Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVII

[silk]

Both upheld.

Lions arguing Duggan contributed. I agree, he looked like he was trying to throw Cameron off him in second part of the tackle.

I just watched it for the first time and I'm not surprised he was still banned. Cameron drives his head into him so that the top of his head bangs into Duggans chin. Not saying I agree necessarily, just that I'm not suprised.

I think Bedford was the more stiff of the two having watched that too.

 

[Cold Sober]

On top of Heeney's bullshit suspension, Bedford and Camerons, The AFL is nothing short of pathetic.
Anyone with half a brain for football knows neither deserved a suspension.
I thought the idea of having ex footballers on these commissions / tribunals would improve outcomes. NO.
Everything nowadays is dictatorial, by DICKHEADS.

 

[Mercurial89]

What i'd like, is someone in the media to ask what is the benefit of these suspensions?
The suspensions are for tackles, the slinging motion is largely dead, I'd agree that you don't HAVE to sling so I can understand why it's gone (though I don't necessarily agree with it) and In many cases the alternative is not readily apparent (short of not tackling), I'd like to hear what Bedford was supposed to do?
If we are asking for him to just grab a jersey, that's not an effective tackle, maybe that's the take away?

The AFL have not yet been sued for the way the game is run/ how safe it is, they have been/are being sued as well as clubs and Drs around how concussions are handled once they occur.

The AFL is suspending Bedford for 3 weeks based on the same action Dangerfield did (and got off on appeal) with the difference being Taranto was concussed.

Yet the experts suggest the return to play window should be 21 days and the AFL refuse to change it.
That's grounds for any legal case right there.

So what are they actually wanting to achieve?
The game is going to get further from what it should be, and they are still going to be drowning in legal cases.
Like what is the end goal here? What is the risk management plan to get through this issue?

 

[BratPack]

What is like someone in the media to ask is what is the benefit of these suspensions?
The suspensions are for tackles, and In many cases the alternative is not readily apparent (short of not tackling), I'd like to hear what Bedford was supposed to do?

Based on the suspensions earlier in the year. What Barry Hall did to Brent Staker.

 

[Phone]

Dangerfield was able to argue that he did show some care in the tackle by trying to pull the player back, which was enough for the charge to be thrown out, even without releasing the arms. So I think it's a bit of an unfair comparison coz Cameron and Bedford and their lawyers didn't really say anything other than 'it was the other guy's fault/I executed the tackle perfectly' which perhaps not surprisingly wasn't the way into the tribunal's hearts and minds. again in Cameron's case I think he's unlucky because the umpire failed the players there by not blowing the whistle quicker and in the coming days hopefully that becomes a story

 

[Mercurial89]

Dangerfield was able to argue that he did show some care in the tackle by trying to pull the player back, which was enough for the charge to be thrown out, even without releasing the arms. So I think it's a bit of an unfair comparison coz Cameron and Bedford and their lawyers didn't really say anything other than 'it was the other guy's fault/I executed the tackle perfectly' which perhaps not surprisingly wasn't the way into the tribunal's hearts and minds. again in Cameron's case I think he's unlikely because the umpire failed the players there by not blowing the whistle quicker and in the coming days hopefully that becomes a story

Clubs probably decide, wisely, that neither player has the ability to speak the same way Dangerfield could under examination, there aren't many that could.

It wasn't just the arguments made in the Danger case, it was the way Danger sold what he did.

 

[ghostdog]

What i'd like, is someone in the media to ask what is the benefit of these suspensions?
The suspensions are for tackles, the slinging motion is largely dead, I'd agree that you don't HAVE to sling so I can understand why it's gone (though I don't necessarily agree with it) and In many cases the alternative is not readily apparent (short of not tackling), I'd like to hear what Bedford was supposed to do?
If we are asking for him to just grab a jersey, that's not an effective tackle, maybe that's the take away?

The AFL have not yet been sued for the way the game is run/ how safe it is, they have been/are being sued as well as clubs and Drs around how concussions are handled once they occur.

The AFL is suspending Bedford for 3 weeks based on the same action Dangerfield did (and got off on appeal) with the difference being Taranto was concussed.

Yet the experts suggest the return to play window should be 21 days and the AFL refuse to change it.
That's grounds for any legal case right there.

So what are they actually wanting to achieve?
The game is going to get further from what it should be, and they are still going to be drowning in legal cases.
Like what is the end goal here? What is the risk management plan to get through this issue?

Regarding the legal case, you could also suggest that the more they mess with the rules and the more that inconsistencies are exposed, the closer the AFL gets to an actual legal case against them being filed.

A player or club at some point is going to be excluded from something significant at some point due to one of these decisions, feel hard-done-by and deserving of compensation.

 

[faible]

What i'd like, is someone in the media to ask what is the benefit of these suspensions?
The suspensions are for tackles, the slinging motion is largely dead, I'd agree that you don't HAVE to sling so I can understand why it's gone (though I don't necessarily agree with it) and In many cases the alternative is not readily apparent (short of not tackling), I'd like to hear what Bedford was supposed to do?
If we are asking for him to just grab a jersey, that's not an effective tackle, maybe that's the take away?

The AFL have not yet been sued for the way the game is run/ how safe it is, they have been/are being sued as well as clubs and Drs around how concussions are handled once they occur.

The AFL is suspending Bedford for 3 weeks based on the same action Dangerfield did (and got off on appeal) with the difference being Taranto was concussed.

Yet the experts suggest the return to play window should be 21 days and the AFL refuse to change it.
That's grounds for any legal case right there.

So what are they actually wanting to achieve?
The game is going to get further from what it should be, and they are still going to be drowning in legal cases.
Like what is the end goal here? What is the risk management plan to get through this issue?

Taking concussed players out for 3 games isn't something they want is my guess, despite it being suggested as best-practice for player welfare. Imagine Bont cops a concussion and has to sit out for a month? The AFL would hate that because people watch to see him play, bet on him, etc.. etc..

I think they'll be forced in to it eventually though if medical evidence keeps saying it needs to be longer.

 

[Mercurial89]

Taking concussed players out for 3 games isn't something they want is my guess, despite it being suggested as best-practice for player welfare. Imagine Bont cops a concussion and has to sit out for a month? The AFL would hate that because people watch to see him play, bet on him, etc.. etc..

I think they'll be forced in to it eventually though if medical evidence keeps saying it needs to be longer.

Of course it's not something they want, that usually doesn't matter when money and legal action is onvolved.
The interesting thing to me is instead of doing something that is actually legally defenceable and can be raised in a court,
They instead choose this haphazard scattergun suspension crusade which means nothing for why they are actually doing all this (legal action) and they put offside many many fans of the game.
It's the "we are too big to fail" thing where they think people have to follow it because they always have.
Soccer and basketball participation is sky high in this country and overseas sport is more accessible than ever.
The tv networks are under incredible pressure to keep your product on FTA, the broadcast rights won't go up much more if the numbers don't add up, and when games go to subscription your gonna lose a heap of fans.
Keep this up and your product will die, there is nothing surer.

They run the game increasingly poorly, only look at the types of changes they propose to NGAs after backtracking on them and meaning some clubs got absolutely hosed.

Thinking about implementing new changes as early as this draft when plans were made by clubs 12 months ago and are already being planned for 12 months into the future.
Here's the AFL sitting there going, hmm maybe we try this?
This is supposed to be a professional sports league, it's nothing more than amateur at best.

I would love to see their plans, what is the endgame for all this, what have the mapped out, there will be one. I just can't see how their actions gel with a feasible plan for this sport/league going forward.

 

[Nicholas61]

One of the implications if it becomes minimum 21 days that would take guys out for most of the finals if they cop a hit in September - unless you have say Carltons or Ports club doctor of course.

 

[Ati Tude]

One of the implications if it becomes minimum 21 days that would take guys out for most of the finals if they cop a hit in September - unless you have say Carltons or Ports club doctor of course.

Geelong's doctor says hi

 

[Pweter]

I love the slow motion talk that the AFL does in these situations. "He should've known once he had both arms pinned", "He should've tackled only pinning one arm", "when the player fell forward the tackler should've".

If tackling becomes such a pursuit of perfection where you only tackle in the perfect scenario then players will stop tackling unless the person with the ball is largely motionless or already on the ground. Any time a player has momentum you generally grab on and hang on for dear life, slinging basically doesn't happen any longer. If the force and direction of your tackle takes a player with momentum to ground, especially if you (intentionally or inadvertently) pin both arms you're at the mercy of whatever outcome occurs, you have little to no control of the situation.

Last night could have massive ramifications for the AFL as a sport.

 

[Mercurial89]

I love the slow motion talk that the AFL does in these situations. "He should've known once he had both arms pinned", "He should've tackled only pinning one arm", "when the player fell forward the tackler should've".

If tackling becomes such a pursuit of perfection where you only tackle in the perfect scenario then players will stop tackling unless the person with the ball is largely motionless or already on the ground. Any time a player has momentum you generally grab on and hang on for dear life, slinging basically doesn't happen any longer. If the force and direction of your tackle takes a player with momentum to ground, especially if you (intentionally or inadvertently) pin both arms you're at the mercy of whatever outcome occurs, you have little to no control of the situation.

Last night could have massive ramifications for the AFL as a sport.

To be honest, bolded is something they probably would like.
For some reason there is a belief the ball has to be in constant motion with goals raining from the sky for a game to be considered "good" in the AFLs thinking.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Season over for Lance Collard.

6 game suspension for gay related comment.

 

[Pweter]

To be honest, bolded is something they probably would like.
For some reason there is a belief the ball has to be in constant motion with goals raining from the sky for a game to be considered "good" in the AFLs thinking.

I'm not sure I'd like watching that.

When I started playing in the u9s many many (many) moons ago it was modified rules. No tackling, bumps only. Presumably this new AFL would be the same minus the bumps.

 

[Mercurial89]

I'm not sure I'd like watching that.

When I started playing in the u9s many many (many) moons ago it was modified rules. No tackling, bumps only. Presumably this new AFL would be the same minus the bumps.

It's awful, glorified circle work is horrific football to watch.
I truly do believe that's what the higher ups want though.

 

[MiguelM]

I'm not sure I'd like watching that.

When I started playing in the u9s many many (many) moons ago it was modified rules. No tackling, bumps only. Presumably this new AFL would be the same minus the bumps.

AFLX?

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Dangerfield was able to argue that he did show some care in the tackle by trying to pull the player back, which was enough for the charge to be thrown out, even without releasing the arms. So I think it's a bit of an unfair comparison coz Cameron and Bedford and their lawyers didn't really say anything other than 'it was the other guy's fault/I executed the tackle perfectly' which perhaps not surprisingly wasn't the way into the tribunal's hearts and minds. again in Cameron's case I think he's unlucky because the umpire failed the players there by not blowing the whistle quicker and in the coming days hopefully that becomes a story

So, it's all about rhetoric?

 

[ghostdog]

Didn't realise Jason Johnson

Jason Johnson

Age

46

Ht

180cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

20.6

5star

K

13.0

5star

HB

7.5

5star

M

4.3

4star

T

2.7

4star

No current season stats available

D

8.8

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

3.4

3star

M

1.2

2star

T

1.0

3star

is on the tribunal that ruled against Bedford, Cameron and Davies.

 

[Phone]

yeah he's one of the guys in the cast. Jordan Bannister

Jordan Bannister

Age

41

Ht

190cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.6

3star

K

5.9

2star

HB

4.7

3star

M

3.7

4star

T

2.0

4star

No current season stats available

D

6.0

2star

K

1.6

1star

HB

4.4

4star

M

1.6

2star

T

0.8

3star

the only other ex-essendon player in the cast iirc

 

[fairbump_playon]

Also tho seriously how many dudes were concussed every week in the 90s? When elbow “bumps” reigned supreme and a sling tackle was just a bit of fun.

I got slung into the ground by Ben Wardrop in a game of under 10s and hurt my neck and saw stars and my dad told me to toughen TF up.

Obviously I still have trouble with loud noises and turning to my left but otherwise I’m ok

 

[Call Me Cake]

And yet the overwhelming majority have not come forward with issues

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Bedford tackle is a real worry. In finals where it’s more intense there will be plenty of those tackles.well there would have been. Now a player would risk being suspended for the rest of the finals. Absolutely ridiculous

 

[ghostdog]

I agree with Wayne Carey.
Watched State of Origin last night. NRL's HIA rule has meant the care is there without compromising the game's DNA. It was an awesome game with some ferocious hit ups and tackling. I left rugby league in the 90s because I thought AFL was better, but last night's game was probably the best I've seen all year of either code. And I've only watched two other rugby league games this year.

If these rule changes lead to something resembling AFLX, I'm totally f****** out. That would be shit.

 

[faible]

I agree with Wayne Carey.
Watched State of Origin last night. NRL's HIA rule has meant the care is there without compromising the game's DNA. It was an awesome game with some ferocious hit ups and tackling. I left rugby league in the 90s because I thought AFL was better, but last night's game was probably the best I've seen all year of either code. And I've only watched two other rugby league games this year.

If these rule changes lead to something resembling AFLX, I'm totally f****** out. That would be shit.

I don't think that's happening any time soon.

NRL generally only has contact from one direction, much easier to control tackles there. The rule changes they made a couple of seasons ago have also worked really well at keeping play rolling whereas the AFL keeps fiddling with rules that don't achieve that.