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

[Baudolino]

Agree it’s odd

The posts starts of saying it was too long and now the poster is asking how long it should had been

Very confusing posts

Just trying to establish a baseline for what you think the ban should be.

 

[Baudolino]

Maybe 6-7 but 5 seems reasonable all things considering…it’s not a perfect system and never has been

Okay so to return to my previous question, what's your moral argument against a 10 week ban, if you think the ban should be only 6-7 weeks maximum?

 

[Lana]

Okay so to return to my previous question, what's your moral argument against a 10 week ban, if you think the ban should be only 6-7 weeks maximum?

Do you really want to know what the Talmud says about this?

 

[Hamingja]

Damage control

Who was it that they screwed out of a farewell game last time. Maybe Bellchambers when they had nothing to play for? Essendon culture 101.

 

[Strange Cat]

Okay so to return to my previous question, what's your moral argument against a 10 week ban, if you think the ban should be only 6-7 weeks maximum?

Moral argument? Really we are going down this rabbit hole?

Your original post stated that the suspension was too lengthy now you’re advocating for a 10 weeks suspension

I’m really confused over what your actual point is at this stage

 

[cats_09]

I know some were interested in Naismith as a ruck option - an ACL injury earlier this season has bought his career to an end

 

[frggr]

Would the decade go:

2020 - 2029, then 2030 to 2039 etc

or

2021 - 2030, then 2031 - 2040 etc

I was thinking that 2020 is part of the 20s as 2030 would be part of the 30s

Guess it depends how you define the start of the decade

New millennium was 2000, so...

 

[Commando]

In Essendon defence it was probably the right decision not to play Hep in a farewell given they were still a finals chance

The question is IF he is not best 22 which he probably arguably is...

 

[cats_09]

 

[goyoucatters]

I'm no apologist for Tom Browne. But if this has actually gone down as it sounds, it appears to be more of a player problem than a media problem. If Browne can find out you've done this before you've apparently told the right people, I think you've waited too long to share the impending news with your nearest and dearest.

News travels fast in a digital world.

 

[Lana]

I'm no apologist for Tom Browne. But if this has actually gone down as it sounds, it appears to be more of a player problem than a media problem. If Browne can find out you've done this before you've apparently told the right people, I think you've waited too long to share the impending news with your nearest and dearest.

News travels fast in a digital world.

 

[cats_09]

I'm no apologist for Tom Browne. But if this has actually gone down as it sounds, it appears to be more of a player problem than a media problem. If Browne can find out you've done this before you've apparently told the right people, I think you've waited too long to share the impending news with your nearest and dearest.

News travels fast in a digital world.

The 'Tom Browne' you're referencing left his journalist job a year ago and took up a position at MA Financial Group - I'm also blocked by his Twitter account, so no idea is he still uses it

This Tom Browne is a parody account, while Jacob Gaynor is GWS's Social Media & Content Lead - the guy behind all the fun shit that GWS post

It's simple a post where "Tom" is having a laugh and Jacobs's joined in on the fun - besides, Jacob doesn't play VFL

 

[Kitcat]

Behinds should be worth zero points.

It should be most goals wins.

Most behinds to be used as a tiebreaker if necessary.

For 40 years up until 1897, only goals counted and behinds had no value. They were a useful statistic like inside 50s now.

 

[goyoucatters]

The 'Tom Browne' you're referencing left his journalist job a year ago and took up a position at MA Financial Group - I'm also blocked by his Twitter account, so no idea is he still uses it

This Tom Browne is a parody account, while Jacob Gaynor is GWS's Social Media & Content Lead - the guy behind all the fun shit that GWS post

It's simple a post where "Tom" is having a laugh and Jacobs's joined in on the fun - besides, Jacob doesn't play VFL

Well played. Clearly I haven't been paying attention.

 

[Mr Meow]

Would the decade go:

2020 - 2029, then 2030 to 2039 etc

or

2021 - 2030, then 2031 - 2040 etc

I was thinking that 2020 is part of the 20s as 2030 would be part of the 30s

Guess it depends how you define the start of the decade

Technically I'd say decades are like centuries in that it starts with the 1, but a lot of people still think of them starting with the 0. However when saying the 20s it does feel wrong to actually exclude 20 for instance, so maybe it is different to saying the 21st century starts with 2001 as opposed to 2000.

 

[StonedCat]

Goals from outside 50m should be worth at least double that of a goal kicked from the goal square

And hitting the post should be 2 points IMHO /s

 

[Baudolino]

Do you really want to know what the Talmud says about this?

Yes I do.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

9 out of 10 would draft

 

[Strange Cat]

Never ceases to amaze me the pathetic comments on social media when we sign a player on a new contract

So many keyboard warriors out there

 

[Baudolino]

Never ceases to amaze me the pathetic comments on social media when we sign a player on a new contract

So many keyboard warriors out there

Were people denigrating J. Henry and/or Zuthrie? Seems odd given that Zuth has been a rock all season and Henry's form has been much-improved lately.

 

[Commando]

Were people denigrating J. Henry and/or Zuthrie? Seems odd given that Zuth has been a rock all season and Henry's form has been much-improved lately.

You don't mess with the Zuthrie!!

 

[And_ROOS]

Well played. Clearly I haven't been paying attention.

To be fair that Tom Browne account has caught out a lot of people.

 

[Hinkley29]

For 40 years up until 1897, only goals counted and behinds had no value. They were a useful statistic like inside 50s now.

We should go back to that.

The aim of the game is to kick goals.

 

[Lana]

Yes I do.

Thank **** for ChatGPT

Talmudic Passage: The Proper Suspension for a Head-High Bump

Mishnah: A head-high bump in the game of Australian Rules Football, resulting in potential harm to the head, raises the question of appropriate punishment. The Match Review Panel has initially decreed a five-week suspension. However, there are debates about whether ten weeks or a lesser period, such as three weeks, is more suitable. The question also arises whether a punishment greater than ten weeks would be appropriate.

Gemara:

Rav Huna states: “The severity of the act must be matched by the gravity of the punishment, as it is written: ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed’ (Genesis 9:6). The head is the seat of life, and a bump to the head carries significant risk. Therefore, a punishment must reflect the seriousness of the potential harm. As we learn in Sanhedrin 74a, ‘One must transgress and not be killed except in cases of idolatry, illicit relations, or murder.’ Although this case does not involve intentional murder, the preservation of life (pikuach nefesh) remains paramount, as indicated in Yoma 85b, where it is said, ‘The saving of a life overrides Shabbat.’ A suspension of ten weeks is appropriate, for it not only serves as a deterrent but also upholds the principle of protecting life, which is a fundamental value in Torah law. A five-week suspension, while a step toward justice, may not sufficiently convey the seriousness of the offense and the need to protect life.”

Rav Yosef responds: “Indeed, we must consider the intent and the context, as it is said: ‘In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor’ (Leviticus 19:15). This principle is echoed in Bava Metzia 58b, where we are reminded that one must be cautious in judgment and consider all circumstances. Not every head-high bump is malicious; many occur amidst the fast pace and intensity of the game. Makkot 7b discusses the importance of assessing intent in cases of injury: if the act was unintentional, the penalty should reflect this distinction. If we impose ten weeks, it could seem excessive, especially if the action was unintended. Therefore, a suspension of five weeks might strike the right balance—harsh enough to ensure safety, yet not so severe as to overlook the nuances of intent, aligning with the principle of ‘Justice, justice shall you pursue’ (Deuteronomy 16:20).”

Rav Shimon adds: “We must also remember that excessive severity can be unjust. As it is written: ‘It is not good to show partiality in judgment’ (Proverbs 24:23). In Ketubot 33b, it is emphasized that excessive punishment can lead to injustice, and the Talmud warns against measures that go beyond what is necessary. While ten weeks might be warranted, we must avoid punitive measures that overstep the bounds. A suspension longer than ten weeks would risk becoming disproportionately harsh, echoing the teaching in Bava Kamma 83b that one should not inflict more damage than is warranted. We must be cautious not to impose a penalty that could lead to the exclusion of the player from the sport for an extended period, which could be counterproductive and diminish the opportunity for teshuvah (repentance and rehabilitation), as discussed in Yoma 86a.”

Rabbi Meir elaborates: “A suspension of seven weeks, though a middle ground, is inadequate. Eruvin 13b teaches that compromise is often praiseworthy, but in some cases, it fails to capture the full truth or justice required. It neither reflects the full gravity of the act nor provides a sufficient deterrent. Likewise, a three-week ban does not effectively address the risk involved. However, extending the suspension beyond ten weeks introduces an element of excessive harshness, reminiscent of the teaching in Makkot 23a: ‘Forty lashes he may give him, but no more.’ This teaches that even in discipline, there must be restraint. A punishment greater than ten weeks could be seen as overstepping the bounds of justice, serving no further benefit in terms of deterrence or moral clarity.”

Rabbi Eliezer concludes: “The principle of justice requires us to balance severity with mercy. As it is said, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ (Leviticus 19:18). In Shabbat 31a, Hillel teaches that this is the entire Torah, and the rest is commentary. Beit Shammai’s insistence on ten weeks underscores the necessity of maintaining high ethical standards, while Beit Hillel’s more lenient view reminds us to consider context and intent, in line with ‘The ways of the Torah are ways of pleasantness, and all its paths are peace’ (Proverbs 3:17). Yet, both agree that neither three weeks nor seven weeks fully serves the purpose. Moreover, a suspension greater than ten weeks is likely to be excessive and unjust. It risks punitive overreach, undermining the balance of justice and rehabilitation. The punishment should be severe enough to deter but not so extreme that it becomes an end in itself, in the spirit of Sanhedrin 52b: ‘The court must always strive for justice, but not for cruelty.’”

Halachah: The Sages conclude: “In this matter, the ten-week suspension is fitting. It aligns with the principles of both deterrence and fairness, providing a clear standard that addresses the risk of harm without descending into undue severity. A three-week ban would be inadequate, and while seven weeks might appear a compromise, it does not sufficiently uphold the values of safety and justice. A suspension longer than ten weeks, however, would exceed the necessary bounds of justice, moving into excessive punishment that could hinder the player’s future engagement with the sport and fail to serve the greater purpose of ethical and communal balance.

Regarding the initial five-week suspension, the Sages acknowledge that while it is a meaningful step toward addressing the issue, it falls short in fully recognizing the gravity of a head-high impact. The Torah commands us to ‘Do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord’ (Deuteronomy 6:18), and Bava Kamma 30a emphasizes that even in civil matters, one should exceed the letter of the law in pursuit of what is right. Therefore, while five weeks is a reasonable start, it lacks the requisite force to both uphold the sanctity of life and set a robust precedent in the realm of player safety. A suspension of ten weeks best reflects the balance of ethical considerations required for such an infraction, aligning with the principle in Sanhedrin 46a that ‘We impose punishment to cleanse society, not to exact revenge.’”

 

[Baudolino]

Thank **** for ChatGPT

Talmudic Passage: The Proper Suspension for a Head-High Bump

Mishnah: A head-high bump in the game of Australian Rules Football, resulting in potential harm to the head, raises the question of appropriate punishment. The Match Review Panel has initially decreed a five-week suspension. However, there are debates about whether ten weeks or a lesser period, such as three weeks, is more suitable. The question also arises whether a punishment greater than ten weeks would be appropriate.

Gemara:

Rav Huna states: “The severity of the act must be matched by the gravity of the punishment, as it is written: ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed’ (Genesis 9:6). The head is the seat of life, and a bump to the head carries significant risk. Therefore, a punishment must reflect the seriousness of the potential harm. As we learn in Sanhedrin 74a, ‘One must transgress and not be killed except in cases of idolatry, illicit relations, or murder.’ Although this case does not involve intentional murder, the preservation of life (pikuach nefesh) remains paramount, as indicated in Yoma 85b, where it is said, ‘The saving of a life overrides Shabbat.’ A suspension of ten weeks is appropriate, for it not only serves as a deterrent but also upholds the principle of protecting life, which is a fundamental value in Torah law. A five-week suspension, while a step toward justice, may not sufficiently convey the seriousness of the offense and the need to protect life.”

Rav Yosef responds: “Indeed, we must consider the intent and the context, as it is said: ‘In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor’ (Leviticus 19:15). This principle is echoed in Bava Metzia 58b, where we are reminded that one must be cautious in judgment and consider all circumstances. Not every head-high bump is malicious; many occur amidst the fast pace and intensity of the game. Makkot 7b discusses the importance of assessing intent in cases of injury: if the act was unintentional, the penalty should reflect this distinction. If we impose ten weeks, it could seem excessive, especially if the action was unintended. Therefore, a suspension of five weeks might strike the right balance—harsh enough to ensure safety, yet not so severe as to overlook the nuances of intent, aligning with the principle of ‘Justice, justice shall you pursue’ (Deuteronomy 16:20).”

Rav Shimon adds: “We must also remember that excessive severity can be unjust. As it is written: ‘It is not good to show partiality in judgment’ (Proverbs 24:23). In Ketubot 33b, it is emphasized that excessive punishment can lead to injustice, and the Talmud warns against measures that go beyond what is necessary. While ten weeks might be warranted, we must avoid punitive measures that overstep the bounds. A suspension longer than ten weeks would risk becoming disproportionately harsh, echoing the teaching in Bava Kamma 83b that one should not inflict more damage than is warranted. We must be cautious not to impose a penalty that could lead to the exclusion of the player from the sport for an extended period, which could be counterproductive and diminish the opportunity for teshuvah (repentance and rehabilitation), as discussed in Yoma 86a.”

Rabbi Meir elaborates: “A suspension of seven weeks, though a middle ground, is inadequate. Eruvin 13b teaches that compromise is often praiseworthy, but in some cases, it fails to capture the full truth or justice required. It neither reflects the full gravity of the act nor provides a sufficient deterrent. Likewise, a three-week ban does not effectively address the risk involved. However, extending the suspension beyond ten weeks introduces an element of excessive harshness, reminiscent of the teaching in Makkot 23a: ‘Forty lashes he may give him, but no more.’ This teaches that even in discipline, there must be restraint. A punishment greater than ten weeks could be seen as overstepping the bounds of justice, serving no further benefit in terms of deterrence or moral clarity.”

Rabbi Eliezer concludes: “The principle of justice requires us to balance severity with mercy. As it is said, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ (Leviticus 19:18). In Shabbat 31a, Hillel teaches that this is the entire Torah, and the rest is commentary. Beit Shammai’s insistence on ten weeks underscores the necessity of maintaining high ethical standards, while Beit Hillel’s more lenient view reminds us to consider context and intent, in line with ‘The ways of the Torah are ways of pleasantness, and all its paths are peace’ (Proverbs 3:17). Yet, both agree that neither three weeks nor seven weeks fully serves the purpose. Moreover, a suspension greater than ten weeks is likely to be excessive and unjust. It risks punitive overreach, undermining the balance of justice and rehabilitation. The punishment should be severe enough to deter but not so extreme that it becomes an end in itself, in the spirit of Sanhedrin 52b: ‘The court must always strive for justice, but not for cruelty.’”

Halachah: The Sages conclude: “In this matter, the ten-week suspension is fitting. It aligns with the principles of both deterrence and fairness, providing a clear standard that addresses the risk of harm without descending into undue severity. A three-week ban would be inadequate, and while seven weeks might appear a compromise, it does not sufficiently uphold the values of safety and justice. A suspension longer than ten weeks, however, would exceed the necessary bounds of justice, moving into excessive punishment that could hinder the player’s future engagement with the sport and fail to serve the greater purpose of ethical and communal balance.

Regarding the initial five-week suspension, the Sages acknowledge that while it is a meaningful step toward addressing the issue, it falls short in fully recognizing the gravity of a head-high impact. The Torah commands us to ‘Do what is right and good in the sight of the Lord’ (Deuteronomy 6:18), and Bava Kamma 30a emphasizes that even in civil matters, one should exceed the letter of the law in pursuit of what is right. Therefore, while five weeks is a reasonable start, it lacks the requisite force to both uphold the sanctity of life and set a robust precedent in the realm of player safety. A suspension of ten weeks best reflects the balance of ethical considerations required for such an infraction, aligning with the principle in Sanhedrin 46a that ‘We impose punishment to cleanse society, not to exact revenge.’”

Typical bloody Rav Shimon, he's such a biased hack when it comes to Port players. Might as well be Houston's lawyer.