Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVI

[Ati Tude]

How does this not get picked up from the week before?


So frustrating at how inconsistent they are.

Wow, just wow. That is so much worse than what Merrett or Adams did. But he put his hands up apologetically straight after it, so I guess that gets him off.

Players adapt to the rules pretty quickly - they don't have much choice eg the stand rule. Given the lawsuits, the AFL seem adamant on stopping sling tackles. Players going to have to adapt and avoid taking people to ground so much.

 

[justlookingaround]

Saad out for 2 weeks with a hammy ... Carlton's season imploding in slow motion.

 

[citizen-erased]

It wasnt the AFL media's hot button topic last week.
As soon Gerard "mouthpiece of the AFL" Wheatley was hysterically demanding merrett be suspended I knew he had no chance.
Thats why I dont think this decision will have a long lasting impact on the way players tackle though, as in a months time the media and AFL hq will move on to another topic and you will see many tackles like this receive no scrutiny.

Whately confuses me this week.
Shilling for caminiti and the downgraded charge.

Turned back to ball, two actions, leaves a guy cold on the floor who he steps over for the next contest and zero remorse after the incident/game

But we're serious about concussion

 

[citizen-erased]

Saad out for 2 weeks with a hammy ... Carlton's season imploding in slow motion.

Not ideal for him. We were pretty lucky with him on that front. His suns days early on felt plagued by them

 

[Maddogm]

Kayo is ******* unwatchable.

Crazy thing is, it's infinitely better than ESPN+. Which would be considered bad 10+ years ago.

 

[BomberManU]

Shane Tuck

Shane Tuck

Age

43

Ht

189cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.4

5star

K

11.4

4star

HB

12.0

5star

M

4.5

4star

T

3.7

5star

CL

5.0

5star

No current season stats available

D

14.8

4star

K

9.2

4star

HB

5.6

4star

M

2.4

3star

T

1.4

4star

's wife has withdrawn from the Coronial inquest into his death. From the ABC article:

The letter said Ms Tuck was "frustrated by the Coroner's decision to severely limit the scope of the investigation, and the refusal to give any consideration to the policies, guidelines, rules and/or practices of the AFL in respect of concussion and head injuries as were in place at the time of Shane Tuck

Shane Tuck

Age

43

Ht

189cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.4

5star

K

11.4

4star

HB

12.0

5star

M

4.5

4star

T

3.7

5star

CL

5.0

5star

No current season stats available

D

14.8

4star

K

9.2

4star

HB

5.6

4star

M

2.4

3star

T

1.4

4star

's playing career, and whether those arrangements were reasonable and proportionate to address the risk of CTE".

"Her concerns in that regard were not aided by the submissions made by the AFL and the Richmond Football Club to that issue, which sought to encourage the Court's narrow approach," her lawyers said.

"In the circumstances, Mrs Tuck considers her further involvement in the matter to be an arid exercise."

 

[Lore]

submissions made by the AFL and the Richmond Football Club to that issue, which sought to encourage the Court's narrow approach

I mean they have to protect themselves, but it really doesn't pass the pub test does it.

 

[BomberManU]

I mean they have to protect themselves, but it really doesn't pass the pub test does it.

Certainly doesn't.

 

[Mercurial89]

I mean they have to protect themselves, but it really doesn't pass the pub test does it.

I'd assume it's more that area at this time is not the spot to do it.

The leagues response to concussion, their historical stance on it and all those items is yet to be examined in court.

Having an individual investigation into that area before any of the legal action is putting the cart before the horse so to speak.

I also think that the concussion conversation is something that needs a bit of clear understanding of what we actually want to occur out of it.
Are we going after clubs and AFL for historical standards prior to when knowledge of concussion/CTE came about?
Are we wanting to punish the AFL for not enough done recently?
Are we just wanting funds to be for players who are struggling now?
As there is no test for CTE, and there have been autopsy results that show CTE in people with no symptoms and others with bad symptoms, should we be going down this path just yet until things are better understood?

 

[TheUnicorn]

Anyone had a crack at this Game Day Squad thing yet ?

 

[Lore]

I'd assume it's more that area at this time is not the spot to do it.

The leagues response to concussion, their historical stance on it and all those items is yet to be examined in court.

Having an individual investigation into that area before any of the legal action is putting the cart before the horse so to speak.

I also think that the concussion conversation is something that needs a bit of clear understanding of what we actually want to occur out of it.
Are we going after clubs and AFL for historical standards prior to when knowledge of concussion/CTE came about?
Are we wanting to punish the AFL for not enough done recently?
Are we just wanting funds to be for players who are struggling now?
As there is no test for CTE, and there have been autopsy results that show CTE in people with no symptoms and others with bad symptoms, should we be going down this path just yet until things are better understood?

CTE as a concept (then called "punch drunk") has been known about since the 1920s, doctors have been advocating to get rid of boxing because of repeated head trauma since the 1950s, and the reality of concussions in contact sports has also been known about for many years... or at least so spake Wikipedia when I was looking through it last night.

Tuck retired in 2013, so we're not talking about ancient history... all they would really have to show (lawyer people pls check my facts) is that there is a risk of CTE with repeated head trauma, that a reasonable person would have known that repeated head trauma has long term health implications at the time, and that there is a duty of care that has not been upheld in light of the facts as were known at the time.

Looks like Gary Ablett Sr is suing as well, he'd be looking at what was known in the 80s and 90s. Probably has a better case in the 1990s but hm.


And I'd say the asbestos/mesothelioma WorkSafe stuff is probably a model for how far back duty of care can go based on 'historical standards' and 'having it but not having symptoms', etc.

One would think that there would be damages awarded based on how much it has impacted you, so pain and suffering, loss of future employment, and associated medical costs.

You can't get damages if you can't prove losses (pain and suffering, loss of future employment, and associated medical costs), that were caused by a preventable workplace injury.

 

[Mercurial89]

CTE as a concept (then called "punch drunk") has been known about since the 1920s, doctors have been advocating to get rid of boxing because of repeated head trauma since the 1950s, and the reality of concussions in contact sports has also been known about for many years... or at least so spake Wikipedia when I was looking through it last night.

Tuck retired in 2013, so we're not talking about ancient history... all they would really have to show (lawyer people pls check my facts) is that there is a risk of CTE with repeated head trauma, that a reasonable person would have known that repeated head trauma has long term health implications at the time, and that there is a duty of care that has not been upheld in light of the facts as were known at the time.

Looks like Gary Ablett Sr is suing as well, he'd be looking at what was known in the 80s and 90s. Probably has a better case in the 1990s but hm.


And I'd say the asbestos/mesothelioma WorkSafe stuff is probably a model for how far back duty of care can go based on 'historical standards' and 'having it but not having symptoms', etc.

One would think that there would be damages awarded based on how much it has impacted you, so pain and suffering, loss of future employment, and associated medical costs.

You can't get damages if you can't prove losses (pain and suffering, loss of future employment, and associated medical costs), that were caused by a preventable workplace injury.

My point is.
That case has not been brought.

They are not going to focus a colonial investigation of one person before a greater study and case involving what occurred.

Secondly, the whole concussion and CTE issue is not cut and dry, people are not reacting the same way to impacts.
The sub concussive hits is a massive part of this in that there is not a "knocked out" incident. But you could still develop CTE.
You could have CTE and not show any symptoms.
You could show symptoms but they can't prove where these hits took place, and how can it be proven that they occured on the football field?
Can they prove negligence of the AFL or club?
Does the Dr get brought in for contribution?

In around about way let's just be careful before we start acting like the AFL and clubs are big bad guys.

As for Ablett, his case can be lodged and argued about the football field all day, but any action is going to have to explain away the repeated drug use as to why that can't be claimed as having damaged his brain.

 

[Nifft]

As for Ablett, his case can be lodged and argued about the football field all day, but any action is going to have to explain away the repeated drug use as to why that can't be claimed as having damaged his brain.

I was about to make the same point about Ablett. Also if past players can take action against the clubs for CTE, then what's to stop players from taking action for other injuries sustained on the field or at training?

 

[Ati Tude]

I was about to make the same point about Ablett. Also if past players can take action against the clubs for CTE, then what's to stop players from taking action for other injuries sustained on the field or at training?

I guess most injuries the risk was forseeable and the player took that risk on eg knee reco's that could end a career and have other impacts. But concussion has not been well understand re the long term effects of it. I have sympathy for the clubs as they couldnt really commission their own studies into it. And the AFL has done a lot to clean up the game in recent times and are doing a lot more to protect head injuries eg the suspension of our captain for a good tackle.

It would seem the AFL are going to need to put together a pool of funds to pay out compensation for past issues to show they are looking after former players and alleviate the clubs of those pressures and issues regardless of where you think fault may lay. The NFL have been dealing with this for a lot longer. Not quite sure what they have done to help/compensate former players.

 

[MiguelM]

Francis named to play his first game for the Swans.

would love to see him do well

 

[andleanback]

Francis named to play his first game for the Swans.

would love to see him do well

Be interesting to see where he is played. Has played mostly forward in the vfl, but surely he had to come in and play on Hawkins.

 

[MiguelM]

Be interesting to see where he is played. Has played mostly forward in the vfl, but surely he had to come in and play on Hawkins.

Will be very interesting. Not sure he would be a good matchup for Hawkins but will be watching to see how he goes for sure.

 

[andleanback]

Will be very interesting. Not sure he would be a good matchup for Hawkins but will be watching to see how he goes for sure.

Yeh but it’s kinda the only option they have, unless they want to go with Blakey or Lloyd

 

[ant555]

How does this not get picked up from the week before?


So frustrating at how inconsistent they are.

Because it is only a free kick. Head has to hit the ground to be a suspension. Still a dangerous tackle so a free kick. That is the current AFL interpretation.

It wasnt the AFL media's hot button topic last week.
As soon Gerard "mouthpiece of the AFL" Wheatley was hysterically demanding merrett be suspended I knew he had no chance.
Thats why I dont think this decision will have a long lasting impact on the way players tackle though, as in a months time the media and AFL hq will move on to another topic and you will see many tackles like this receive no scrutiny.

Wheatley has only been going by the AFL interpretation of the rule. Head is does not hit the ground. Free kick and no suspension. He was not hysterical about Merrett getting suspended. He simply had the view that if you go by how the AFL have made the rule then he has to get 1 week. You are 100% wrong if you think this is going away any time soon. Concussion mat well cost the league a fortune soon enough. There is zero chance of this going away. The dye is set. If you tackle someone and sling / drive the head into the ground then you will get suspended.
I thought Merrett was gone when I first saw it. They only way out for him IMO was challenge the impact as low rather than medium.
Personally I have no issue with it.

 

[MiguelM]

Because it is only a free kick. Head has to hit the ground to be a suspension. Still a dangerous tackle so a free kick. That is the current AFL interpretation.

Wheatley has only been going by the AFL interpretation of the rule. Head is does not hit the ground. Free kick and no suspension. He was not hysterical about Merrett getting suspended. He simply had the view that if you go by how the AFL have made the rule then he has to get 1 week. You are 100% wrong if you think this is going away any time soon. Concussion mat well cost the league a fortune soon enough. There is zero chance of this going away. The dye is set. If you tackle someone and sling / drive the head into the ground then you will get suspended.
I thought Merrett was gone when I first saw it. They only way out for him IMO was challenge the impact as low rather than medium.
Personally I have no issue with it.

Yep, the AFL have no choice but to protect the head as best they can through various means. The tribunal is one of them.

With the rise in lawsuits for CTE, the AFL will need to be proactive to mitigate long term effects from playing the game, both from a player welfare point of view and to protect the sport from being sued the sh*t out of.

Another way the AFL can be proactive is revising recovery protocols for concussed players.I have posted before that I would not be surprised if they increase the length of time a player must sit out. Many experts are saying it should be a month.

 

[ghostdog]

Yes! Let's go Frank!!

 

[jannissary]

Yep, the AFL have no choice but to protect the head as best they can through various means. The tribunal is one of them.

With the rise in lawsuits for CTE, the AFL will need to be proactive to mitigate long term effects from playing the game, both from a player welfare point of view and to protect the sport from being sued the sh*t out of.

Another way the AFL can be proactive is revising recovery protocols for concussed players.I have posted before that I would not be surprised if they increase the length of time a player must sit out. Many experts are saying it should be a month.

Month would be what's best but I doubt that'll happen under Gill

 

[Lore]

I was about to make the same point about Ablett. Also if past players can take action against the clubs for CTE, then what's to stop players from taking action for other injuries sustained on the field or at training?

Comes back to the points about damages and liability.

You can’t sue for damages if you haven’t lost anything, and you can’t sue someone who isn’t responsible for said damages.

And there is already a medical insurance for retired players but I think it only covers players who were in the league when it became part of the CBA, probably players who retired previously would have to opt in somehow as an AFLPA alumni.

 

[Squeaky]

Because it is only a free kick. Head has to hit the ground to be a suspension. Still a dangerous tackle so a free kick. That is the current AFL interpretation.

Wheatley has only been going by the AFL interpretation of the rule. Head is does not hit the ground. Free kick and no suspension. He was not hysterical about Merrett getting suspended. He simply had the view that if you go by how the AFL have made the rule then he has to get 1 week. You are 100% wrong if you think this is going away any time soon. Concussion mat well cost the league a fortune soon enough. There is zero chance of this going away. The dye is set. If you tackle someone and sling / drive the head into the ground then you will get suspended.
I thought Merrett was gone when I first saw it. They only way out for him IMO was challenge the impact as low rather than medium.
Personally I have no issue with it.

All true. Let's see if they hold true to form when the whips are cracking at finals time! Lately the afl have been loathe to sit players for finals.

 

[andleanback]

All true. Let's see if they hold true to form when the whips are cracking at finals time! Lately the afl have been loathe to sit players for finals.

All setting up for a player to dangerous tackle in a prelim only for the afl to conveniently let them off.