Oppo Camp Non Geelong football (AFL) discussion 2024, Part I

[Hinkley29]

Wtf thats stupid. Rosas is the worst non football act of all 4 and gets the least ban. Are they complete morons?

It may be the most “non-football” of the lot, but it also had the least chance of serious injury.

I know which of the four I would choose to be on the receiving end of.

I think they got it spot on.

 

[cats_09]

Wtf thats stupid. Rosas is the worst non football act of all 4 and gets the least ban. Are they complete morons?

Concussion, concussion & concussion

Versus no concussion

The outcome holds more sway in the suspension length than the action - if an opponent is concussed as a result of ones actions, the impact level is immediately deemed as high or severe

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I hadn't been keeping tabs this year.

It's just heartbreaking

 

[OzeSparky]

They do know what the rock band steely dan was named after, right?

sex toy

 

[Hamingja]

The scary thing with that is that losing at 20% is probably not that bad on that bet type

If you are doing 5 leg multis and including stuff like goalscorer markets they might be set at 120% markets for one of the legs, let alone all 5 legs

 

[cats_09]

In regards to the latest which is from St Kilda player Lance Collard, he reportedly used said language against multiple opponents during the match - so it wasn't just a once off, "heat of the moment" thing

And as a reminder about St Kilda - this is a week ago...

"The Sydney Swans take on St Kilda this weekend for the annual pride round game celebrating the LGBTI+ community. The annual fixture between the two clubs began in 2016 to celebrate diversity and inclusion and to ensure everyone feels welcome at the football."

Thinking St Kilda won't be too happy...

Damn - it's already been reported that St Kilda will tell Collard to accept the suspension offered, and if it's true he used the slur on at least 10 occasions then one would think he'll be spending longer on the sidelines than the 5 weeks Wil Powell received

 

[Pure_Ownage]

It may be the most “non-football” of the lot, but it also had the least chance of serious injury.

I know which of the four I would choose to be on the receiving end of.

I think they got it spot on.

Nah i disagree. The other tackles (cameron i can maybe live with as a suspension because of the driving motion but bedford did all he could to make the tackle safe) are football acts with accidental head contact. You cant or at least shouldnt legislate that out of the game. Rosas on the other hand is a non football dog act (like guys giving gut punches behind the play) that can be stopped tomorrow and has no legit purpose. The tackles should have been 0 or 1 weeks and rosas should be 8 weeks. The afls obsession over outcome and not the act itself is stupid.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Concussion, concussion & concussion

Versus no concussion

The outcome holds more sway in the suspension length than the action - if an opponent is concussed as a result of ones actions, the impact level is immediately deemed as high or severe

Thats moronic. First of all it doesnt account for whether the player even has a realistic football alternative or not and secondly dog elbows to the head (especially on an unsuspecting player who isnt prepared) have just as much capacity to cause serious head injuries as an accidental concussion-but theres actually a realistic alternative. If thats the outcome then the decision matrix is totally wrong. But given how useless the afl are its no surprise.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Good arguments by Jono and Bucks.

 

[cats_09]

 

[Lana]

That is a great chart, you probably could use it to predict what the footy media would talk about in a given week

 

[Gunf]

Good arguments by Jono and Bucks.

I agree with a lot of what they say but both and especially Cameron had other options.

Bedford could have pinned only 1 arm easier said than done it this case i know. At most this one should be 1 week suspension.
Cameron just had to hold him up instead of pushing him backwards and eventually dumping him on the back of his head.

The biggest problem i have with these suspensions is the elbow to the back of the head only get 1 week when it is 100% intentional and has the ability to cause serious harm in the moment and long term.. The elbow should have been a minimum 2 weeks i would have given him 4weeks

 

[Warhorse]

Damn - it's already been reported that St Kilda will tell Collard to accept the suspension offered, and if it's true he used the slur on at least 10 occasions then one would think he'll be spending longer on the sidelines than the 5 weeks Wil Powell received

View attachment 2049434

One of StKilda better players is dating one of Colingwoods better players. Thus won't go down well with the playing group

 

[Cataholic]

Nah i disagree. The other tackles (cameron i can maybe live with as a suspension because of the driving motion but bedford did all he could to make the tackle safe) are football acts with accidental head contact. You cant or at least shouldnt legislate that out of the game. Rosas on the other hand is a non football dog act (like guys giving gut punches behind the play) that can be stopped tomorrow and has no legit purpose. The tackles should have been 0 or 1 weeks and rosas should be 8 weeks. The afls obsession over outcome and not the act itself is stupid.

I think they got Cameron's spot on because he wrapped the player up, and then chose to continue with his momentum and drove his opponent backwards into the ground.

He had the option, once he wrapped both arms around the player, to stop his momentum and simply hold the player up.

He didn't, he concussed the player because of his intent to take the player to ground, so he cops the whack.

 

[Hinkley29]

Thats moronic. First of all it doesnt account for whether the player even has a realistic football alternative or not and secondly dog elbows to the head (especially on an unsuspecting player who isnt prepared) have just as much capacity to cause serious head injuries as an accidental concussion-but theres actually a realistic alternative. If thats the outcome then the decision matrix is totally wrong. But given how useless the afl are its no surprise.

Just a few points:

• the “dog elbow” from Rosas was just not a forceful action or impact. Was it stupid? Yes. Should he have deserved a suspension for being stupid? Yes. Was it dangerous? No. If he had committed that action with actual force I would agree with you, but he didn’t. Dog elbow is hyperbole.
• Bedford is a bit unlucky, but his tackling action is classic hip drop. Ie. tackle someone with momentum and thing drop all your weight straight down so as to bring them to ground with force. It has been outlawed in most tackle sports (notably NFL and rugby league) because it has caused serious injury to players. Ironically the consequences are normally leg injuries not head injuries, but if you tackle like that you run the risk.
• Cameron slammed Duggan on his back with force and it was inevitable that his head was going to whiplash into the ground. He has other options in his tackling action but he chose the hero play with no thought to the consequences for his opponent. He got what he deserved.

I get that these tackles would have been deemed legal and “good tough tackles” as little as 2 or 3 years ago. But times and the game has changed. The vast majority of players understand this and have changed their technique accordingly.

 

[you pick one]

The elbow off the ball should have been the only suspension nothing wrong with the other stuff that's what foot should look like and what players sign up to and fans go for.

 

[cats_09]

 

[Cataholic]

The elbow off the ball should have been the only suspension nothing wrong with the other stuff that's what foot should look like and what players sign up to and fans go for.

Got to disagree re: Cameron.

People want to see tackles, but we're in an age of enlightenment about concussion, and Cameron transgressed.

He had the player wrapped up, and simply had to hold him in situ, but he chose to continue with the pile drive into the ground.

What's more, he took the player backwards, with both arms pinned, leaving him completely defenseless. That action was unnecessary, and deserves 3 games.

I agree the elbow off the ball should've been suspended. The intent was to hit the player in the head, off the ball. That deserves a suspension right there. The degree of impact is beside the point - the intent was obvious , and is what should be punished.

 

[cats_09]

Got to disagree re: Cameron.

People want to see tackles, but we're in an age of enlightenment about concussion, and Cameron transgressed.

He had the player wrapped up, and simply had to hold him in situ, but he chose to continue with the pile drive into the ground.

What's more, he took the player backwards, with both arms pinned, leaving him completely defenseless. That action was unnecessary, and deserves 3 games.

I agree the elbow off the ball should've been suspended. The intent was to hit the player in the head, off the ball. That deserves a suspension right there. The degree of impact is beside the point - the intent was obvious , and is what should be punished.

I think Alex Davies is the unlucky one - he was trying to win the ball & correctly turned his body, meanwhile the Port player showed not so good technique with leaving himself completely open with how he tried to pick up the ball

Players should be getting taught/training to improve their technique in such situations, because the MRO is saying that Davies only option was to not play the ball & let the Port player pick it up - feels like the player with good technique is the one being punished


As for Cameron, stuff him he deserves 3 weeks - he left Duggan in a vulnerable position and the way he tucks his head in before going to ground, means there's also contact below Duggan's chin which potentially also contributed to the concussion

 

[cats_09]

This is where I think they've got the Rosas findings wrong

As we've seen this season, with dangerous tackles or forceful front on bumps, they've increased the impact level based on "potential to cause injury" - but with an off the ball strike, they don't take just same approach & because there's no injury it's graded as low impact

Make that a bump or tackle & it's immediately medium impact - this is where the "potential to cause injury" clause looks like an even bigger joke when applied to one situation but not another, especially when this one could have caused an issue if he was hit in the right/wrong spot

 

[Cataholic]

I think Alex Davies is the unlucky one - he was trying to win the ball & correctly turned his body, meanwhile the Port player showed not so good technique with leaving himself completely open with how he tried to pick up the ball

Players should be getting taught/training to improve their technique in such situations, because the MRO is saying that Davies only option was to not play the ball & let the Port player pick it up - feels like the player with good technique is the one being punished


As for Cameron, stuff him he deserves 3 weeks - he left Duggan in a vulnerable position and the way he tucks his head in before going to ground, means there's also contact below Duggan's chin which potentially also contributed to the concussion

I think where Davies went wrong, and he / all players need to learn, is the turn of the hip into a player with his head down.

 

[Kitcat]

View attachment 2048995

Got to disagree re: Cameron.

People want to see tackles, but we're in an age of enlightenment about concussion, and Cameron transgressed.

He had the player wrapped up, and simply had to hold him in situ, but he chose to continue with the pile drive into the ground.

What's more, he took the player backwards, with both arms pinned, leaving him completely defenseless. That action was unnecessary, and deserves 3 games.

I agree the elbow off the ball should've been suspended. The intent was to hit the player in the head, off the ball. That deserves a suspension right there. The degree of impact is beside the point - the intent was obvious , and is what should be punished.

I like “an Age of Enlightenment about concussion”. A good way of putting it.
Autocorrect gives it capitals.

 

[cats_09]

Wonder how many serves of Schnitz will be on the cards tonight

 

[Munich]

One of StKilda better players is dating one of Colingwoods better players. Thus won't go down well with the playing group

I wish the AFL (and its supporters) was mature enough for these men to be out and proud.

It's embarrassing.

 

[cats_09]

I wish the AFL (and its supporters) was mature enough for these men to be out and proud.

It's embarrassing.

The fact we've still got players using that F-word as a slur, shows just how far we've got to go within the league

And when you then read the BS comments like:

• I really hope his opponents pull through after such a tragic event like this. Thinking of them, their families, their pets and their neighbours garden gnomes.
• Thoughts and prayers going out to all the players who have been effected by these despicably hurtful and violent words
• What happens on the field stay on the field if you can’t handle it take up knitting

The above are actual comments

And then there's comments like:

• we've become too precious
• people are soft
• sticks & stones etc

Add in that media outlets have turned off public comments on the Ralf Schumacher story from yesterday, and you realise that the public is even further away from it being accepted in an environment like the AFL