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

[cats_09]

 

[Strange Cat]

Absolutely no clarity or consistency with the AFL …for a multi billion dollar company it’s run so ****ing poorly

 

[Munich]

100% that twitter account is actually a 50 year old man that still lives with their Mum

I mean if a vibrator can't get you off then there's something seriously wrong.

 

[OzeSparky]

that's pretty piss poor

 

[Cataholic]

Players are getting off because the observance of the legal jargon wasn't followed through to the very last letter.

They've escaped punishment because of a stuff up in the process, not because they were found innocent.

 

[Strange Cat]

Cameron would have to be the most protected player I have seen given his history of fines and good guy clauses

 

[cats_09]

This is an interesting summary of the Bedford appeal -

 

[cats_09]

Can anyone explain this one

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Giants admin do it again.

 

[Munich]

Giants admin do it again.

Not the Stevie G slip.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

I think they should just make the rule about concussion, not the mechanism since that is what they usually judge it on.

My rule: If a player causes a concussion to an opposition player during play (bump, tackle, hit, etc.) but the act is careless, unintentional, or accidental, a football act, then one week. If the act is considered intentional, reckless, failure of duty of care, or rough conduct, three weeks. If my rule were a thing Bedford & Cameron would have only got a week.

I do think the week for giving an accidental concussion is valid because that player who got the concussion has to sit out for 12 days, which puts that team at a disadvantage.

 

[cats_09]

I think they should just make the rule about concussion, not the mechanism since that is what they usually judge it on.

My rule: If a player causes a concussion through a football act (bump, tackle, hit, striking, etc.) but the act is careless, unintentional, or accidental, a football act, then one week. If the act is considered intentional, reckless, failure of duty of care, or rough conduct, three weeks. If my rule was a thing Bedford & Cameron would have only got a week.

Neither striking or hitting an opponent is a football act though

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

Neither striking or hitting an opponent is a football act, though

I know what you're saying, but I don't mean striking in the sense that a player punches another player. I mean just an accidental kind of thing where arms and hands go flying in contests and marks and may cause contact.

 

[Cataholic]

I think they should just make the rule about concussion, not the mechanism since that is what they usually judge it on.

My rule: If a player causes a concussion to an opposition player during play (bump, tackle, hit, striking, etc.) but the act is careless, unintentional, or accidental, a football act, then one week. If the act is considered intentional, reckless, failure of duty of care, or rough conduct, three weeks. If my rule were a thing Bedford & Cameron would have only got a week.

I do think the week for giving an accidental concussion is valid because that player who got the concussion has to sit out for 12 days, which puts that team at a disadvantage.

I believe the 'mechanism' that Rosa employed deserved 3 weeks for the intent, though it didn't cause a concussion.

It was plain to see, and exactly what the AFL should be punishing hard.

It was a grub act that thankfully missed its mark.

 

[goyoucatters]

This finding is nothing to do with the tackle & whether it was a good tackle or not - same tackle this weekend with the tackled player concussed, will see another 3 week suspension handed down

It's been overturned based on a "failure in the law" with the tribunal seemingly not addressing whether the tackle was "likely to cause injury"

It's the same situation as when Cripps was cleared a couple of years back at the appeal level - that was nothing to do with his actions, but rather based on an argument that the tribunal failed to clarify what constitutes a bump

The great irony here is that any casual observer of Cameron's tackle can see that his tackle is actually quite likely to cause injury. He actually leaves the ground to seek leverage so that he can drive Duggan's body into the ground, with the full weight of his own body collapsed onto his opponent.

It is absolute textbook 'likely to cause injury'. But apparently because that wasn't explicitly mentioned in the findings, Cameron is able to wriggle out from underneath.

Unlike Duggan...

#peaklegalese
#totalfarce

 

[cats_09]

I know what you're saying, but I don't mean striking in the sense that a player punches another player. I mean just an accidental kind of thing where arms and hands go flying in contests and marks and may cause contact.

In that case, it's play on

For a player to be reported & suspended, there's got to a reportable action to behind with - players competing in a marking contest like we saw between Kolodjashnij & Lewis isn't a reportable action, even though Lewis ended up injured

Marking contests such as the one which saw Wright suspended earlier in the season where he didn't try to contest the mark, instead turning and hitting that contest shoulder first isn't a football action - that deserves a suspension

The aspect that really needs to change in everything is a shifting of the weighting from the impact/outcome to the action

 

[Mattttty]

Cameron would have to be the most protected player I have seen given his history of fines and good guy clauses

That may (or may not) be true but this decision is nothing to do with Cameron.

 

[cats_09]

I believe the 'mechanism' that Rosa employed deserved 3 weeks for the intent, though it didn't cause a concussion.

It was plain to see, and exactly what the AFL should be punishing hard.

It was a grub act that thankfully missed its mark.

They need to overhaul the decision matrix

At the moment, too much weight is given to the "impact" which as know is determined by the outcome - hence why an elbow to the back of the head that misses is only 1 week on the sidelines, but a player contesting the ball from side on is spending 3 weeks on the sidelines as his opponent went into the contest front on & didn't really protect himself

They also need to review the determination of "careless" versus "intentional". Surely any action not part of the game, should automatically be classed as intentional - striking isn't part of the game, so regardless of it being a fist or open hand, you swing at an opponent and collect them it's got to be intentional. The old argument of, "I was aiming at his chest & he slipped, but I didn't mean to hit him in the face" doesn't suddenly excuse your intention & make it a careless act - you intended to swing at them, so it's intentional


Non-football acts should have a higher base suspension, as should actions like rough conduct bumps (not contesting the ball, just going the player), dangerous tackles (not simply tackles gone wrong - sling tackles, opponent in a vulnerable position etc) - start actually punching the action

From there, add loading based on the impact level

So an elbow to the head is a 3 to 4 week suspension minimum - as there was no injury from Rosas elbow, it stays at that, but if medical treatment etc was needed, then additional weeks area added

 

[cats_09]

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Best cancer awareness?

 

[cats_09]

Best cancer awareness?

Melbourne & Bulldogs are involved with that

It's actually quite boring - they have a new shorts sponsor:

 

[cats_09]

Ouch

 

[And_ROOS]

I was hoping the Giants would use the all charcoal kit they use and sub out the orange for pink, it would pop better on that kit and look great.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Ouch

Oh man these guys never miss

 

[cats_09]

The AFL has released the following statement in regards to Cameron & Bedford tackles - essentially, they're dangerous tackles