Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVII

[astrowizzle]

I really dont agree with your take on the Cameron tackle. It was a front on tackle, there wasnt a sling tackle/lifting of the legs past horizontal action, he just drove the Duggan back in a dominant fashion. 9/10 times the tackled player hits their back first with this sort of tackle, it was just unfortunate that duggan hit his head and also has had previous concussions.

Why cant tacklers aim be to take the ball carrier to ground if the intention isnt to cause the tackled player to hit their head first? Its not an inherently dirty action to bring a player to ground, it takes the player out of the play and means it is less likely they will get an effective disposal away.

Camerons action was to drive him backwards regardless of what Duggan did. He drove him and his head hit the ground

Now I'm hearing Duggan's action contributed to it so it is fine. I think 2mp and even Morso weiderman might be quite bemused about this shit.

I don't care what the rule is as long as they apply the same rules to bloody everyone.
The legal defence of this is a farce. Getting players of on a technicality is far from the spirit of the game. Is finish how the same players get off every time. It's beyond a joke
I mean Heeney didn't get off but the pathetic crap Sydney pulled actually made me vomit in my mouth

 

[Mercurial89]

It is simple as far as what the AFL want . In the future they do not want to be tied up in court so they are basically setting it up so they can say there are doing everything they can to prevent concussions.

Not to go into it too much regarding what they are being sued for and where the cases are targetting (concussion care and protocols not the running of the game, yes partial contributory liability will come into it).

But if the AFL even raised that in court, the rebuttal would show the 50 other tackles exactly like Bedford's that didn't result in the player hitting their head, or those that did not getting concussion and raise the question of " if you are not trying to outlaw the action for when an injury did not occur, how are you making the game safer?".
Suspending people on an action that results in an unfortunate injury and only when that injury is suffered is not a strong stance at all.
Which is where we currently are.

Which is why I ask the question, what's the plan?
Are we going to go through this big song and dance like we did with the will they won't they bump?

Just come out now, if you take the player to ground, and they hit there head, you will be suspended.
Pull the ****ing bandaid off and announce that you don't want tackling to ground.
Then be consistent and also ban knees up in marking contests.

Then I can actually give up on this shit sport and follow something else.

 

[ant555]

Not to go into it too much regarding what they are being sued for and where the cases are targetting (concussion care and protocols not the running of the game, yes partial contributory liability will come into it).

But if the AFL even raised that in court, the rebuttal would show the 50 other tackles exactly like Bedford's that didn't result in the player hitting their head, or those that did not getting concussion and raise the question of " if you are not trying to outlaw the action for when an injury did not occur, how are you making the game safer?".
Suspending people on an action that results in an unfortunate injury and only when that injury is suffered is not a strong stance at all.
Which is where we currently are.

Which is why I ask the question, what's the plan?
Are we going to go through this big song and dance like we did with the will they won't they bump?

Just come out now, if you take the player to ground, and they hit there head, you will be suspended.
Pull the ****ing bandaid off and announce that you don't want tackling to ground.
Then be consistent and also ban knees up in marking contests.

Then I can actually give up on this shit sport and follow something else.

All they have to do is unlike the past they have to be seen to be doing something.

 

[Call Me Cake]

The "action" you speak of is the sport. And all players who play professionally were taught as such from a young age.

The wide majority of players who have played/play the sport are not coming forward with health issues. This implies that the mere action, which is the fabric of the sport and what players are taught to execute from a young age, is not the sole reason for such health issues.

Correlation does not equal causation.

This includes our infant knowledge of how deep genetics has played or plays in all of this and our recognition both preemptively or retroactively of it. This is still a grey area.

The fact is, Australian Football is a high impact, risk-inclusive sport. This is known to people long before they ever contemplate being a professional footballer. Just like many professions that include risk.

Should we ban policing because the risk of being shot to death is present?

Should we ban firefighting because the risk of being killed in a fire or suffering burns is present?

Should we ban all employment involving rock climbing, high-jump, paragliding, sky diving, personal training because the risk of death or injury is present?

Of course not. They sign waivers of their understanding that risks are present. We are passed the stage of knowing what is a risk and what isn't (and most of who have come forward have played at a time when the impact of such risks weren't so understood), it is now down to the acceptance of it that is incumbent on the one who signs it.

If not, there are plenty of would-be footballers who would jump at taking their place and tons of other jobs with less risks that they can take. You don't HAVE to be a footballer, you can go build trains or something.

 

[faible]

Should we ban all employment involving rock climbing, high-jump, paragliding, sky diving, personal training because the risk of death or injury is present?

We require minimum levels of safety standards from these. So not quite the argument you’re hoping it would be.

 

[Mercurial89]

All they have to do is unlike the past they have to be seen to be doing something.

I get the thinking,
Not as simple as that from a legal perspective.
The more actions you take invites questions as to why you didn't do something else.

For example as we discussed a page ago, if you slap suspensions on outcome for some incidents (let's ignore the ones that are the same action that don't result in injury for the purpose of this part of the discussion).
Why do they not change concussion guidelines? Which at the moment they are acting against medical advice.

Many times you can take on liabilities by trying to do the right things in other aspects of a business for example. Then your on the hook because you opened yourself up 5 different ways by doing something with good intentions in another aspect of the business.

So no, simply suspending some blokes does not really provide any legal protection which I think we all know is why these suspensions are being handed down, due to the threat of legal action.

So they would know all this, they have legal minds who knows these things, so what Is the endgame? What's the risk management plan and are they following it? The whole situation is weird. (Understanding we don't have the full picture).

 

[ant555]

I get the thinking,
Not as simple as that from a legal perspective.
The more actions you take invites questions as to why you didn't do something else.

For example as we discussed a page ago, if you slap suspensions on outcome for some incidents (let's ignore the ones that are the same action that don't result in injury for the purpose of this part of the discussion).
Why do they not change concussion guidelines? Which at the moment they are acting against medical advice.

Many times you can take on liabilities by trying to do the right things in other aspects of a business for example. Then your on the hook because you opened yourself up 5 different ways by doing something with good intentions in another aspect of the business.

So no, simply suspending some blokes does not really provide any legal protection which I think we all know is why these suspensions are being handed down, due to the threat of legal action.

So they would know all this, they have legal minds who knows these things, so what Is the endgame? What's the risk management plan and are they following it? The whole situation is weird. (Understanding we don't have the full picture).

I got the general gist of what they are doing by speaking to someone who works in the AFL and is across how they see the legalities.

 

[Old Campaigner]

So no, simply suspending some blokes does not really provide any legal protection which I think we all know is why these suspensions are being handed down, due to the threat of legal action.

But they're not simply suspending players, it's part of a range of measures they've introduced to protect players from concussions.

 

[MiguelM]

So, here we are, our fate at the mercy of games outside our control. Could be 9th by the end of the round.

Our own worst enemy!

 

[Zephyr Effekt]

So, here we are, our fate at the mercy of games outside our control. Could be 9th by the end of the round.

Our own worst enemy!

It’s where we belong.

Best of the bottom 8/10.

 

[astrowizzle]

We are a work in progress.
Next year and there might be some progress
This team just never fails to ruin your weekend. It isn't impossible to switch on for 3 hours is it?

 

[Yoda_]

Toby just doing Toby things with a goal of the year contender

 

[Seb78]

Saints will maul us next week

 

[HirdyLannister]

Would be nice to beat a team by more than 4 goals.

 

[Call Me Cake]

So, here we are, our fate at the mercy of games outside our control. Could be 9th by the end of the round.

Our own worst enemy!

The reigning premiers, grand finslists and preliminaries of last year have also slipped out of the 8 at some points (Pies to 13th, Lions to 13th, Carlton to 10th and GWS to 10th). We aren't coming off a flag, GF appearance or prelims.

So if we do fall to 9th, it's on us to dig ourselves out of it if we're good enough just as it is/was on teams with higher expectations going in.

 

[Yoda_]

Would be nice to beat a team by more than 4 goals.

I thought this to watching the suns v Giants.. Was a standard win for the Giants and it was 39 points. Saints take care of the Eagles. 12 goals

meanwhile, at Essington, scrape for every goal that might lead to a win

 

[bommer16]

Wc had alot of outs.

 

[Zach Package]

Montagna - ‘there’s Finn Maginness, he’ll go straight to Nick Daicos at the first bounce’. Meanwhile the graphic on the screen says he’s the starting sub.

We are truly living in a golden age

 

[Milanista28]

I enjoy watching Hawthorne more than us and it makes me sick.

 

[Vindicater]

I enjoy watching Hawthorne more than us and it makes me sick.

Third season if Mitchells coaching and you can see the gameplan has clicked with the players he wants playing it.

 

[Phone]

Would be nice to beat a team by more than 4 goals.

I think you're underrating just how amazing our 6 point win against West Coast was. I was critical in the aftermath but I've seen the light now. People were right. They've turned a corner. You might say, well they've won less games since that game than they had before that game and they've sacked their coach, but I think any fair minded person would comfortably rate our victory against them as one of the wins of the season, by any club.

It's just a coincidence that almost every other team keeps on pumping them and playing the game in cruise control

 

[crackers65]

I enjoy watching Hawthorne more than us and it makes me sick.

Wash your mouth out!

 

[bommer16]

The wiz

 

[Milanista28]

People asked why I was convinced Watson will be a star earlier in the year, well you can see it now

 

[bommer16]

I’m no hawks fan of course but I admire their buy in and system.