Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVII

[FlyingV]

I think the AFL ultimately doesn’t want players to ‘tackle’ anymore, they want players to try and ‘hold’ the player. Ie, hold the ball into the player, create a stoppage, and not bring them to ground. This is a huge change.

What’s super dumb, is that they are making this change on the fly, in the middle of a season on a case by case basis. With a bunch of players who their whole lives have been coached to tackle with ferocity… and in some cases have built their careers on hitting tackles hard.

It’s going to cause all sorts of issues come finals

 

[Vindicater]

I can't wait to see a player not be suspended in finals for this exact same tackle

 

[Beerfish]

It’s going to cause all sorts of issues come finals

There's pretty much an asterisk on this year's flag already because of it afaic.

 

[Saint]

I think the AFL ultimately doesn’t want players to ‘tackle’ anymore, they want players to try and ‘hold’ the player. Ie, hold the ball into the player, create a stoppage, and not bring them to ground. This is a huge change.

What’s super dumb, is that they are making this change on the fly, in the middle of a season on a case by case basis. With a bunch of players who their whole lives have been coached to tackle with ferocity… and in some cases have built their careers on hitting tackles hard.

It’s going to cause all sorts of issues come finals

The problem is that they've also practically condoned dropping the ball as long as you do it as soon as tackled. If you hold on to it, hopefully to dispose of legally, you'll get pinged. But if you just let it go, they call play-on.

 

[Saint]

Can't decide who I want to lose more, Collingwood or Hawthorn. I think Collingwood, so that neither of them makes finals. I'm still not worried at all about Hawthorn, their list is still ordinary, though I did laugh the other day when Will Day suggested James Sicily

6

James Sicily

Age

29

Ht

188cm

Wt

90kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.3

5star

K

12.7

5star

HB

5.7

4star

M

6.3

5star

T

1.5

3star

MG

365.0

5star

D

19.4

4star

K

14.3

5star

HB

5.1

3star

M

5.9

5star

T

1.0

2star

MG

437.4

5star

D

10.0

3star

K

6.0

3star

HB

4.0

3star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

173.8

3star

was the best player in the league. He's been all-Australian once. I can see how if you played at Hawthorn, you'd be amazed by his ability, compared to the rest of the list, though. He must dazzle them at training, kicking more than 45m and taking one-grab marks.

 

[Call Me Cake]

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.

Never been into in the NRL, but if the new team being a revival of a former team (North Sydney Bears) to Perth go through I might jump on board as something extra to watch just cos of the colours.






The fact that they exited just before our last flag, won back-to-back premierships in 1921 and 1922, while we won back-to-back premierships in 1923 and 1924 and originating from the Northern part of a city just makes it all the more fitting.

 

[MiguelM]

Cameron and Bedford free to play. How did the AFL get it so wrong.

Outcome based decisions are a joke. MRP should be sacked.

 

[Phone]

Didn't realise Jason Johnson is on the tribunal that ruled against Bedford, Cameron and Davies.

And he might not be coming back to given two of their findings have just been rejected by the Appeals Board for, basically, not crossing their T's and dotting their I's when publishing their findings.

 

[Phone]

Cameron and Bedford free to play. How did the AFL get it so wrong.

Outcome based decisions are a joke. MRP should be sacked.

AFL Tribunal failed to write their findings properly and so the Appeals Board had to throw them out. Another loop-hole like Patrick Cripps via boring legal stuff. Tribunal Chair and the other two members of the panel on Tuesday (Johnson being one of them) stuffed up and now the AFL has to take the **** for it.

 

[raskolnikov]

Never been into in the NRL, but if the new team being a revival of a former team (North Sydney Bears) to Perth go through I might jump on board as something extra to watch just cos of the colours.

View attachment 2051368

View attachment 2051359
View attachment 2051362

The fact that they exited just before our last flag, won back-to-back premierships in 1921 and 1922, while we won back-to-back premierships in 1923 and 1924 and originating from the Northern part of a city just makes it all the more fitting.

The North Sydney Bears are the reason I am an Essendon supporter. I grew up in Sydney and a massive Bears fan. When I started taking an interest in the then VFL I adopted Essendon because of the red and black.

 

[MiguelM]

AFL Tribunal failed to write their findings properly and so the Appeals Board had to throw them out. Another loop-hole like Patrick Cripps via boring legal stuff. Tribunal Chair and the other two members of the panel on Tuesday (Johnson being one of them) stuffed up and now the AFL has to take the **** for it.

It annoys me that they got off on a "error in law" when they should have got off because it wasn't reportable in the first place.

System needs a serious rethink

 

[Mercurial89]

AFL Tribunal failed to write their findings properly and so the Appeals Board had to throw them out. Another loop-hole like Patrick Cripps via boring legal stuff. Tribunal Chair and the other two members of the panel on Tuesday (Johnson being one of them) stuffed up and now the AFL has to take the **** for it.

What was the error?

 

[Phone]

What was the error?

AFL Appeals Board statement from the Bedford (which also covers Cameron, basically)

"In our previous case, we upheld the appeal of the player because there was no consideration of the second element, being was the conduct likely to cause injury.

Similarly, in this case, we uphold the appeal on the ground that there was an error of law that had a material impact upon the outcome in the tribunal below. That error of law being a failure to take into account second element of the charge of rough conduct set out in law 18.7.1."

And from somewhere else in their statements: "Law 18.7.1, 'spirit and intention', reads as follows. "Players should be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition player, which is likely to cause injury."

Basically, for it to be a Reportable Offence for Rough Conduct, the player has to be guilty of unreasonable conduct and the conduct has to be likely to cause an injury. The Tribunal, in their work, talked about the "unreasonable conduct" aspect and the AFL Appeals Board accepted that, so the cases didn't fall over there, but the Tribunal didn't talk about the "likely to cause injury" bit, and by not doing that, the AFL Appeals Board has decided that an error of law has happened and the cases have to be thrown out.

 

[Mercurial89]

AFL Appeals Board statement from the Bedford (which also covers Cameron, basically)

"In our previous case, we upheld the appeal of the player because there was no consideration of the second element, being was the conduct likely to cause injury.

Similarly, in this case, we uphold the appeal on the ground that there was an error of law that had a material impact upon the outcome in the tribunal below. That error of law being a failure to take into account second element of the charge of rough conduct set out in law 18.7.1."

And from somewhere else in their statements: "Law 18.7.1, 'spirit and intention', reads as follows. "Players should be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition player, which is likely to cause injury."

Basically, for it to be a Reportable Offence for Rough Conduct, the player has to be guilty of unreasonable conduct and the conduct has to be likely to cause an injury. The Tribunal, in their work, talked about the "unreasonable conduct" aspect and the AFL Appeals Board accepted that, so the cases didn't fall over there, but the Tribunal didn't talk about the "likely to cause injury" bit, and by not doing that, the AFL Appeals Board has decided that an error of law has happened and the cases have to be thrown out.

Hmm,
So something that can easily happen next week and the tribunal write their findings a bit better and we are right back here.

Appreciate the response with the details.

 

[Phone]

Yep basically. If anything, I come out of this more certain that they'd be Reportable Offences. The Appeals Board has accepted that "unreasonable conduct" occurred in both cases. I reckon that's the harder case to argue than the bit about the conduct being likely to cause injury!

The Tribunal answered a two part question where the hardest bit is the first part, and they got it right. And then they just left an empty spot on the page for the second part

 

[ghostdog]

Never been into in the NRL, but if the new team being a revival of a former team (North Sydney Bears) to Perth go through I might jump on board as something extra to watch just cos of the colours.

View attachment 2051368

View attachment 2051359
View attachment 2051362

The fact that they exited just before our last flag, won back-to-back premierships in 1921 and 1922, while we won back-to-back premierships in 1923 and 1924 and originating from the Northern part of a city just makes it all the more fitting.

It's as good a reason as any. I've been a Brisbane supporter since their inaugural season, but if they ever get a team up in the NRL, I'd probably go for Wynnum or Easts.

I hope the Bears get up again. It would be good for the game and surely a more viable option than PNG.

 

[Phone]

Hmm,
So something that can easily happen next week and the tribunal write their findings a bit better and we are right back here.

Appreciate the response with the details.

So an update that probably only I care about:

The Tribunal has two co-chairs. Jeffrey Gleeson KC and Renee Enbom KC. Jeffrey Gleeson, for many years, used to be the main lawyer that represented the AFL at Tribunal hearings. Ahead of the 2022 season, Gleeson and Enbom were appointed to be the Tribunal chairs. Gleeson was the Chair for last week's Isaac Heeney Tribunal hearing, which was watertight and accepted at the AFL Appeals Board. Gleeson was also the chair earlier this season in the Jesse Hogan case, in which Gleeson picked up that the AFL was basically trying to suspend Hogan for something that the rules didn't allow for.

Renee Enbom was the chair on Tuesday night. I dare say if Gleeson was the chair, the AFL Appeal Board would have knocked back the appeals because I'm guessing Gleeson would have talked about the injury thing! That's no disrespect to Enbom but man, the Lions/GWS got lucky here. A different person writes it up and their players are probably banned for weeks.

A shout out to GWS who didn't even pick-up on the "likely to cause injury" thing in their core argument and then added it at the end of their arguments thanks to Brisbane/Cameron.

I will lastly say, I have mostly stayed out of Tribunal posting over the last few years and I have now been dragged back in completely and utterly.

 

[astrowizzle]

Thank Sydney Swans and Dunkley for this over imposing bullshit legal getting off suspensions. Its getting to the point of ridiculous.
I expect a full exoneration of our players from the saga because None of the shit they did in that was legal
Cameron's tackle was what they are trying to stamp out - it was over aggressive and he drove someone's head into the ground. He didn't have to take him to ground in n my opinion. But hey he's a good guy who had never been SUSPENDED. Its starting to remind me of adam goodes being untouchable and just getting off no matter what he did. Pendlebury same royak treatment.
They have to get rid of the bullshit good guy crap. Everyone makes mistakes but you also do the crime you do the time its that simple

 

[I Remember Bluey]

What was the error?

That they were suspended in the first place.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

Thank Sydney Swans and Dunkley for this over imposing bullshit legal getting off suspensions. Its getting to the point of ridiculous.
I expect a full exoneration of our players from the saga because None of the shit they did in that was legal
Cameron's tackle was what they are trying to stamp out - it was over aggressive and he drove someone's head into the ground. He didn't have to take him to ground in n my opinion. But hey he's a good guy who had never been SUSPENDED. Its starting to remind me of adam goodes being untouchable and just getting off no matter what he did. Pendlebury same royak treatment.
They have to get rid of the bullshit good guy crap. Everyone makes mistakes but you also do the crime you do the time its that simple

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.

 

[Pweter]

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.

The tackler can aim to do this even under the latest interpretations etc however just like the bump you're at fault if injury occurs.

There's so many variables at play when doing so it's a definite risk to take them to ground. Historically that risk hasn't been considered as it hasn't been a suspendable offence, though that's starting to shift.

 

[MiguelM]

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.

Plus I believe Duggan contributed. You can clearly see he was trying to throw Cameron off him.

 

[Blind Turn]

The intuitive nature of how players attack the game is at risk of being compromised. Double-guessing how you tackle, hit congestion at speed, lead for a mark with players coming at you front-on, or brace for contact when a collision is inevitable, is not conducive to good football and will probably result in more injuries. I agree with changing this intuitive conditioning over time so that players have almost an unconscious duty of care to their opponent but I think it needs to be solely related to actions that are excessive in their danger such as slinging, double-actions in tackles etc. I’m staggered that it’s got to the point where a reasonable natural action that is allowed in the laws of the game can lead to longer suspensions than unreasonable acts that are outside the laws of the game.

I’m glad those players got off but it’s not how I’d want them to get off. If Wright gets rubbed out then so should Cameron and Bedford but none deserved to. No wonder the fans are confused and disillusioned.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

The tackler can aim to do this even under the latest interpretations etc however just like the bump you're at fault if injury occurs.

There's so many variables at play when doing so it's a definite risk to take them to ground. Historically that risk hasn't been considered as it hasn't been a suspendable offence, though that's starting to shift.

I know that's probably what the AFLs view is but I just don't agree with it.

I think there is a lot more opportunity for a bump to go wrong so personally I don't feel as strongly about intentional bumps disappearing from the game (obviously you will always have incidental bumps when going for the ball).
But I think there needs to be a bit more common sense re tackling, if there is a high shot or a double motion like lifting the legs to dump a person or doing a wrestling type slinging/body slam motion then I'm all for the player being suspended.
But when it's just a standard dominant tackle there needs to be an acknowledgement that there is a level of momentum involved, and also that this is a physical game.
If the AFL want to remove tackles from the game then come out and say it to the public, at the moment they're doing it by stealth because they know there will be a backlash from all other stakeholders.

 

[ant555]

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.