Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVII

Remove this Banner Ad

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 think we are seeing that if both are playing the ball no-one will be suspended.

Agree that under current rules two people could technically get suspended if both bumped.

And I have to say.. that would be pretty cool.
 
I’d be absolutely filthy if I was Wright. Greene actually went past the ball and let it bounce off his shoulder before making high contact. GWS fans saying it’s the Toby Greene tax are absolutely delusional.
Someone teed off on one of the football shows about Adam Kingsley's hot take on this subject.

100% agree. Toby was pathetic and deserves his time off
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Someone teed off on one of the football shows about Adam Kingsley's hot take on this subject.

100% agree. Toby was pathetic and deserves his time off

Pathetic? Right...
 
Did Brian Taylor just say he only just learned who Robert E Lee was and that he was 'a general who tried to reunite the country after the US civil war'?
yes he did.
 
Did Brian Taylor just say he only just learned who Robert E Lee was and that he was 'a general who tried to reunite the country after the US civil war'?

this was only moments after one his classic displays of treating a younger, greener fellow commentator like they exist only to be his servant. a golden couple of minutes for this ****head. (this was when alister nicholson was trying to explain the rule regarding the ball hitting the umpire). funnily enough, alister wasn't really even reading the correct rule but that wasn't what brian got on his case about, it was that he was taking too long to read out the rule (which was something that hamish mclachlan used to do all the time). then he starts talking about robert e lee. god he sucks so bad.

(and a shout out to nathan jones who was useless as always and also during half time said that Scott Pendlebury got off due to the good guy thing like Cameron did, which he did not, because Pendlebury's case did not go to the tribunal. an insanely bad mistake like this only serves to create further confusion and toxicity around MRO discussions, which is something that really is not needed)
 
Spare a thought for me who listened to the game on ABC Radio with Marc Murphy and Adam Ramanauskas.

Like listening to wet toast dry.
 
Did Brian Taylor just say he only just learned who Robert E Lee was and that he was 'a general who tried to reunite the country after the US civil war'?
Not necessarily untrue. From this site: https://www.nps.gov/arho/learn/historyculture/lee-s-work-for-reunification.htm

Robert E. Lee is well known as a Confederate military general, but perhaps his greatest contribution to the United States was his effort to reunite the country following the American Civil War. In the opinions of his contemporaries and historians, Lee played a crucial role in restoring peace following the war.

History is a narrative. How Lee is remembered depends on the narrative of the time. As the most successful southern general in the Civil War, Lee's legacy includes his post-war reconciliation role. No doubt Brian was fed this information because whoever told him to say it thought there was a parallel with the Anzac tradition: honour and unity after defeat in a war the south was never going to win.

There's a quote by Bill Deane at the Australian War Memorial which illustrates the parallel:

“Anzac is not merely about loss. It is about courage, and endurance, and duty, and love of country, and mateship, and good humour and the survival of a sense of self-worth and decency in the face of dreadful odds.”

The Robbie Robertson song, "The night they drove old dixie down" (The Band) addresses similar themes of poor southerners affected by the war. It also mentions Robert E Lee:

Virgil Kane is the name
And I served on the Danville train
'Till Stoneman's cavalry came
And tore up the tracks again

In the winter of '65
We were hungry, just barely alive
By May the 10th, Richmond had fell
It's a time I remember, oh so well

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, la, na, na, la"

Back with my wife in Tennessee
When one day she called to me
"Virgil, quick, come see,
There goes Robert E. Lee!"
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It is an interesting take to take to compare a senior general for a side looking to split a country versus the story and 'legend' of the ANZACs.

I'm also not sure that African Americans would agree that his views helped reconcile a country...
The link i provided says:

Most historians agree that Lee’s efforts to promote peace following the American Civil War were essential in the reunification of the nation. Douglas Southall Freeman wrote that “the Confederates came to consider it as much the course of patriotism to emulate General Lee in peace as it had been to follow him in war. More than any other American, General Lee kept the tragedy of the war from being a continuing national calamity.”[13]

Even Lee’s more critical biographers came to this same conclusion. Elizabeth Brown Pryor noted that Lee came closest to greatness in his “enlightened decisions he took to foster peace and rebuild the South in the early aftermath of the war. This was his grand visionary moment.”[14] She further notes that “the dignified relinquishment of command is among the most ennobling of American traditions . . . Robert E. Lee’s actions just after the Civil War are a proud example of that tradition. His courageous military restraint in 1865 and his early words of reconciliation were more than a face-saving final bow from the stage. They offered a model for a great and proud army that felt itself humiliated; a salve for a devastated citizenry; a running start towards reconciliation. Some may be disappointed that Lee was not perfectly noble in every word and deed during the postwar period. Yet his tremendous forbearance under pressure of prosecution, public criticism, and personal ostracism is notable.”
[15]

You're probably right about the African American viewpoint - I don't know. But history is about narrative and that changes over time. The politics over southern statues is a case on point.


But what remains constant is the devastation caused by war - whether as a victor or not and how people respond to that conflict. And to remember the fallen and the cost to ordinary people and to salvage from that a sense of "self-worth and decency in the face of dreadful odds".

History is not black and white.
 
Last edited:
The link i provided says:

Most historians agree that Lee’s efforts to promote peace following the American Civil War were essential in the reunification of the nation. Douglas Southall Freeman wrote that “the Confederates came to consider it as much the course of patriotism to emulate General Lee in peace as it had been to follow him in war. More than any other American, General Lee kept the tragedy of the war from being a continuing national calamity.”[13]

Even Lee’s more critical biographers came to this same conclusion. Elizabeth Brown Pryor noted that Lee came closest to greatness in his “enlightened decisions he took to foster peace and rebuild the South in the early aftermath of the war. This was his grand visionary moment.”[14] She further notes that “the dignified relinquishment of command is among the most ennobling of American traditions . . . Robert E. Lee’s actions just after the Civil War are a proud example of that tradition. His courageous military restraint in 1865 and his early words of reconciliation were more than a face-saving final bow from the stage. They offered a model for a great and proud army that felt itself humiliated; a salve for a devastated citizenry; a running start towards reconciliation. Some may be disappointed that Lee was not perfectly noble in every word and deed during the postwar period. Yet his tremendous forbearance under pressure of prosecution, public criticism, and personal ostracism is notable.”
[15]

You're probably right about the African American viewpoint - I don't know. But history is about narrative and that changes over time. The politics over southern statues is a case on point.


But what remains constant is the devastation caused by war - whether as a victor or not and how people respond to that conflict. And to remember the fallen and the cost to ordinary people and to salvage from that a sense of "self-worth and decency in the face of dreadful odds".

History is not black and white.
I have read a lot about it over the years and it is true that Lee was a big part of reuniting the States after the war. I think the issue with how BT blurted it out . He made it sound like Lee was uniting the States during the war. I suppose you could say he untied a few of the Southern states during the war :)
 
I have read a lot about it over the years and it is true that Lee was a big part of reuniting the States after the war. I think the issue with how BT blurted it out . He made it sound like Lee was uniting the States during the war. I suppose you could say he untied a few of the Southern states during the war :)
Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment expressed by the posters here. I just think it was a line that BT was fed and because he knew (or cared) nothing about the actual conflict it came across as insincere and ignorant.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVII

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top