Oppo Camp Other Club News/General Discussion

[ElliottsMaggies]

It won't be. Can't believe the angst that is still coming out with suspensions like this. Tackled, arms pinned, head hits ground, concussion. 3 games every time

It's a tackle. A perfectly executed tackle. If we're suspending players based on the outcome, then the game is stuffed as we know it.

 

[sideswipe]

It's a tackle.

That wrapped his arms which put his unprotected head into the ground causing concussion. This isn't a new development.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

That wrapped his arms which put his unprotected head into the ground causing concussion. This isn't a new development.

So if he did this whilst only holding one arm & his head hits the ground & he got concussed..would he not be suspended? And chicken wing tackles are permitted now?

https://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/affiliates/kayo/massive-danger-afl-facing-huge-issues-amid-leaguewide-rule-confusion/news-story/91c555f86f4e06a5a70ed3af6f655b98

 

[barrackers]

It won't be. Can't believe the angst that is still coming out with suspensions like this. Tackled, arms pinned, head hits ground, concussion. 3 games every time

I remember the uproar when Grundy got weeks for a sling tackle a few years back, now people wouldn’t think twice about that being a ban. Same will happen with these types of tackles going forward. Similarly players will adjust their technique and an opponent won’t be taken to ground with both arms pinned. The game has changed, but not for the first time.

 

[sideswipe]

So if he did this whilst only holding one arm & his head hits the ground & he got concussed..would he not be suspended? And chicken wing tackles are permitted now?

https://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/affiliates/kayo/massive-danger-afl-facing-huge-issues-amid-leaguewide-rule-confusion/news-story/91c555f86f4e06a5a70ed3af6f655b98

Chicken wing tackles - if you mean a player having his hand/arm taken backwards and upwards - are a different issue and can be "suspendable" depending on the action/circumstances. But that is another question.

In the Bedford situation, if the player doesn't have the ability to protect himself because both arms are pinned, and his head hits the deck, it's weeks. If he does have a free hand which can be used to brace, it might not be a reportable incident.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Chicken wing tackles - if you mean a player having his hand/arm taken backwards and upwards - are a different issue and can be "suspendable" depending on the action/circumstances. But that is another question.

In the Bedford situation, if the player doesn't have the ability to protect himself because both arms are pinned, and his head hits the deck, it's weeks. If he does have a free hand which can be used to brace, it might not be a reportable incident.

So if Bedford's opponent had a free arm, and he still got concussed, would Bedford's tackle be a perfectly executed tackle? Or would he still be suspended because his opponent got concussed?

Big chance the player being tackled would break his arm if he put it out to stop his fall with both player's body weight on top of it.

There were plenty of chicken wing tackles on the weekend. Saw 2 in our game alone. No penalty.

 

[sideswipe]

So if Bedford's opponent had a free arm, and he still got concussed, would Bedford's tackle be a perfectly executed tackle? Or would he still be suspended because his opponent got concussed?

Big chance the player being tackled would break his arm if he put it out to stop his fall with both player's body weight on top of it.

There were plenty of chicken wing tackles on the weekend. Saw 2 in our game alone. No penalty.

FFS that's a different question. If you can't get your head around the idea that two arms pinned, head hits deck equals weeks, then me repeating that won't help.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

FFS that's a different question. If you can't get your head around the idea that two arms pinned, head hits deck equals weeks, then me repeating that won't help.

Why do you have to be so derogatory in every conversation. I was asking you a question about tackling with one arm free. You said if one arm was free, it's all good. I simply asked what if he got concussed, would it still be suspendable? So yes it was a different question. It's called having a conversation.

Seems you're the only person not confused by the interpretations & subsequent suspensions. Even the players & coaches are saying they're confused. But you're not.

 

[sideswipe]

Why do you have to be so derogatory in every conversation. I was asking you a question about tackling with one arm free. You said if one arm was free, it's all good. I simply asked what if he got concussed, would it still be suspendable? So yes it was a different question. It's called having a conversation.

Seems you're the only person not confused by the interpretations & subsequent suspensions. Even the players & coaches are saying they're confused. But you're not.

I'm not confused by "two arms pinned" tackles copping weeks. The one arm is less clear. I didn't say all good or anything like that. I mentioned an arm bracing.

If you want a conversation, here is one. I see you added the following to a post above that I had previously responded to:

"If we're suspending players based on the outcome, then the game is stuffed as we know it."

So here's a comment on that - Penalties based on outcomes following on from an act is a bedrock principle of civil and criminal law. It is absolute common sense for tribunal penalties being based on outcomes. The offender is responsible for the outcome of his/her act.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

I'm not confused by "two arms pinned" tackles copping weeks. The one arm is less clear. I didn't say all good or anything like that. I mentioned an arm bracing.

If you want a conversation, here is one. I see you added the following to a post above that I had previously responded to:

"If we're suspending players based on the outcome, then the game is stuffed as we know it."

So here's a comment on that - Penalties based on outcomes following on from an act is a bedrock principle of civil and criminal law. It is absolute common sense for tribunal penalties being based on outcomes. The offender is responsible for the outcome of his/her act.

If penalties for football acts are going to be based on outcomes, that explains why so many people are concerned about the game. Imo.

Maynard should have been suspended for weeks based on that theory. Petracca's incident with Darcy's knee? Marking contests where players heads are hit with opponent's knees? Where does it start & finish? How far is the AFL going to take it with outcome based suspensions?

 

[sideswipe]

If penalties for football acts are going to be based on outcomes, that explains why so many people are concerned about the game. Imo.

Maynard should have been suspended for weeks based on that theory. Petracca's incident with Darcy's knee? Marking contests where players heads are hit with opponent's knees? Where does it start & finish? How far is the AFL going to take it with outcome based suspensions?

No, that's incorrect. There needs to be an offence/reportable act first before we worry about the outcome.

It starts and finishes with a reportable act. No reportable act, no penalty.

 

[HoraceStrasbork]

Deserved to be suspended with a haircut like that

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

No, that's incorrect. There needs to be an offence/reportable act first before we worry about the outcome.

It starts and finishes with a reportable act. No reportable act, no penalty.

Maynard was reported.

Who's not to say the AFL will start interpreting some of these incidents such as knees into heads & bodies as rough conduct, therefore making it a reportable offence.

That seems to be the fear if they continue going down the 'suspending based on outcome' route.

Where are they heading with this? If they are consistent about head knocks/concussion, shouldn't it include all football acts which result in concussion?

It seems to be opening a whole can of worms as far as other football acts which will come under scrutiny.

 

[sr36]

Of those 3 suspensions I reckon the Bedford one is absolutely BS. The Davies one was borderline, but I agree with the Cameron one.

I reckon Cameron rammed him into the ground deliberately, or at least was very reckless.

It's impossible to tell. Cameron knocks him backwards, but once the other bloke loses balance, his body weight is pulling Cameron to ground on top of him.

 

[sr36]

It won't be. Can't believe the angst that is still coming out with suspensions like this. Tackled, arms pinned, head hits ground, concussion. 3 games every time

It's because it started about whether or not it was a slinging motion. Now the motion is irrelevant - it's just whether th head hits the ground.

 

[sideswipe]

Maynard was reported.

Who's not to say the AFL will start interpreting some of these incidents such as knees into heads & bodies as rough conduct, therefore making it a reportable offence.

That seems to be the fear if they continue going down the 'suspending based on outcome' route.

Where are they heading with this? If they are consistent about head knocks/concussion, shouldn't it include all football acts which result in concussion?

It seems to be opening a whole can of worms as far as other football acts which will come under scrutiny.

Guess I should have been more precise in my language. "Found guilty of a reportable offence" would have been better - although I thought what I meant was clear enough.

If they change the rules on what is a reportable offence, then so be it.

You need to let go of being concerned with "suspending based on outcome". It has always been there. Not in the Denis DeNuto "vibe" way. It's actually just "the law".

 

[JLC]

Good on GWS for not letting Jack Buckley go to the Olympics.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Good on GWS for not letting Jack Buckley go to the Olympics.

I don't believe he even asked to go.

 

[sr36]

Good on GWS for not letting Jack Buckley go to the Olympics.

Reports say they'll allow him to go.

GWS Giants player caught in brutal development with girlfriend ahead of Paris Olympics

Jack Buckley would love to be in Paris supporting Celeste Mucci. Read more here.

au.sports.yahoo.com

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

 

[manicpie]

Garcia is a good little player

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

 

[Maggie5]

You need to let go of being concerned with "suspending based on outcome". It has always been there. Not in the Denis DeNuto "vibe" way. It's actually just "the law".

I wasn't aware that "suspending based on outcome" was law, when did this happen?

I thought that if player offends and is reported it was an unwritten law that the outcome would be taken into account

Learn something new everyday.

 

[RobJD]

I wasn't aware that "suspending based on outcome" was law, when did this happen?

I thought that if player offends and is reported it was an unwritten law that the outcome would be taken into account

Learn something new everyday.

With the AFL, you get an opportunity to learn something new every day because that's the approximate rate that they change/re-interpret/manipulate the rules!

 

[ElliottsMaggies]