Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Finals Wk 1
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 1 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
100% that twitter account is actually a 50 year old man that still lives with their Mum
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.
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.Neither striking or hitting an opponent is a football act, though
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.
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.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
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.
That may (or may not) be true but this decision is nothing to do with Cameron.Cameron would have to be the most protected player I have seen given his history of fines and good guy clauses
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.
Ouch