3 weeks just for starters.

 

[amazingjoshy]

Haha the game is cooked

3 week ban but not even a free kick

 

[jesterwester]

Cameron won’t be able to use the good guy defense this time around, which is a right shame because I think this time it’s probably more warranted than the time he got off.

It sucks Duggan got concussed but I did think watching at the time that it was more just an unlucky situation than a badly executed tackle. Duggan is entitled to try and break the tackle and Cameron is entitled to try and stop it. It was a tough tackle and sometimes these things happen in footy. The AFL won’t be able to legislate concussions completely from the sport as they seem to be wanting to.

 

[Bender_]

Firstly, I'm not a fan of players being suspended for tackles. I understand why it is happening but I'm not entirely on board.

However, with the game the way it is now, how anyone could claim Cameron as unlucky is mind boggling. He held Duggans arms in, stopped and then made a second push to make him fall backwards whilst driving his head into him to make sure he hit the ground with force. Good f*cken riddance I say, knew exactly what he was doing and has got his comeuppance.

 

[Ace McKane]

Exactly what I was talking about with Harley's tackle a few weeks back. Clearly define the action - in this case, arms pinned and the player is put in a position where they are unable to protect themselves.

If you pin the arms, the onus is on the tackler to keep it safe. If not, and in this case you cause a concussion... you're in trouble. At the risk of sounding extremely biased, I think it is more than fair.

I have no issue with this rule being paid, it just needs to be clearly defined and consistent - to this point, it has not been...

 

[Bacchus]

He slammed his head into the ground with excessive force.

The tackle was overly forceful, intentional and dangerous, can’t see why anyone has an issue with it.

I would be surprised and disappointed if it was overturned or reduced.

If Harley’s tackle was two, this was easily three. The good guy’s actions have finally caught up with him.

 

[amazingjoshy]

He slammed his head into the ground with excessive force.

The tackle was overly forceful, intentional and dangerous, can’t see why anyone has an issue with it.

I would be surprised and disappointed if it was overturned or reduced.

If Harley’s tackle was two, this was easily three. The good guy’s actions have finally caught up with him.

Yet it didn't warrant a free kick?

I don't really care about the suspension, it's the absolute inconsistency of it all

 

[Ghossein]

people acting like the game hasn't been cooked for the entirety of the season

 

[Tugga27]

He slammed his head into the ground with excessive force.

The tackle was overly forceful, intentional and dangerous, can’t see why anyone has an issue with it.

I would be surprised and disappointed if it was overturned or reduced.

If Harley’s tackle was two, this was easily three. The good guy’s actions have finally caught up with him.

I reckon Charlie had the Tom Tit's on because Hough had done a number on him.

Looked a bit frustrated to me.

 

[RookiePick]

I reckon Charlie had the Tom Tit's on because Hough had done a number on him.

Looked a bit frustrated to me.

Frustration bought Harley 2 weeks. Let's see how much it costs a proven good bloke.

Charlie definitely drove the tackle forward with his head, which resulted in a worse outcome. He wanted to make a statement (and he did) but he got it a bit wrong and needs to sit out of there is consistency in the way the system works ...



Media campaigning for Bedford and Cameron to be set free so it's anyone's guess how it plays out. Bedford probably goes and Charlie walks imo.

 

[KERRPOW]

Would it have even been looked at if duggan didnt get concussed.

Unlikely

 

[wce4premiership]

I think Cameron's had more potential to cause injury (driving motion, body weight on top, arms pinned) than Reid's tackle earlier in the year.

I thought Reid should have gotten off and I thought Cameron might get 1 week, so my radar seems to be -2 weeks compared to the AFL rulings.

So I guess Bedford gets credited +1 game if I was in charge?

With Cameron's it's that second driving motion that looks bad, but it's a tough spot to be in when a player is trying to break loose. But I guess he could have held him up instead of pushing back (at the risk of Duggan getting a handball out).

 

[Tugga27]

Frustration bought Harley 2 weeks. Let's see how much it costs a proven good bloke.

Charlie definitely drove the tackle forward with his head, which resulted in a worse outcome. He wanted to make a statement (and he did) but he got it a bit wrong and needs to sit out of there is consistency in the way the system works ...



Media campaigning for Bedford and Cameron to be set free so it's anyone's guess how it plays out. Bedford probably goes and Charlie walks imo.

I reckon Bedford might get off and Charlie goes.
I don't think Bedford could have done anything else apart from not tackle.

Cameron could've just hung on to Duggo.
No need to take him to ground.

 

[PremiershipNo4]

3 weeks for Cameron

 

[FKASC]

IMO the way it’s going is that the League will require players to mandatorily miss 2-3 weeks if they get concussed, and so they are effectively going to negatively ‘compensate’ the other team for a similar length of time.

It will become super common for players to have to miss multiple matches if there is any sign of concussion, and if you cause that concussion then you basically have to sit out as welll.

It’s still a punishment in terms of not being allowed to play, but it’s not really designed to be a deterrent, more an equalisation measure to balance out the more extreme mandatory rest period

Hence they are not increasing penalties for striking proportionate to the increased penalties for dangerous tackles and rough conduct. Because they aren’t using suspensions as a punishment/deterrent anymore, it’s like balancing out the loss of the concussed player’s team

A bit tin foil, but it is the only explanation, other than they are preparing us for fundamental changes to how tackling is done

 

[Ochre]

IMO the way it’s going is that the League will require players to mandatorily miss 2-3 weeks if they get concussed, and so they are effectively going to negatively ‘compensate’ the other team for a similar length of time.

It will become super common for players to have to miss multiple matches if there is any sign of concussion, and if you cause that concussion then you basically have to sit out as welll.

It’s still a punishment in terms of not being allowed to play, but it’s not really designed to be a deterrent, more an equalisation measure to balance out the more extreme mandatory rest period

Hence they are not increasing penalties for striking proportionate to the increased penalties for dangerous tackles and rough conduct. Because they aren’t using suspensions as a punishment/deterrent anymore, it’s like balancing out the loss of the concussed player’s team

A bit tin foil, but it is the only explanation, other than they are preparing us for fundamental changes to how tackling is done

The issue imo is that the current system was set up before the crackdown on tackles and the focus on stopping concussion and isn't set up to handle it.

Anything high or severe impact has to be 3+ weeks the way the system works, and anything that leads to concussion now has to be high/severe. This worked OK when most reportable incidents were bumps or strikes or similar because the more force the player used generally led to more impact and a bigger ban.

But with tackles, and the Cameron and Bedford incidents are good examples, a lot of the impact comes from players (both tackler and tacklee) going to ground which isn't really related to how vicious the tackle is, which leads to the randomness of the result and the bans.

 

[Bacchus]

I think Cameron's had more potential to cause injury (driving motion, body weight on top, arms pinned) than Reid's tackle earlier in the year.

I thought Reid should have gotten off and I thought Cameron might get 1 week, so my radar seems to be -2 weeks compared to the AFL rulings.

So I guess Bedford gets credited +1 game if I was in charge?

With Cameron's it's that second driving motion that looks bad, but it's a tough spot to be in when a player is trying to break loose. But I guess he could have held him up instead of pushing back (at the risk of Duggan getting a handball out).

Duggan wasn’t in any position to do anything. His arms were pinned and he was being driven backwards into the ground by an angry **** trying to make a statement.

In the same game Trew tackled a player at a cbd and held him with his arms around him. He didn’t hold him and then bang him into the ground head first to make a statement.

No excuses even if he is a good guy, I guess they’ve played that card.

 

[Dylan82]

All the while the one that triggers me the most this week is 3 weeks for A.Davies of Gold Coast.

Makes a genuine attempt to pick up the ball, gets his foot over in the traditional method of taking ground possession and his hands get to the loose ball first.

Conversely, L.Jones gimps a fumble then reaches in with his head completely exposed going into the contest and does nothing to protect himself by using terrible technique.


I know the head needs to be protected, but there needs also to be an awareness that leading in head-first into contests is not just an open invitation for harm to be incurred, but a product of poor technique and lazy execution.

A.Davies did everything right. There was no malicious intent. He got down low, turned so he didn't lead with his shoulder and had his body over the ball.

It doesn't sit well with me seeing him get a 3 week suspension just because L.Jones was lazy and reckless of his own safety, basically diving into him head-first.

​

If you want a true "footballing action" situation, this is it. But A.Davies doesn't play for a Victorian club, so of course it's all crickets in relation to the matter.


As frustrating as it is to see, the outcome could be of some benefit however. The suspension will surely impact A.Davies' value now over the remainder of the season, possibly making him both easier to procure and at lesser cost.

 

[Bacchus]

Yet it didn't warrant a free kick?

I don't really care about the suspension, it's the absolute inconsistency of it all

I think everybody was so shocked about what had happened they didn’t know what to do.

True there is no free kick for using excessive force, although there is one for a dangerous tackle although this is generally being interpreted as a sling tackle, the rules are still evolving.

 

[Barrybran]

I haven't seen the Bedford incident but the Cameron tackle looked like weeks when I saw it. Two weeks seems about right though I agree that it was worse than Harley's tackle so who knows where the AFL's wheel will stop on this one.

 

[FKASC]

The suspension will surely impact A.Davies' value now over the remainder of the season, possibly making him both easier to procure and at lesser cost.

That’s not a good thing. Just another high draft pick haemorrhaged from GC to a Victorian side

 

[Wooshaaaa]

Collard suspended 14 weeks. Bang!!

On Pixel 6 Pro using BigFooty.com mobile app