Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVI

[Zach Package]

Bruhn is a good player. Bit harsh imo

It’ll get better but I’d be ****ing livid if we traded a first round pick for that

 

[Blind Turn]

Spoiler: Snapped arm video

Silver linings; his arm probably saves him from breaking his neck.

The force of 86kg coming directly through 90° to the ground is far too much for single arm to withhold from that height. His neck, likewise…

Spoiler: Graphic Injury

 

[andleanback]

It’ll get better but I’d be ****ing livid if we traded a first round pick for that

He’s moreorless a caldwell case study, except we gave up 2 2nds.

 

[yodellinhank]

We should've got Bobby Hill.

But Dodoro would've lost his job if we did

 

[ant555]

The two sides tonight looked a mile above what was served up last night. Geelong will build into the season slowly with an older list and look to peak late, like last year. Collingwood play a ripping brand of footy, so well set up and are all rock hard fit. still will like to see where they’re at mid year.

They did but last year we where in the ball park against the Pies in both games last year. Not saying we can play that level of footy though.
The Pies are a really good side now the handbrake has been released.
I think Geelong will work into the season. Last year they had a bye against us in round 1 so it was hard to judge. Then lost to Sydney at the SCG in round 2. People still had questions about them at round 5 after a couple of close / lucky wins.

 

[ant555]

But Dodoro would've lost his job if we did

That would have been ideal. Get handy player. Lose millstone.

 

[andleanback]

They did but last year we where in the ball park against the Pies in both games last year. Not saying we can play that level of footy though.
The Pies are a really good side now the handbrake has been released.
I think Geelong will work into the season. Last year they had a bye against us in round 1 so it was hard to judge. Then lost to Sydney at the SCG in round 2. People still had questions about them at round 5 after a couple of close / lucky wins.

Yeh we definitely played well against them last year and I feel we do match up well against them. But at the level both teams played at last night, we don’t have at this point.

 

[ghostdog]

Daicos aside, because he's a freak, thought McInnes, McCreery and Quaynor were really good. Buy-in from the older players makes a huge difference; Compare Adams with Parish.

 

[Yoda_]

Daicos aside, because he's a freak, thought McInnes, McCreery and Quaynor were really good. Buy-in from the older players makes a huge difference; Compare Adams with Parish.

I see Parish as our Cotchin who was a very good player offensively but needed to buy in defensively for the team to succeed. IF Darcy buys in we could have an exceptional midfield but at the moment the first choice mids seem to care more about paddling stats than actually succeeding.

 

[Yoda_]

Is there a more over rated footballer than Shai Bolton

15

Shai Bolton

Age

26

Ht

176cm

Wt

77kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.3

3star

K

6.9

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

2.8

3star

T

2.9

4star

CL

1.4

4star

D

12.7

3star

K

9.2

4star

HB

3.5

2star

M

3.0

3star

T

2.7

4star

CL

1.8

4star

D

9.2

3star

K

4.6

2star

HB

4.6

4star

M

2.0

3star

T

2.6

4star

CL

0.0

1star

?

Had multiple chances to tear the game apart but didn't. That around the corner shot on the goal was a disaster and seemed he turned the ball over at least three critical times in the last quarter when the Tigers had all the play.



Am not saying he is crap, just the talk that he is one of the best players in the comp is outlandish. Hi best is as good as Petracca, Oliver but we don't see it nearly enough,

 

[andleanback]

Is there a more over rated footballer than Shai Bolton?

Had multiple chances to tear the game apart but didn't. That around the corner shot on the goal was a disaster and seemed he turned the ball over at least three critical times in the last quarter when the Tigers had all the play.



Am not saying he is crap, just the talk that he is one of the best players in the comp is outlandish. Hi best is as good as Petracca, Oliver but we don't see it nearly enough,

If he didn’t waste so many shots at goal he’d be a superstar already, must be so frustrating for hardwick.

 

[faible]

Is there a more over rated footballer than Shai Bolton?

Had multiple chances to tear the game apart but didn't. That around the corner shot on the goal was a disaster and seemed he turned the ball over at least three critical times in the last quarter when the Tigers had all the play.



Am not saying he is crap, just the talk that he is one of the best players in the comp is outlandish. Hi best is as good as Petracca, Oliver but we don't see it nearly enough,

He’s overhyped but he is a very good outside leaning offensive player.

The idea that he’s the next best player in the AFL doesn’t work for me though (some pundits / Richmond fans like to argue it) because he simply doesn’t have the skillset to force a game on to his terms like a Dangerfield, Martin, GAJ, Judd etc… could when they were at the peak of their powers.

 

[BrunoV]

Who is acting for the AFL?

My old boss used to often make the point that the AFL, whose general counsel is a genuine half wit, and clubs often make the mistake of getting commercial lawyers involved in these injury/common law related matters. That means the advisors are acting out of their field of expertise.

I can tell you a defence of voluntary assumption of risk, in response to the player's actions, is what I would expect to be run by article clerks (who aren't particularly bright) and lawyers who haven't actually thought through this stuff since university.

I've been on what you would call the AFL's side of this isle. It's definitely not ideological for me, I despise what injuries litigation has done generally for society - for every case worthy of compenstion there are 7 to 10 which, on big picture policy grounds, are not. But I'd laugh at the AFL's lawyers for serioisly raising VAR.

I would query whether the AFL has a proper basis to make that allegation in a defence.

In this context, the plaintiff has to know of the precise risk which he is being alleged to have assumed. It needs to be an obvious risk. That is, the risk of cumulative head knocks in these sports, not of a bad back or bad knees.

How can the body who has spent millions of dollars of research trying to understand this issue, of which nothing was known about in the general population until that movie came out in 2015, argue that the players voluntarily assumed the unknown risk of head knocks?

It's up to the sport, always acting on the 'best medical advice', to look into these things, not the players.

If it is an obvious risk to the players, what does that say about the AFL's level of knowledge? It's tantamount to admitting liability.

It's staggeringly stupid. I cannot believe that is what Gil has said. In fairness to him, he has been misled.

You could argue current day players have assumed that risk. I think that is reasonable.

 

[sameolds33]

Who is acting for the AFL?

My old boss used to often make the point that the AFL, whose general counsel is a genuine half wit, and clubs often make the mistake of getting commercial lawyers involved in these injury/common law related matters. That means the advisors are acting out of their field of expertise.

I can tell you a defence of voluntary assumption of risk, in response to the player's actions, is what I would expect to be run by article clerks (who aren't particularly bright) and lawyers who haven't actually thought through this stuff since university.

I've been on what you would call the AFL's side of this isle. It's definitely not ideological for me, I despise what injuries litigation has done generally for society - for every case worthy of compenstion there are 7 to 10 which, on big picture policy grounds, are not. But I'd laugh at the AFL's lawyers for serioisly raising VAR.

I would query whether the AFL has a proper basis to make that allegation in a defence.

In this context, the plaintiff has to know of the precise risk which he is being alleged to have assumed. It needs to be an obvious risk. That is, the risk of cumulative head knocks in these sports, not of a bad back or bad knees.

How can the body who has spent millions of dollars of research trying to understand this issue, of which nothing was known about in the general population until that movie came out in 2015, argue that the players voluntarily assumed the unknown risk of head knocks?

It's up to the sport, always acting on the 'best medical advice', to look into these things, not the players.

If it is an obvious risk to the players, what does that say about the AFL's level of knowledge? It's tantamount to admitting liability.

It's staggeringly stupid. I cannot believe that is what Gil has said. In fairness to him, he has been misled.

You could argue current day players have assumed that risk. I think that is reasonable.

I haven't been following this except in the most cursory way through the news but you'd expect the legal results in different jurisdictions and sports to have some bearing on how this litigation resolves. In particular, the NFL class action that was settled in 2013. NFL concussion lawsuits explained

I expect that this action will also be settled so that it doesn't really matter what the defence is now. If it doesn't settle then the defence will be amended later.

 

[andleanback]

Who is acting for the AFL?

My old boss used to often make the point that the AFL, whose general counsel is a genuine half wit, and clubs often make the mistake of getting commercial lawyers involved in these injury/common law related matters. That means the advisors are acting out of their field of expertise.

I can tell you a defence of voluntary assumption of risk, in response to the player's actions, is what I would expect to be run by article clerks (who aren't particularly bright) and lawyers who haven't actually thought through this stuff since university.

I've been on what you would call the AFL's side of this isle. It's definitely not ideological for me, I despise what injuries litigation has done generally for society - for every case worthy of compenstion there are 7 to 10 which, on big picture policy grounds, are not. But I'd laugh at the AFL's lawyers for serioisly raising VAR.

I would query whether the AFL has a proper basis to make that allegation in a defence.

In this context, the plaintiff has to know of the precise risk which he is being alleged to have assumed. It needs to be an obvious risk. That is, the risk of cumulative head knocks in these sports, not of a bad back or bad knees.

How can the body who has spent millions of dollars of research trying to understand this issue, of which nothing was known about in the general population until that movie came out in 2015, argue that the players voluntarily assumed the unknown risk of head knocks?

It's up to the sport, always acting on the 'best medical advice', to look into these things, not the players.

If it is an obvious risk to the players, what does that say about the AFL's level of knowledge? It's tantamount to admitting liability.

It's staggeringly stupid. I cannot believe that is what Gil has said. In fairness to him, he has been misled.

You could argue current day players have assumed that risk. I think that is reasonable.

I’d say the players who have a genuine case are those in the 2000-2015 era. Players in the 80s etc there was just no actual worldwide information available at the time. It’s not that people didn’t know head knocks were bad, clear as day getting knocked out wasn’t a good thing, it’s that no one knew the affects of multiple head knocks/ concussions can have on your brain. First research into brain trauma / cte founded was around 2001-2002 and only after former nfl players were donating their brains to science. There was no way the afl could’ve found this research themselves because at the time there was no link to depression, suicide etc to head knocks, meaning they had no means of getting access to former players brains.

 

[faible]

I’d say the players who have a genuine case are those in the 2000-2015 era. Players in the 80s etc there was just no actual worldwide information available at the time. It’s not that people didn’t know head knocks were bad, clear as day getting knocked out wasn’t a good thing, it’s that no one knew the affects of multiple head knocks/ concussions can have on your brain. First research into brain trauma / cte founded was around 2001-2002 and only after former nfl players were donating their brains to science. There was no way the afl could’ve found this research themselves because at the time there was no link to depression, suicide etc to head knocks, meaning they had no means of getting access to former players brains.

Stuff like Picken not being tested / not being told the results and sent out to play the next week are pretty bad. They knew at the time that was insufficient. Whether that falls on the club or the AFL at large for not having more stringent protocols…

 

[andleanback]

Stuff like Picken not being tested / not being told the results and sent out to play the next week are pretty bad. They knew at the time that was insufficient. Whether that falls on the club or the AFL at large for not having more stringent protocols…

Yeh that’s the other thing, whether the club or the actual afl has liability, if certain protocols are in place that aren’t followed that doesn’t fall on the afl.

 

[VelvetSledge]

Sheezel looks like he’s going to be an absolute star

 

[andleanback]

Sheezel is a jet. And he’s a better forward

 

[Zach Package]

Sheezel looks like he’s going to be an absolute star

He’s already their best ball user.

He will pose the same dilemma Nic Martin does for us, they’ll need him to be the bloke kicking it inside 50 and the bloke marking it on the other end at the same time.

 

[citizen-erased]

But Dodoro would've lost his job if we did

2 wins!

 

[andleanback]

West coast fans saying they’ll rebound back into the 7 this year. They look putrid, simpson will he gone by the end of the year.

 

[citizen-erased]

They did but last year we where in the ball park against the Pies in both games last year. Not saying we can play that level of footy though.
The Pies are a really good side now the handbrake has been released.
I think Geelong will work into the season. Last year they had a bye against us in round 1 so it was hard to judge. Then lost to Sydney at the SCG in round 2. People still had questions about them at round 5 after a couple of close / lucky wins.

Losing stewart and sdk proppy didnt help. Brought mcstay into the game and made a lot of space for hill, elliott, mcinnes, jdg, etc.

Danger looked a bit off pace whilst pendles and sidebottom were everywhere.
Pies are super fit and driven. Anzac day is gonna be ugly

 

[citizen-erased]

West coast fans saying they’ll rebound back into the 7 this year. They look putrid, simpson will he gone by the end of the year.

Barass is about the only player looking like something

 

[BrunoV]

I’d say the players who have a genuine case are those in the 2000-2015 era. Players in the 80s etc there was just no actual worldwide information available at the time. It’s not that people didn’t know head knocks were bad, clear as day getting knocked out wasn’t a good thing, it’s that no one knew the affects of multiple head knocks/ concussions can have on your brain. First research into brain trauma / cte founded was around 2001-2002 and only after former nfl players were donating their brains to science. There was no way the afl could’ve found this research themselves because at the time there was no link to depression, suicide etc to head knocks, meaning they had no means of getting access to former players brains.

For the pre-2001 player I'd look into the state of knowledge of combat sports, boxing in particular.

The AFL will invariably have stacks of material wildy overstating the quality of its medical care, in line with its duty of care.

It's very hard to argue that you have discharged your duty of care if you haven't considered the consequences of a common occurrence (which is concussion, players getting KO'd).

If the combat sports have had protocols for fights, I'd focus on that. It's not like the clubs and the AFL haven't looked overseas and to other sports for training methods and tactics.

It's hardly an unreasonable imposition or burden to have expected the governing body of a billion dollar industry to keep across global development relating to player health. The AFL wants to be the control freak of the competition.

It's a much more difficult case against the clubs.

The standard of knowledge expected of employers in the 60s and 70s, not involved in asbstos manufacturing, who had workers exposed to asbestos was essentially for them to be across the risks.

I would say that is a much more significant burden and unrealistic expectation than would be imposed on the AFL here.