Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVII

[Agronomus]

Both incidents on par but AFL will s**t the bed whenever the outcome is concussion. That is the problem with outcome penalties.

TBH, I think both could be 2 weeks. Remember at the time some commentators were were wanting 6 for Wright! It is a lottery. Hell, you get 3 weeks for calling someone a name which is massive overkill.

The one I am more annoyed about is Cameron getting off. Opened up a can of worms. The AFL are good at that.

It's probably why they do it

 

[Lance Uppercut]

re Toby Greene

4

Toby Greene

Age

31

Ht

182cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.7

5star

K

12.5

5star

HB

10.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.0

5star

G

1.2

4star

D

17.5

4star

K

9.5

4star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.8

4star

T

1.0

2star

G

2.3

5star

D

26.6

5star

K

12.4

5star

HB

14.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.6

5star

G

0.0

1star

and Peter Wright:

I want to know what happens if there is a similar type incident, but where the leading player is concussed by the player backing back into the contest. Let's say by a head clash or similar. Less likely, sure; but entirely conceivable.

What is the outcome here?

I appreciate the leading player has more awareness of what's coming and likely more of an opportunity to effect the outcome, and thus perhaps a relatively higher duty of care, but what I want to know is whether there is absolutely zero duty of care required when you're backing back into a contest?

In this scenario, both players have jumped at the ball in a marking contest, and the entire reason that we laud the player going back in our game so much is that they know they are putting themselves in harms way so it's not really accurate to say they don't know that there's a potential clash. It seems to me that if you extrapolate the current rules then surely the player going back gets suspended?

What if both players are concussed? Could there be a scenario where both are suspended for the same incident?

 

[jmoo wan]

What if both players are concussed? Could there be a scenario where both are suspended for the same incident?

yes -this is an excellent question - if they both braced to protect themselves and get knocked out, they are both guilty

This would be the scenario that causes the tribunal to explode trying to work it out like that lady in Total Recall, so I'd give them both two weeks

 

[Lance Uppercut]

give 'em half each, you reckon?

 

[Mercurial89]

re Toby Greene and Peter Wright:

I want to know what happens if there is a similar type incident, but where the leading player is concussed by the player backing back into the contest. Let's say by a head clash or similar. Less likely, sure; but entirely conceivable.

What is the outcome here?

I appreciate the leading player has more awareness of what's coming and likely more of an opportunity to effect the outcome, and thus perhaps a relatively higher duty of care, but what I want to know is whether there is absolutely zero duty of care required when you're backing back into a contest?

In this scenario, both players have jumped at the ball in a marking contest, and the entire reason that we laud the player going back in our game so much is that they know they are putting themselves in harms way so it's not really accurate to say they don't know that there's a potential clash. It seems to me that if you extrapolate the current rules then surely the player going back gets suspended?

What if both players are concussed? Could there be a scenario where both are suspended for the same incident?

I don't think they will suspend if a player doesn't protect themselves.
It's the leading player instinctively tucking up to protect themselves that is the root cause of both incidents (also why the whole thing is a farce imo asking players to forgo their own health but nevertheless).

In the hypothetical scenario where Greene doesn't tuck, goes for the ball arms out stretched and cops a head or elbow to the chin and is knocked out, AFL will say no case to answer as both players were contesting the ball. They do not believe the person going back has any duty of care.


I'm still waiting for big key forwards to start raising knees and knocking people out and cracking ribs.
That will test the AFL's "protect high marking" mantra that they have.
Because as far as I can tell it's the tucking action only that they deem as bad (still comparing it to a bump, when it's not an instinctive action to not cover up).

If players use a knee, I don't know how they view it.


Just as an aside, Toby has for his entire career protected space with his leg out, even when flying for marks from behind he used his foot not his knee. If we didn't cry about studs up and demonise him for that as much, does he tuck up here and hit the guy in the head? Or does he stick the foot out to protect himself and we don't get risk of concussion?

 

[Beerfish]

re Toby Greene and Peter Wright:

I want to know what happens if there is a similar type incident, but where the leading player is concussed by the player backing back into the contest. Let's say by a head clash or similar. Less likely, sure; but entirely conceivable.

What is the outcome here?

I appreciate the leading player has more awareness of what's coming and likely more of an opportunity to effect the outcome, and thus perhaps a relatively higher duty of care, but what I want to know is whether there is absolutely zero duty of care required when you're backing back into a contest?

In this scenario, both players have jumped at the ball in a marking contest, and the entire reason that we laud the player going back in our game so much is that they know they are putting themselves in harms way so it's not really accurate to say they don't know that there's a potential clash. It seems to me that if you extrapolate the current rules then surely the player going back gets suspended?

What if both players are concussed? Could there be a scenario where both are suspended for the same incident?

Wow. Talk about de ja vu.

 

[Mr Bultitude]

It's the leading player instinctively tucking up to protect themselves that is the root cause of both incidents (also why the whole thing is a farce imo asking players to forgo their own health but nevertheless)

ABSOLUTELY.

Wright flinches only when he sees Cunningham right before impact, honestly reckon he had no idea he was there until then (unlike Cunningham, who knew the risk but went for it...so where's his duty of care?)

How can you unlearn an involuntary reflex? It's asking the impossible. Yet when a caller today makes that exact claim, Dwayne just simply says "Gotta learn to do it".

His consitant harping about playing learning not to brace and have concern for anothers safety at the complete abandonment of their own has got me angrier than it has any right to. F*cking clown.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I now just want a player to pull out of a marking contest (preferably not an EFC one!) and see how the commentary unfolds from that

 

[Call Me Cake]

One thing often overlooked is that Wright actually put a hand out to cushion Cunningham a split second before impact. If Wright had an intention to bump/no intention to provide safety that hand would not have come out while contesting the mark.

As for contesting the ball, Wright's ultimate mistake was thinking he could cover the distance in time for a chest mark. Sometimes just like an ill timed kick (which is a skill error) you're going to miss-time/miss-judge how long it might take you to get to a contest (also a skill error). By making it so that the risk is greater than the reward, players are less likely to take a skill-error chance at something like they would a precision kick because the skill error of the former is way more costly.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

So bigger players are more likely to be suspended if it’s based purely on outcome. Greene braced just as Wright did.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

I now just want a player to pull out of a marking contest (preferably not an EFC one!) and see how the commentary unfolds from that

this is what buckley was saying last week in the wake of the Nathan Murphy retirment that maybe commentators need to stop lambasting players for pulling out of marking contests and being over the top with praise for guys that back into contests without any concern with their safety.
Was disappointed that he didnt challenge Jonathon Brown on On the Couch this week though when he was doing his usual schtick of highlighting people who pulled out of contests.

 

[Darealrath]

I now just want a player to pull out of a marking contest (preferably not an EFC one!) and see how the commentary unfolds from that

Maybe Rachele was making a statement last week? (Twice, in case we missed it the first time)

 

[jannissary]

you have to remember that peter wright has been to the tribunal a bunch of times, and has had 23 different AFL sanctions while he's been a player which means they obviously must treat him to harsher penalties otherwise it'd be unfair to others who commit the same acts that he did on the ground

 

[DERO]

yes -this is an excellent question - if they both braced to protect themselves and get knocked out, they are both guilty

This would be the scenario that causes the tribunal to explode trying to work it out like that lady in Total Recall, so I'd give them both two weeks

GET YOUR ARSE TO MARS

 

[astrowizzle]

He got a week?
The only difference is he didn’t knock out Boyd, if he did he would’ve got the same suspension as wright. It’s all outcome based

Not if you are Mason redman

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Maybe Rachele was making a statement last week? (Twice, in case we missed it the first time)

yeah it's the classic juxtaposition, isn't it? Rachele gets crucified all week while Greene gets done for merely bracing against a player who "did the right thing" by showing courage.

Honestly, the players are in an impossible position here

 

[Mercurial89]

yeah it's the classic juxtaposition, isn't it? Rachele gets crucified all week while Greene gets done for merely bracing against a player who "did the right thing" by showing courage.

Honestly, the players are in an impossible position here

Realistically the AFL, players,clubs and lawyers need to sit down and come to a legal agreement regarding playing the game of AFL and what you are taking on, who's at fault, what the AFL can control and what will be left up to the game.
Get all the liabilities on the table, proper end of career benefits and medical treatment plans included.

That is how a professional code should treat this. Off the field, from an insurance and liabilities perspective instead of this fearful adjust on the run whackamole attempt at policing the game in the interests of making it safer.

It's ridiculous that we are all running around scared of concussion as if it's some big boogeyman hiding in the shadows but then no one is actually preparing for the long-term health of the game.

It won't happen but proactive action in this space off the field in the liability and contracts space would head off a lot of the problems that we are all scared of and all parties would benefit.

 

[Beerfish]

this is what buckley was saying last week in the wake of the Nathan Murphy retirment that maybe commentators need to stop lambasting players for pulling out of marking contests and being over the top with praise for guys that back into contests without any concern with their safety.
Was disappointed that he didnt challenge Jonathon Brown on On the Couch this week though when he was doing his usual schtick of highlighting people who pulled out of contests.

I still remember Bomber having a crack at one of his players at Geelong for pulling out of a contest once in a post match presser. The following week Tom Lonergan lost a kidney backing into a contest.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

I still remember Bomber having a crack at one of his players at Geelong for pulling out of a contest once in a post match presser. The following week Tom Lonergan lost a kidney backing into a contest.

Yeah you would hope that even though there are old school type commentators like browny that the coaching fraternity have moved with the times and teach guys to go hard at the ball but still ensure they're protecting themselves without being wreckless.

 

[Zach Package]

I still remember Bomber having a crack

Don’t we all, then again I’m not sure he does

 

[joey_jo_jo]

Don’t we all, then again I’m not sure he does

Just show him footage of the infamous B&F night.

 

[Beerfish]

Don’t we all, then again I’m not sure he does

The one time I try and make a serious footyball post...

 

[Blind Turn]

Just alter the rules slightly to change the behaviour of the player going back with the flight. Any front on contact to a player leading up to the ball from a teammate’s pass will result in a free to the leading player regardless of whether the intercept player only has eyes for the ball. The risk of giving away the free, especially in front of goals will make them stop doing it pretty quickly.

It wouldn’t deny players backing back into danger courageously (running backwards has less speed to it) but rather would be aimed at those who can run full tilt with the flight of the ball, in a game of chicken, head on into a leading player’s ’right-of-way channel.

 

[cAsEy_18]

re Toby Greene and Peter Wright:

I want to know what happens if there is a similar type incident, but where the leading player is concussed by the player backing back into the contest. Let's say by a head clash or similar. Less likely, sure; but entirely conceivable.

What is the outcome here?

I appreciate the leading player has more awareness of what's coming and likely more of an opportunity to effect the outcome, and thus perhaps a relatively higher duty of care, but what I want to know is whether there is absolutely zero duty of care required when you're backing back into a contest?

In this scenario, both players have jumped at the ball in a marking contest, and the entire reason that we laud the player going back in our game so much is that they know they are putting themselves in harms way so it's not really accurate to say they don't know that there's a potential clash. It seems to me that if you extrapolate the current rules then surely the player going back gets suspended?

What if both players are concussed? Could there be a scenario where both are suspended for the same incident?

If and when that does happen, I think they'll let the guy off, but it'll spark the exact discussion your highlighting. It might seem inconceivable now, but I think it's only a matter of time before we are talking about a world where going back with that level of reckless abandon is... well, whether its outlawed, it certainly won't be lauded with the positive bravery/respect it is at the moment.

The one I'm really intrigued about, that is somewhat tongue-in-cheek but a similar line of thinking. What if the exact Greene/Wright incident happens again... but it's a teammate that gets concussed and knocked out?

Unlikely? Sure.
Laughable to even consider suspending a person for an act against a teammate? Probably.

But by this definitions of "the action itself" and being "outcome determined" - I dunno. Probably wasting the words I type here haha as we know nothing would come of it. But the explanation from our esteemed review officer would be interesting reading.

 

[faible]

If and when that does happen, I think they'll let the guy off, but it'll spark the exact discussion your highlighting. It might seem inconceivable now, but I think it's only a matter of time before we are talking about a world where going back with that level of reckless abandon is... well, whether its outlawed, it certainly won't be lauded with the positive bravery/respect it is at the moment.

The one I'm really intrigued about, that is somewhat tongue-in-cheek but a similar line of thinking. What if the exact Greene/Wright incident happens again... but it's a teammate that gets concussed and knocked out?

Unlikely? Sure.
Laughable to even consider suspending a person for an act against a teammate? Probably.

But by this definitions of "the action itself" and being "outcome determined" - I dunno. Probably wasting the words I type here haha as we know nothing would come of it. But the explanation from our esteemed review officer would be interesting reading.

e.g. Gary Rohan knocking out Cameron