Mega Thread Non-Freo AFL Discussion 2024

[DragoDelph]

Haha, very possible given the "implications" around Moore

Are you saying she has a beard?

 

[FreoGirl]

Are you saying she has a beard?

I'm going to need a closer look

they just have questionable fashion sense..

 

[Bigger]

I think - other than his hair, which has been bleached to death - they look great. Big dudes normally look very stupid in a suit so going colourful and retro is a great appraoch.

That's all code for "nice ****".

 

[gaskin]

He looks like he is going to a rodeo. All he is missing is the cowboy boots and hat.

 

[Yeti]

He looks like he is going to a rodeo. All he is missing is the cowboy boots and hat.

Accurate.

 

[Kram]

I'm going to need a closer look

they just have questionable fashion sense..

View attachment 2052337

It's like awful and great all at the same time.

 

[Piggy Smalls]

Instead of this ongoing fiasco around tackling I'm not sure why the AFL doesn't just mandate headgear for players. I'm sure some of them will hate not being as easily recognised in public but I can't really see a valid reason how it is a worse option than the AFL destroying the game in front of our eyes.

 

[Kram]

Instead of this ongoing fiasco around tackling I'm not sure why the AFL doesn't just mandate headgear for players. I'm sure some of them will hate not being as easily recognised in public but I can't really see a valid reason how it is a worse option than the AFL destroying the game in front of our eyes.

I don't think it does anything to stop concussion.

 

[Waterhouzin]

Instead of this ongoing fiasco around tackling I'm not sure why the AFL doesn't just mandate headgear for players. I'm sure some of them will hate not being as easily recognised in public but I can't really see a valid reason how it is a worse option than the AFL destroying the game in front of our eyes.

I’m definitely no brain scientist but I do recall info that indicates head gear doesn’t do a lot for concussions.
American football is a good case in point for that - they are geared up to the nines and have the same concussion issues we do.
Unfortunately there doesn’t appear to be a simple solution for this.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[gaskin]

Instead of this ongoing fiasco around tackling I'm not sure why the AFL doesn't just mandate headgear for players. I'm sure some of them will hate not being as easily recognised in public but I can't really see a valid reason how it is a worse option than the AFL destroying the game in front of our eyes.

It has been proven they do sweet **** all for concussions. The brain still rattles around in the skull. The only thing they are good for is protection if you have had an injury to the skull.

 

[Waterhouzin]

Thinking about it, maybe the old VFL mud pit ovals actually had some benefit.
We’ve made our playing surfaces to be near perfect / rock hard (Optus a good example).
Not all concussions are from heads hitting the ground but quite a few are, maybe we soften up the grounds a little


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Ge3ks]

hogs the doona

Probably likes to decongest in bed. I mean, who doesn't?

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

It's like awful and great all at the same time.

The fashion equivalent of this

 

[Piggy Smalls]

Thinking about it, maybe the old VFL mud pit ovals actually had some benefit.
We’ve made our playing surfaces to be near perfect / rock hard (Optus a good example).
Not all concussions are from heads hitting the ground but quite a few are, maybe we soften up the grounds a little


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

It's a good point. It seems like a high number of concussions are from contact with the ground these days.

 

[anchor man]

Thinking about it, maybe the old VFL mud pit ovals actually had some benefit.
We’ve made our playing surfaces to be near perfect / rock hard (Optus a good example).
Not all concussions are from heads hitting the ground but quite a few are, maybe we soften up the grounds a little


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Plenty of players from the pig sty grounds have carried concussion problems since their playing days.

 

[Piggy Smalls]

To be clear, you want to sleep in different beds, I understand, no judgement here. Tieing it in with progressive buzzwords for the sake of it is eyeroll worthy at best and directly harmful to progessive agendas at worst. Ugghh.

Sorry to everyone else, little too much politics

It's very in fashion to be an edgy woke non-conformist these days.

 

[Waterhouzin]

Plenty of players from the pig sty grounds have carried concussion problems since their playing days.

True but there was also a lot more elbows etc flying around in those days!


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[King Huskii]

It's very in fashion to be an edgy woke non-conformist these days.

Silent Alarm

 

[Paracleet]

Silent Alarm

The famously progressive Silent Alarm, yes.

 

[King Huskii]

The famously progressive Silent Alarm, yes.

He's bodacious

 

[ignoramus]

To be clear, you want to sleep in different beds, I understand, no judgement here. Tieing it in with progressive buzzwords for the sake of it is eyeroll worthy at best and directly harmful to progessive agendas at worst. Ugghh.

Sorry to everyone else, little too much politics

I accept that many are likely to ridicule or reject it, and any endorsement I give it would only ever be heavily qualified, but the argument might go something like this: historically speaking, marriage (and by extension, forms of cohabitation modeled on that arrangement) is a patriarchal and heteronormative institution. Gendered division or labour, patriarchal rule over the household, etc., etc. As just one example among many others that could be cited, the "marital bed" has until only quite recently, historically speaking, been an unregulated site of potential patriarchal violence — as in "it is a wife's duty...." — in that women could not rely upon the law for protection from that violence.

Of course, today we like to think of ourselves as autonomous individuals, well-informed and freely capable of making our own choices, able to reject prejudice and treat others as complete equals, and so far removed from such barbaric practices, such that only the grandstanding "woke" would depict the shared bed of today in those same terms. In doing so, we conveniently ignore the fact that, for larger sections of "free society" than we care to acknowledge, patriarchal living arrangements (e.g. arranged marriages), remain standard and that a residue of that patriarchal violence potentially lives on in any number of the minor rituals of marital relations (whether de jure or de facto), which we currently think of as being purely a matter of free will and informed choice.

I offer that purely as an answer to your question. Not interested in getting into futile "debates" over it.

 

[DragoDelph]

I accept that many are likely to ridicule or reject it, and any endorsement I give it would only ever be heavily qualified, but the argument might go something like this: historically speaking, marriage (and by extension, forms of cohabitation modeled on that arrangement) is a patriarchal and heteronormative institution. Gendered division or labour, patriarchal rule over the household, etc., etc. As just one example among many others that could be cited, the "marital bed" has until only quite recently, historically speaking, been an unregulated site of potential patriarchal violence — as in "it is a wife's duty...." — in that women could not rely upon the law for protection from that violence.

Of course, today we like to think of ourselves as autonomous individuals, well-informed and freely capable of making our own choices, able to reject prejudice and treat others as complete equals, and so far removed from such barbaric practices, such that only the grandstanding "woke" would depict the shared bed of today in those same terms. In doing so, we conveniently ignore the fact that, for larger sections of "free society" than we care to acknowledge, patriarchal living arrangements (e.g. arranged marriages), remain standard and that a residue of that patriarchal violence potentially lives on in any number of the minor rituals of marital relations (whether de jure or de facto), which we currently think of as being purely a matter of free will and informed choice.

I offer that purely as an answer to your question. Not interested in getting into futile "debates" over it.

Post to username does not compute

 

[ignoramus]

Post to username does not compute

I don't know much about football.

 

[gaskin]

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I accept that many are likely to ridicule or reject it, and any endorsement I give it would only ever be heavily qualified, but the argument might go something like this: historically speaking, marriage (and by extension, forms of cohabitation modeled on that arrangement) is a patriarchal and heteronormative institution. Gendered division or labour, patriarchal rule over the household, etc., etc. As just one example among many others that could be cited, the "marital bed" has until only quite recently, historically speaking, been an unregulated site of potential patriarchal violence — as in "it is a wife's duty...." — in that women could not rely upon the law for protection from that violence.

Of course, today we like to think of ourselves as autonomous individuals, well-informed and freely capable of making our own choices, able to reject prejudice and treat others as complete equals, and so far removed from such barbaric practices, such that only the grandstanding "woke" would depict the shared bed of today in those same terms. In doing so, we conveniently ignore the fact that, for larger sections of "free society" than we care to acknowledge, patriarchal living arrangements (e.g. arranged marriages), remain standard and that a residue of that patriarchal violence potentially lives on in any number of the minor rituals of marital relations (whether de jure or de facto), which we currently think of as being purely a matter of free will and informed choice.

I offer that purely as an answer to your question. Not interested in getting into futile "debates" over it.

Very good attempt to make sense out of non-sense