Oppo Camp Other Club News/General Discussion

[sr36]

I think the tacklers were unlucky to make a good tackle that caused damage then lucky to get off. If tacklers are in motion holding a bloke with his arms pinned, as good a tackle that may be, they are exposing themselves to trouble if the head hits the deck. This will be the way going forward.

That these two blokes got off on legal errors will only cause more confusion


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Do you think it can be adjudicated that those tackles were "likely to cause injury"?

My concern with the bolded is that it shifts the contest massively towards the bloke with the ball. The only real way to shift it back is to give the bloke with the ball no time at all to try to break a tackle or get a disposal off. It'd be game changing and involve ridiculous amounts of umpire whistles.

 

[sideswipe]

Do you think it can be adjudicated that those tackles were "likely to cause injury"?

My concern with the bolded is that it shifts the contest massively towards the bloke with the ball. The only real way to shift it back is to give the bloke with the ball no time at all to try to break a tackle or get a disposal off. It'd be game changing and involve ridiculous amounts of umpire whistles.

In the new world we are in, unprotected heads must be, er, protected.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sr36]

In the new world we are in, unprotected heads must be, er, protected.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

My view is that unless you make that style of tackle a free or significantly change the umpiring in some other way - it's not going to protect the head. Diving tackles like Bedford's will still be applauded and praised and Cameron just tackled him front him. They'll still tackle that way as the occasional suspension through bad luck is better than never pinning the ball, but sometimes a player will get unlucky with concussion and another player will get unlucky and suspended.

 

[Markfs]

The AFL needs to start working in other areas, such as getting players to sign an agreement before draft day to accept retirement after 5 concussions...or 3....or some reasonable number. We need to weed out players who get concussed for minor head knocks. I think we should also start suspending players who dont protect their heads. If the innocent tackler can get suspended so should the player who goes head first into a tackle.

 

[sideswipe]

My view is that unless you make that style of tackle a free or significantly change the umpiring in some other way - it's not going to protect the head. Diving tackles like Bedford's will still be applauded and praised and Cameron just tackled him front him. They'll still tackle that way as the occasional suspension through bad luck is better than never pinning the ball, but sometimes a player will get unlucky with concussion and another player will get unlucky and suspended.

I understand both appeals dismissed the arguments other than error of law so the suspensions would have stood without those errors. So expect those tackles to cop suspensions going forward.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Kirby]

Do you think it can be adjudicated that those tackles were "likely to cause injury"?

My concern with the bolded is that it shifts the contest massively towards the bloke with the ball. The only real way to shift it back is to give the bloke with the ball no time at all to try to break a tackle or get a disposal off. It'd be game changing and involve ridiculous amounts of umpire whistles.

I don’t think that at the original Tribunal hearing that they argued the point about the tackles not being “likely to cause injury”.

Therefore, that issue then wasn’t one that the Appeals Tribunal had to or could deal with. They can only rule on the points of law that arose out of the original Tribunal ruling.

The test will therefore be when the next similar one comes up whether the defence for the player concentrates on the “likely to cause injury” issue.

I think at the moment it is being accepted too easily because the messaging is all about arms pinned etc.

 

[Gaspard]

The whole penalties system is a mess and needs a ground up revision. The rules of the game prohibit some things and allow others. If that has to change for safety reasons, then make the changes to the rules. It is ridiculous to to try to achieve changes through the penalty system by arbitrary decisions.
There is no balance in penalties. Punches are thrown and attract fines. Words are spoken and incur massive suspensions. Players stage for free kicks and rarely even get fined, even though their actions decide games or opponents careers and reputations.
An outcomes based penalty system does nothing to change behaviour. The act, with penalties for the act, and whether the rules allow it is the only way to achieve behavioural change.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Have absolutely no idea if Caddy gets suspended for this. Probably will even though he had eyes for the ball & Dawson didn't.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Mick 2

 

[sideswipe]

Mick ️ 2

Every veteran expert commentator who criticises the changes to the game conveniently ignores the reality that if changes aren’t made in reaction to increased medical knowledge, then the game exposes itself to massive liability risk.

Don’t blame the administrators Mick, blame those pesky doctors.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sr36]

Every veteran expert commentator who criticises the changes to the game conveniently ignores the reality that if changes aren’t made in reaction to increased medical knowledge, then the game exposes itself to massive liability risk.

Don’t blame the administrators Mick, blame those pesky doctors.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Can they just put a warning label on it like cigarette companies do?

 

[sideswipe]

Can they just put a warning label on it like cigarette companies do?

Good idea. Maybe put a few Grim Reaper ads on the telly?

 

[sr36]

Good idea. Maybe put a few Grim Reaper ads on the telly?

Don't think they were Benson and Hedges ads.

I would have thought warning players of the inherent dangers in the game and of concussion would be legal requirement number 1 in order to avoid future litigation?

I'm just questioning whether you have to go far beyond that to avoid litigation?

 

[sideswipe]

Don't think they were Benson and Hedges ads.

I would have thought warning players of the inherent dangers in the game and of concussion would be legal requirement number 1 in order to avoid future litigation?

I'm just questioning whether you have to go far beyond that to avoid litigation?

You do. Much further.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[live fast pieyoung]

Mick 2

I have no idea why this young person gets to make so many unilateral decisions about how the game (a cultural good, not a private one) is played.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Interesting to see how Blues cope with an injury

 

[Cory]

I’d like to see how they’d go if Curnow went down

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

I’d like to see how they’d go if Curnow went down

And Cripps.

 

[Fat Jesus]

Take the best 3 players out of any club and they will struggle.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Papley. TDK. Pearce. Andrews.

 

[Fat Jesus]

Papley. TDK. Pearce. Andrews.

My heart bleeds.

 

[stormskye]

Papley. TDK. Pearce. Andrews.

Just few more

 

[Black_White]

I’d like to see how they’d go if Curnow went down

It would be worse for the umpires if that happened.
Who the hell would they give frees to?
There’d be four of them running around like confused rabbits.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

It would be worse for the umpires if that happened.
Who the hell would they give frees to?
There’d be four of them running around like confused rabbits.

McKay. They'd give them to that bozo instead.