Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVI

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
ant555 said:
Problem is they have to be seen as being proactive as far as head injury goes or the will be in danger of a continuous stream of count cases.
This leads to what we have now.
Click to expand...
Isn't the issue that historically players have been sent back on when they shouldn't have been, and made to play subsequently when they probably shouldn't have been?

In the "olden days", from memory, very few guys were concussed in a tackle. It was mostly bump related whether it be a shirt front, attacking the footy or in a marking contest. Why are so many of the issues now related to tackles? How are we tackling now compared to the 80's for example, or is the issue that so many more tackles are made per game that the issue is more prevalent?

It is a high risk combative sport. Players need to recognise that, and recognise that the league is doing what they can to try and minimise the number of occurrences of head knocks. It's leading to confusion but for clubs to say they're not going to show the vision to the players then there's an onus that shifts from the AFL to the clubs in terms of duty of care.

Ignoring the MRO, post head knock the AFL has locked down and is doing it right (HIA tests, mandatory time off etc). It becomes about finding a balancing act between what players can and are allowed to do on the field vs what the MRO decides is naughty (because it's not against the rules).
 
Pweter said:
Isn't the issue that historically players have been sent back on when they shouldn't have been, and made to play subsequently when they probably shouldn't have been?

In the "olden days", from memory, very few guys were concussed in a tackle. It was mostly bump related whether it be a shirt front, attacking the footy or in a marking contest. Why are so many of the issues now related to tackles? How are we tackling now compared to the 80's for example, or is the issue that so many more tackles are made per game that the issue is more prevalent?

It is a high risk combative sport. Players need to recognise that, and recognise that the league is doing what they can to try and minimise the number of occurrences of head knocks. It's leading to confusion but for clubs to say they're not going to show the vision to the players then there's an onus that shifts from the AFL to the clubs in terms of duty of care.

Ignoring the MRO, post head knock the AFL has locked down and is doing it right (HIA tests, mandatory time off etc). It becomes about finding a balancing act between what players can and are allowed to do on the field vs what the MRO decides is naughty (because it's not against the rules).
Click to expand...

More tackles, stronger players, slower to call holding the ball; all would contribute.
 
I love this insight and boldness from the players but it reflects poorly on the selection integrity from decision makers that they’ve had to take this step (Shades of David Myers). IMG_0675.jpeg IMG_0674.jpeg
 

Log in to remove this ad.

IggypopsTshirt said:
I love this insight and boldness from the players but it reflects poorly on the selection integrity from decision makers that they’ve had to take this step (Shades of David Myers).View attachment 1713004View attachment 1713005
Click to expand...
Smells fishy. As if those two would need a mini pre-season. They're old enough that they wouldn't be on a list if they didn't know how to prepare themselves to a professional standard.

More likely I reckon they got a tap on the shoulder and this is how they are choosing to manage the PR.
 
Zach Package said:
Can’t believe anyone is surprised Sicily went straight to the tribunal.

It’s a combo sling tackle and crusher tackle, swung him round, lifted his feet above his head and dropped him on his neck.

Severe crusher gets you 5 in the NRL.

View attachment 1710078

I don’t think I’m being overly dramatic in saying Clug is fortunate he doesn’t have a fractured neck or worse. Dumb luck that he walked off the field.
Click to expand...
Totally agree

The hoo hah about this tackle being unfairly penalized is so weird. It was extremely dangerous.

Didn’t see that when Merrett copped his whack. The media were keen to sink the slipper in.

As an aside the one ex-Essendon commentator going around is Jobe. And he is extremely fair and balanced unlike most of the other clowns that get a run.

Are Essendon people simply… better? LOL
 
Two appeals!



Last year the tribunal hardly dealt with anything, everyone just accepted their penalty. This year there's a tribunal hearing every week, and now multiple appeals in the same week!
 
ant555 said:
Problem is they have to be seen as being proactive as far as head injury goes or the will be in danger of a continuous stream of court cases.
This leads to what we have now.
Click to expand...

The problem is the AFL is being short sighted and reactive.
Instead of going overboard with suspending players the AFL should look at what rules and rule interpretations lead to players opting for the sling tackle motion so often.

I follow union and leafue too and I rarely see this sort of tackle in those sports.
Ive been thinking why it is that its so prevalent in AFL.
Obviously one thing is rugby is a head on contest whereas afl is a 360 game but I do think theres other factors.

afl players rarely have a good tackle technique where they go low and use their leg drive to floor a player, which is why if they want to bring a player to ground it usually requires a 2nd "slinging" motion.

I think part of the reason for this is the below the knees rule, i cant for the life of me understand why grabbing a player around the knees is dangerous? Obviously cannoning into someones knees with your shoulder is or tripping is but those are both illegal in union/league too.

The other factor I think is an issue is the evolution of the holding the ball rule, if you floor a player straight away its likely going to be a ball up as the player had no opportunity to dispose. If you hold up a player upright then the umps will let play go a bit longer rather than blow the whistle as theyve been instructed by the afl in recent years to give the attacking player every opportunity to dispose of the ball to avoid congestion.
I think these factors contribute to why players will elect to go higher in a tackle and pin an arm, rather than hit them in the leg/hip area, and then when the whistle hasnt been blow straight away they do the 2nd motion to force a ball up/HTB call.

Anyway TL/DR I dont really have the answers to this but have been thinking about it for a while 😀
 
joey_jo_jo said:
The problem is the AFL is being short sighted and reactive.
Instead of going overboard with suspending players the AFL should look at what rules and rule interpretations lead to players opting for the sling tackle motion so often.

I follow union and leafue too and I rarely see this sort of tackle in those sports.
Ive been thinking why it is that its so prevalent in AFL.
Obviously one thing is rugby is a head on contest whereas afl is a 360 game but I do think theres other factors.

afl players rarely have a good tackle technique where they go low and use their leg drive to floor a player, which is why if they want to bring a player to ground it usually requires a 2nd "slinging" motion.

I think part of the reason for this is the below the knees rule, i cant for the life of me understand why grabbing a player around the knees is dangerous? Obviously cannoning into someones knees with your shoulder is or tripping is but those are both illegal in union/league too.

The other factor I think is an issue is the evolution of the holding the ball rule, if you floor a player straight away its likely going to be a ball up as the player had no opportunity to dispose. If you hold up a player upright then the umps will let play go a bit longer rather than blow the whistle as theyve been instructed by the afl in recent years to give the attacking player every opportunity to dispose of the ball to avoid congestion.
I think these factors contribute to why players will elect to go higher in a tackle and pin an arm, rather than hit them in the leg/hip area, and then when the whistle hasnt been blow straight away they do the 2nd motion to force a ball up/HTB call.

Anyway TL/DR I dont really have the answers to this but have been thinking about it for a while 😀
Click to expand...
You missed my point . The AFL will have to stand up in court and say they are doing everything possible to prevent head injuries. That means scrutiny on all aspects of play that can lead to head injury.
 
joey_jo_jo said:
The problem is the AFL is being short sighted and reactive.
Instead of going overboard with suspending players the AFL should look at what rules and rule interpretations lead to players opting for the sling tackle motion so often.

I follow union and leafue too and I rarely see this sort of tackle in those sports.
Ive been thinking why it is that its so prevalent in AFL.
Obviously one thing is rugby is a head on contest whereas afl is a 360 game but I do think theres other factors.

afl players rarely have a good tackle technique where they go low and use their leg drive to floor a player, which is why if they want to bring a player to ground it usually requires a 2nd "slinging" motion.

I think part of the reason for this is the below the knees rule, i cant for the life of me understand why grabbing a player around the knees is dangerous? Obviously cannoning into someones knees with your shoulder is or tripping is but those are both illegal in union/league too.

The other factor I think is an issue is the evolution of the holding the ball rule, if you floor a player straight away its likely going to be a ball up as the player had no opportunity to dispose. If you hold up a player upright then the umps will let play go a bit longer rather than blow the whistle as theyve been instructed by the afl in recent years to give the attacking player every opportunity to dispose of the ball to avoid congestion.
I think these factors contribute to why players will elect to go higher in a tackle and pin an arm, rather than hit them in the leg/hip area, and then when the whistle hasnt been blow straight away they do the 2nd motion to force a ball up/HTB call.

Anyway TL/DR I dont really have the answers to this but have been thinking about it for a while 😀
Click to expand...
Pinning an arm in afl stops a player from disposing the ball with a handball legally, non issue in the Rugby's. Going low in afl would just make it too easy for players to dispose of the ball. Haven't really thought about it much but I imagine in League you want to grab the forwards low because the main goal is to stop their momentum, they generally stuff up if they pass it so not so much an issue if they have their arms free.


I was sceptical early, but when you read over 1000 tackles a week and only 2 or 3 getting suspensions it won't be long until there's 1 odd suspension a month, like bumps.
 
Sporno 4 Pyros said:
Don’t rate the Bont??
He’s definitely top 5 in the league
Click to expand...
i’m not keen on him personally, but he’s playing in an environment that wholly benefits from opportunities created from bad umpiring & i’m also very biased against the bulldogs so my judgement is clouded
 
ant555 said:
You missed my point . The AFL will have to stand up in court and say they are doing everything possible to prevent head injuries. That means scrutiny on all aspects of play that can lead to head injury.
Click to expand...
Which makes it all the more interesting that we still don't have a GM Football at AFL level, and clubs are choosing not to pass on tackle technique guidance that the league distributed to players because they think it'll be even more confusing (and therefore I suppose, potentially more dangerous).
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mcgrath_truther said:
i’m not keen on him personally, but he’s playing in an environment that wholly benefits from opportunities created from bad umpiring & i’m also very biased against the bulldogs so my judgement is clouded
Click to expand...

Bont would be a star on any team in the league.
 
joey_jo_jo said:
The problem is the AFL is being short sighted and reactive.
Instead of going overboard with suspending players the AFL should look at what rules and rule interpretations lead to players opting for the sling tackle motion so often.

I follow union and leafue too and I rarely see this sort of tackle in those sports.
Ive been thinking why it is that its so prevalent in AFL.
Obviously one thing is rugby is a head on contest whereas afl is a 360 game but I do think theres other factors.

afl players rarely have a good tackle technique where they go low and use their leg drive to floor a player, which is why if they want to bring a player to ground it usually requires a 2nd "slinging" motion.

I think part of the reason for this is the below the knees rule, i cant for the life of me understand why grabbing a player around the knees is dangerous? Obviously cannoning into someones knees with your shoulder is or tripping is but those are both illegal in union/league too.

The other factor I think is an issue is the evolution of the holding the ball rule, if you floor a player straight away its likely going to be a ball up as the player had no opportunity to dispose. If you hold up a player upright then the umps will let play go a bit longer rather than blow the whistle as theyve been instructed by the afl in recent years to give the attacking player every opportunity to dispose of the ball to avoid congestion.
I think these factors contribute to why players will elect to go higher in a tackle and pin an arm, rather than hit them in the leg/hip area, and then when the whistle hasnt been blow straight away they do the 2nd motion to force a ball up/HTB call.

Anyway TL/DR I dont really have the answers to this but have been thinking about it for a while 😀
Click to expand...
Going low is not useful at afl, players have the arms free to get rid of the ball. If you aren’t stopping the guy from disposing of the ball you it’s a poor pointless tackle.
 
Can someone explain the bobblehead thing to me?
 
Beerfish said:
Can someone explain the bobblehead thing to me?
Click to expand...
Carlton FC decided to release limited edition C Curnow bobble heads to their fans as some kind of promo. Fans had to turn up before the game to collect. Apparently was an absolute * show and amongst other things bombers fans lined up, collected and then posted them online to sell. Lines 800 deep etc. Carlton fans not impressed by all accounts
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Lore
Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVII
345 346 347 348 349
Replies
9K
Views
281K
P Money
P Money
yaco55
  • Locked
MVP Round 24 ; Brisbane VS Essendon
Replies
9
Views
308
eth-dog
eth-dog
Sporno 4 Pyros
Sport The Essendon Board’s Paris 2024 Olympics Thread
2 3
Replies
63
Views
2K
Sporno 4 Pyros
Sporno 4 Pyros
ant555
VFL Essendon v Gold Coast VFL
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
ant555
ant555
yaco55
  • Locked
MVP Round 21 - Essendon v Fremantle
2
Replies
28
Views
723
caboose
caboose
yaco55
MVP Round 20 ; StKilda VS Essendon
Replies
9
Views
407
Blind Turn
Blind Turn
yaco55
  • Locked
MVP Essendon v The West Coast
2 3
Replies
50
Views
1K
Duckworth
Duckworth

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top