Mega Thread Non-Freo AFL Discussion 2023

[poshman]

How would one go about putting this on the eagles board without getting a ban.

I have a clean record... would that work in my favour?

 

[Wobbly Punt]

How would one go about putting this on the eagles board without getting a ban.

I have a clean record... would that work in my favour?

Worth a shot. Maybe post it along with a concerned query as to whether everyone is OK?

 

[ignoramus]

I get you are attempting to do a 1-30 based on your rankings, but that is not how this would be seen by list management. Also Cripps would not be top of their list. This should be lined up position vs position or at least area of the ground vs area of the ground.

TDK would not be in place of Amiss. It would be him in for one of our back up rucks or Treacy. In which case he would be an in.

Cripps - some wouldn't take him over Brayshaw, I think some would. Everyone is taking him over our 4th or 5th mid.

Walsh - Serong = we would probably keep our guy. I would guess most supporters league wide would take Walsh. He would definitely be taken over every mid we have outside of Brayshaw and Serong and even then there would be a lot of people who would take him over either. Personally I think Brayshaw is better, however, I am most likely biased...

Why is Curnow against Darcy? Put him against anyone in his position and the only reason he wouldn't be selected is Amiss is younger. If it was based on this year or next everyone is taking Curnow.

Cerra would be playing every week for us.

The closest two that make sense outside of Walsh/Serong = Weitering vs Pearce (pretty much the same player, I would take the younger one with the better injury history). Aish vs Acres, I would take our guy.

Anyway - I think the way you are looking at it is ver different to how I would assess it, which is fine.

The drafting and development side you mention is damning. I may be missing someone but they don't seem to develop players well.

I don't think his point is that there aren't X number of Carlton players that you'd have in our best 22. Nor is he proposing a method for assessing the quality of a given list. He's proposing a method of comparing the relative quality of each list — one which accepts as a constraint the fact that various equalisation measures (e.g. salary cap, access to draft picks) means that a given list must be a mix of "elite", "role players", "developing", "depth" and "list cloggers".

I take your point, and I think most people would agree, that there are players on Carlton's list who are better than their counterparts in ours. But it's no good saying that Cerra would playing for us every week, or that you'd probably have Curnow over Amiss or whatever, because you wouldn't have the salary cap to pay these arguably better versions of our players (NB. I say "arguably" because there's not a single other forward in the comp I'd trade Amiss for; Snuffaluphagus regularly throwing up hypotheticals about trading Amiss for Naughton has me wondering whether he's on any unprescribed medication).

Your approach makes sense for determining whether there are better players on the Carlton list than on our list. But the problem Dockeroo is addressing is how to determine how much quality they have relative to our quality, the ratio of quality to depth, etc., and how that mix compares to ours. The method is akin to whoever it is in the West Australian who ranks the combined Freo and WC players before each derby.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

The Age (I think) summed it up quite well.

Bumps and tackles are not illegal UNTIL contact is made with the head, then it becomes outcome based.

Want to bump? Tuck in the elbow, go low. (Like Viney, who put Boak out of commission)
Want t tackle? Try and keep the player from going to ground. (Bear hug like big onions)

THIS 100%

We were all taught as juniors to go low & hard (in both tackles and bumps) to both
a) avoid collecting our opponent head high and giving away a free kick, and
b) protect ourselves

Yes, it was a split second decision to turn and protect, however, he went up in the air instead of down. I know the sliding rule/below the knees has muddies the water somwhat, but you can still attack the ball/drop zone, go low and make your shoulders at the chest/stomach height of your opponent, which is still legal and absolutely minimises the risk of head high contact. Bend knees on impact, turn to brace and you should (mostly) be okay

 

[SupermanCapes]

I know, which is frustrating. Because it is evident the players are not asking for this, and nor are the fans. Loads of players have expressed their discontent at some of the MRO decisions of late. Luke Ryan being one of them.

In my opinion the AFL is ruining its product for the people who matter the most, which is the people who actually play it.

The current players might not be asking for it, but those with CTE are making a compelling argument that the AFL should have done it earlier.

To Taylor's point, the AFL is almost certainly looking at this through the lens of how they will defend the 2033 class action from players with CTE. Taking a belligerent stand on any head-high contact will play favourably with an argument that they were not negligent in looking after the players this season and for seasons to come.

 

[Joao]

The current players might not be asking for it, but those with CTE are making a compelling argument that the AFL should have done it earlier.

To Taylor's point, the AFL is almost certainly looking at this through the lens of how they will defend the 2033 class action from players with CTE. Taking a belligerent stand on any head-high contact will play favourably with an argument that they were not negligent in looking after the players this season and for seasons to come.

Yep, everyone (including fans) just have to get used to the fact the game is changed.

No longer is "going hard" prioritised over protecting the head. You can still do it, you'll just wear the consequences if it goes wrong.

If you can't let that go then stop watching because its not changing back.

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

Yes, but suspending Mansell or any other player guilty of being involved in a head collision will not stop incidents like these happening.

They will have to change the entire fundamentals of the game for that.

As long as contact is allowed in this sport, these things will happen. The alternative is players start wearing helmets and pads, NFL style.

I agree, there needs to be more fundamental change. Recent changes in what is getting suspended and for how long is making a difference, but it is only a small difference.

I hope that we never get to the point of extra protective equipment (especially helmets) because the NFL experience in the USA is that this just encourages players to be even more reckless -- to lead with their head in the mistaken belief that protective equipment will, well, protect them.

I'm going out on a limb -- and a lot of people here will fully think I am an idiot I know -- but for mine one of the huge changes in the game that has absolutely added to the risk of injury over the last two decades is "prior opportunity", knock-the-ball-out-and-it-is-play-on and the refusal to pay holding the ball decisions. Players are coached to really effing stick the tackle because that is the only way to get holding the ball.

If the rules were changed so that any tackle required an immediate correct disposal otherwise holding the ball was immediately and consistently called, then there is less need for big ferocious tackles. Impede the player, if the isn't an immediate disposal, you get the kick.

If you go back to WAFL footy in the 1970s (plenty of Youtube replays) it is really obvious how quick umps were to blow the whistle. Many 'limp' tackles got rewarded with frees. As soon as two guys were on the ground scrapping for the ball it was a ball up.

A difference from today was when the whistle was blown, umps didn't give players time to reset. In 1970s WAFL footy you were expected to kick from a free kick quickly. Umps expected to bounce the ball quickly -- not wait for lumbering rucks to jog in from 40m away.

The ball was always moving.

 

[DragoDelph]

Yep, everyone (including fans) just have to get used to the fact the game is changed.

No longer is "going hard" prioritised over protecting the head. You can still do it, you'll just wear the consequences if it goes wrong.

If you can't let that go then stop watching because its not changing back.

The next thing that will need to change is the criteria around the brownlow. Not sure they address the intentional vs unintentional, or football vs non-football acts though

 

[Joao]

The next thing that will need to change is the criteria around the brownlow. Not sure they address the intentional vs unintentional, or football vs non-football acts though

Yes I agree there is some scope there. Feel like the discussion will be had at some point.

 

[Wobbly Punt]

THIS 100%

We were all taught as juniors to go low & hard (in both tackles and bumps) to both
a) avoid collecting our opponent head high and giving away a free kick, and
b) protect ourselves

Yes, it was a split second decision to turn and protect, however, he went up in the air instead of down. I know the sliding rule/below the knees has muddies the water somwhat, but you can still attack the ball/drop zone, go low and make your shoulders at the chest/stomach height of your opponent, which is still legal and absolutely minimises the risk of head high contact. Bend knees on impact, turn to brace and you should (mostly) be okay

Agreed.

That sliding rule is a terrible one and a massive over reaction to a horrible injury, but the rule existed before then - tripping - there was no need for it and its made umpiring and playing harder. These rules on top of other rules to clarify the existing rules always end up making things worse. Use the existing rule properly.

A mate of mine proposed that Aish actually contributed to his injury by turning side and on and looking to grab the ball and exit rather than absorb the contest. I can see his point without really agreeing with it when you watch in slow mo but Mansell could hardly account for that in the time he had. I think under the current conditions he was always going to go for some weeks but I also think the reason Freo didn't remonstrate does say they thought "football act" and it was very definitely different to the JDG bump and the Eagle response to it.

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

How would one go about putting this on the eagles board without getting a ban.

I have a clean record... would that work in my favour?

Start a new thread over there: RUOK? with that as the OP

 

[Bigger]

I thought De Goey's was a "football act" but I also think the Weavils were softer than geriatric nipples in not remonstrating, as it happened after Hewiit had disposed of the pill and because he's a kid. Mansell pretty much hit Aish in the same contest and it was unfortunate that it was high. The headband coming off made it even more graphic but, in reality, there was no malice in that bump. De Goey wasn't looking to kill Hewitt but he certainly meant to put the hurt on - he wasn't in the hunt for the pill. Until Aish grabbed it, Mansell was in the hunt.

The bump is in trouble but it should stay. In fact, there are certain players that should always bump. I would rather Frederick tucked up tight and bumped people than this current laying on of jazz-hands that he's selling to the world as his tackling technique.

 

[Purpletown]

I agree, there needs to be more fundamental change. Recent changes in what is getting suspended and for how long is making a difference, but it is only a small difference.

I hope that we never get to the point of extra protective equipment (especially helmets) because the NFL experience in the USA is that this just encourages players to be even more reckless -- to lead with their head in the mistaken belief that protective equipment will, well, protect them.

I'm going out on a limb -- and a lot of people here will fully think I am an idiot I know -- but for mine one of the huge changes in the game that has absolutely added to the risk of injury over the last two decades is "prior opportunity", knock-the-ball-out-and-it-is-play-on and the refusal to pay holding the ball decisions. Players are coached to really effing stick the tackle because that is the only way to get holding the ball.

If the rules were changed so that any tackle required an immediate correct disposa

l otherwise holding the ball was immediately and consistently called, then there is less need for big ferocious tackles. Impede the player, if the isn't an immediate disposal, you get the kick.

If you go back to WAFL footy in the 1970s (plenty of Youtube replays) it is really obvious how quick umps were to blow the whistle. Many 'limp' tackles got rewarded with frees. As soon as two guys were on the ground scrapping for the ball it was a ball up.

A difference from today was when the whistle was blown, umps didn't give players time to reset. In 1970s WAFL footy you were expected to kick from a free kick quickly. Umps expected to bounce the ball quickly -- not wait for lumbering rucks to jog in from 40m away.

The ball was always moving.

JD, you are right about the protective equipment in the NFL being used as an offensive weapon and also giving the players a false sense of security. In using their state of the art helmets to run head first into oncoming opponents they are exposing their necks to some serious force that has been transferred from their helmet protected heads to their necks.

I agree with your take on the prior opportunity rule and how it is umpired in today's game. Players just let the ball fall to ground often in today's game and there is no reward for the tackler in that instance.

However if the player making the tackle buries his opponent he is much more likely to receive a free kick. Seems counter-productive to looking after the welfare of the player getting tackled imo

 

[Big Animal]

The current players might not be asking for it, but those with CTE are making a compelling argument that the AFL should have done it earlier.

To Taylor's point, the AFL is almost certainly looking at this through the lens of how they will defend the 2033 class action from players with CTE. Taking a belligerent stand on any head-high contact will play favourably with an argument that they were not negligent in looking after the players this season and for seasons to come.

I agree but then the gong show of the tribunal to make decisions and allow some players off needs to go. If it causes head high contact or head contact with the ground due to bump or tackle just make it week(s) to stamp it out. Why have silk's able to argue through loopholes to get some off from particular teams or judged less harshly. If they are actually covering their asses from a legal stand point, I get it, it's smart and forward looking, but they are still leaving themselves open to players claims for whom their accused got off on some technicality or because they play for Carlton. The midweek tribunal theatre works well for the AFL but surely they acknowledge the long term consequence of allowing that to continue.

 

[SupermanCapes]

I agree but then the gong show of the tribunal to make decisions and allow some players off needs to go. If it causes head high contact or head contact with the ground due to bump or tackle just make it week(s) to stamp it out. Why have silk's able to argue through loopholes to get some off from particular teams or judged less harshly. If they are actually covering their asses from a legal stand point, I get it, it's smart and forward looking, but they are still leaving themselves open to players claims for whom their accused got off on some technicality or because they play for Carlton. The midweek tribunal theatre works well for the AFL but surely they acknowledge the long term consequence of allowing that to continue.

I assume some boffin has done the work and determined that the current model is enough to avoid being found to have been negligent. I also assume that there is something baked into the rules of the game that requires there to be an avenue of appeal for clubs and can't be easily removed.

I have assumed much and am ready to be told I'm wrong.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I don't think his point is that there aren't X number of Carlton players that you'd have in our best 22. Nor is he proposing a method for assessing the quality of a given list. He's proposing a method of comparing the relative quality of each list — one which accepts as a constraint the fact that various equalisation measures (e.g. salary cap, access to draft picks) means that a given list must be a mix of "elite", "role players", "developing", "depth" and "list cloggers".

I take your point, and I think most people would agree, that there are players on Carlton's list who are better than their counterparts in ours. But it's no good saying that Cerra would playing for us every week, or that you'd probably have Curnow over Amiss or whatever, because you wouldn't have the salary cap to pay these arguably better versions of our players (NB. I say "arguably" because there's not a single other forward in the comp I'd trade Amiss for; Snuffaluphagus regularly throwing up hypotheticals about trading Amiss for Naughton has me wondering whether he's on any unprescribed medication).

Your approach makes sense for determining whether there are better players on the Carlton list than on our list. But the problem Dockeroo is addressing is how to determine how much quality they have relative to our quality, the ratio of quality to depth, etc., and how that mix compares to ours. The method is akin to whoever it is in the West Australian who ranks the combined Freo and WC players before each derby.

Amiss for Allen and it was a one off hypothetical and the unprescribed medication is called bigfootyboredomdol

 

[DragoDelph]

Amiss for Allen and it was a one off hypothetical and the unprescribed medication is called bigfootyboredomdol

Don't you have a Qooty final to keep you busy?

 

[Ge3ks]

Yep, everyone (including fans) just have to get used to the fact the game is changed.

No longer is "going hard" prioritised over protecting the head. You can still do it, you'll just wear the consequences if it goes wrong.

If you can't let that go then stop watching because its not changing back.

Well said. From a current players perspective it's obviously challenging adjusting to the new normal, but you have to imagine that they are quietly relieved that opposition players are actively trying to avoid brain injuring them in contests.

Good for the future gen, too.

 

[Mesc]

How would one go about putting this on the eagles board without getting a ban.

I have a clean record... would that work in my favour?

Just post it in The Bay man.

 

[anchor man]

Like they are actually just having a laugh at this point right? Trying to get in on the Belltower times thing

It made me laugh when I saw the heading.
SOOOOOO many hard times they have had. So many hard, tough, unforgiving years of not getting a place in the eight.It is their entitlement
Soo I will say, welcome to the real world of Aussie rules. Some times it just aint easy. But suck it up and feel like every other club have from time to time.
Over 40 years of being pampered, treated like icons, feeling entitled, being fed to entitlement by the Rag media.
Again, welcome to the real world
Just just laugh.It makes my heart bleed.

 

[poshman]

Just post it in The Bay man.

I think I have been in the Bay 2 or 3 times in since I made an account, which was about 3 years after I started just reading the site. Not my style, although probably highly amusing at times.

 

[pK75]

I agree, there needs to be more fundamental change. Recent changes in what is getting suspended and for how long is making a difference, but it is only a small difference.

I hope that we never get to the point of extra protective equipment (especially helmets) because the NFL experience in the USA is that this just encourages players to be even more reckless -- to lead with their head in the mistaken belief that protective equipment will, well, protect them.

I'm going out on a limb -- and a lot of people here will fully think I am an idiot I know -- but for mine one of the huge changes in the game that has absolutely added to the risk of injury over the last two decades is "prior opportunity", knock-the-ball-out-and-it-is-play-on and the refusal to pay holding the ball decisions. Players are coached to really effing stick the tackle because that is the only way to get holding the ball.

If the rules were changed so that any tackle required an immediate correct disposal otherwise holding the ball was immediately and consistently called, then there is less need for big ferocious tackles. Impede the player, if the isn't an immediate disposal, you get the kick.

If you go back to WAFL footy in the 1970s (plenty of Youtube replays) it is really obvious how quick umps were to blow the whistle. Many 'limp' tackles got rewarded with frees. As soon as two guys were on the ground scrapping for the ball it was a ball up.

A difference from today was when the whistle was blown, umps didn't give players time to reset. In 1970s WAFL footy you were expected to kick from a free kick quickly. Umps expected to bounce the ball quickly -- not wait for lumbering rucks to jog in from 40m away.

The ball was always moving.

Totally agree, but have to add, it’s the “jarred free” in the tackle, play on, ruling that is encouraging players to have to lock the ball into the tackle and bring the player to ground to win a holding the ball free that is the route cause of the issue. If players knew they’d get a free by dislodging the ball instead, that’s what they’d prioritise doing and no one would be suffering head injuries.
just pay the free for incorrect disposal every time and this issue would be put to bed by the end of this season without 5 players getting suspended every week

 

[Taylor]

I am curious to see what trades suggested on opposition forums feature Amiss.

 

[ignoramus]

Amiss for Allen and it was a one off hypothetical and the unprescribed medication is called bigfootyboredomdol

I swear you did the same thing but with Naughton 4 or 5 weeks back, but the BF search function is coming up zilch, so I guess I was wrong.

Either that, or you've used your secret Mod powers to permanently erase the incriminating post from the database.

 

[FreoGirl]

The AFL doesn't want the incidents to stop, that would be an unintended byproduct. They want to not be sued later for the outcomes of the incidents.

100%