Review Round 18, 2024 - West Coast vs. Brisbane Lions

[Lazza16]

I like this. I'm game.

Or get the players to agree to play Charlie's song after every goal.

 

[briztoon]

Fine with that one.

No, no, no. As others have said, Davies did everything the way how juniors are taught to win the ball. Turn your body side on, lead with your hip and shoulder. Get your lead leg past the ball, brace for contact and get your hands on the ball. The other player fumbled the ball, and decided to lead with his head, putting himself in danger, which kids are taught no to do.

 

[Sproj]

Well congrats to the AFL, they seem to have managed to achieve the unachievable and unite almost all fans…against them.

Also, how much do you reckon John Rofl’s ‘own opinion’ cost the AFL PR department?

 

[Nathan Barley]

No, no, no. As others have said, Davies did everything the way how juniors are taught to win the ball. Turn your body side on, lead with your hip and shoulder. Get your lead leg past the ball, brace for contact and get your hands on the ball. The other player fumbled the ball, and decided to lead with his head, putting himself in danger, which kids are taught no to do.

Not sure if serious

Second to the ball. Leading with the hip. Haven't been able to do that for a while and

 

[Dalions]

No, no, no. As others have said, Davies did everything the way how juniors are taught to win the ball. Turn your body side on, lead with your hip and shoulder. Get your lead leg past the ball, brace for contact and get your hands on the ball. The other player fumbled the ball, and decided to lead with his head, putting himself in danger, which kids are taught no to do.

Sorry briztoon but he was late, maybe only a fraction of a second late to the ball but he was late. Players have been copping suspensions for years for this action, why is this any different?
You are correct, the other player lead with his head which is the wrong way to do it but it doesn’t change the fact that Davies was late to the ball and could have chose to tackle rather than bump.

 

[Viceregal]

he could have chose to tackle rather than bump.

I thought they were outlawing tackling?

 

[briztoon]

Sorry briztoon but he was late, maybe only a fraction of a second late to the ball but he was late. Players have been copping suspensions for years for this action, why is this any different?
You are correct, the other player lead with his head which is the wrong way to do it but it doesn’t change the fact that Davies was late to the ball and could have chose to tackle rather than bump.

I’m firmly in the, “if a player leads with their head, any consequences are on themselves for putting themselves in a vulnerable position when contesting the ball” side of the discussion.

 

[M Malice]

What hope have you got when this lady
View attachment 2050304
says

“The AFL’s lawyer Lisa Hannon said Cameron could have released Duggan’s right arm as they began falling to ground, and argued the Lions star didn’t need to drive his Eagles opponent into the Optus Stadium turf with force.

“The fact Cameron's foot may've become entangled with Duggan's was entirely foreseeable and not an exceptional circumstance in a close up tackle,” Hannon told the Tribunal.

And then the Tribunal Chair Lady

View attachment 2050305

rules

"Contrary to Cameron's evidence, we consider the vision clearly captures Cameron taking Duggan to ground forcefully," Tribunal chair Renee Enbom said.

"It is the combination of the excessive force used in driving Duggan backwards with both of his arms pinned that makes the tackle unreasonable in the circumstances.

"Those two features put Duggan in a highly vulnerable position."

Both of these learned women who i bet barely watch the game no less have played it or understand the nuances of the game are setting an extremely high bar on any player not to mention are blind because you can clearly see in the side on vision that Duggan is clearly trying to pull and twist Charlie around him but due to Charlie’s strength was unable to do causing said injury.

These two imbeciles is what is wrong with the game because both seem to think you can make all sorts of decisions in millisecinds and people like this and they aren’t the only ones who are ruining the fabric of the game.

IMO you need people who have played the game at a decent level to be prosecuting and defending these cases, no need for lawyers and QCs to stick their beak in.

Only need lawyers if it is to put forward a case for an error/dispute re the way the laws of the game are written.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

I’m firmly in the, “if a player leads with their head, any consequences are on themselves for putting themselves in a vulnerable position when contesting the ball” side of the discussion.

Ironically, players only started to do this en masse when contact below the knees aka the sliding rule was brought in. Unintended consequences everywhere.

There's a lot of AFL bashing at the moment and I'll put my hand up and say I'm as frustrated with them as most. But I also accept the AFL is thinking it's saving the game by trying to eliminate concussion from the game and thus reduce litigation, but all they're doing is smothering it themselves. I'm waiting for the lawsuit that will come because a player got injured (concussion, organ damage) because the AFL "allowed" allowed players to jump into each other with raised knees in marking contests.

There's something fundamentally wrong with players knowing they are playing a risky sport and yet being allowed to sue for damages. Sure, it's incumbent upon employers to provide a safe working environment but at some point there is a line as to how safe you can make it without it being overkill.

 

[Nathan Barley]

You think of the Voss/Burns collision in the 02 GF. Voss was trying to win the footy and stay strong instead of drawing a free and made Burns look stupid

 

[Dalions]

I’m firmly in the, “if a player leads with their head, any consequences are on themselves for putting themselves in a vulnerable position when contesting the ball” side of the discussion.

I agree in most circumstances but only as long as there is a duty of care and there was none in this scenario imo.

 

[McIvor]

IMO you need people who have played the game at a decent level to be prosecuting and defending these cases, no need for lawyers and QCs to stick their beak in.

Only need lawyers if it is to put forward a case for an error/dispute re the way the laws of the game are written.

Absolutely.

And what’s going to be worse is that today Numpty Kane will come out with absolute spin like she always does justifying the Tribunal and that tackling has a place in the game but players have to adapt and all this nonsense when these women are asking players to make a dozen decisions in the space of a second. Kane has never put forward a coherent argument in her life and is up there with the greatest politicians in her nonsensical justifiable spin that just goes round and round in circles.

 

[Zacs_Magic_Tooth]

Is the AFL claiming Duggan is able to self-dislocate his arm and turn it the opposite way, then reattach it the wrong way around to brace his backward fall? Because released arm or not, his head hits the turf

 

[McIvor]

Luke Hodge making very coherent points on SEN.

As he just said; if you haven’t played the game, how could you say what Cameron / Bedford should have done? Even Gerard agreed.

Insert pictures of the these muppets who decided these players fates as the reason why.

 

[Gadzorks]

So if suspensions are now based on outcomes what happens when a teammate accidentally knocks another teammate out? Do they get suspended?

What really irritates me is that players like Butters has escaped suspension all year for punching people off the ball but perfectly legal tackles such as Charlie’s & Bedford get 3 weeks.

Mind boggling and not to be dramatic and “old man yelling at clouds” style but it’s going to ruin the game if players can’t tackle anymore without fear of suspension.

I’m all for stamping out dangerous sling tackles, running past the ball to go for the bump ect. Those days of rough, “attempt to hurt the opposition” were gone 20 years ago. But players need to be able to play to a degree of aggression in a contact sport. The whole intent to bring them to ground thing is kind of the point isn’t it? How’re you meant to tackle 90kg+ athletes running at full speed if you go in soft?

Team mate collision to concussion - aka justin clarke, at training no less. Will players be banned because of training incidents.?

That's so interesting.

Anything careless has the be a lesser suspension than anything deliberate.

 

[jjami15]

Luke Hodge making very coherent points on SEN.

As he just said; if you haven’t played the game, how could you say what Cameron / Bedford should have done? Even Gerard agreed.

Insert pictures of the these muppets who decided these players fates as the reason why.

Was thinking the same, if you haven’t played you shouldn’t be in upper management of the game. They missed their chance with Brendan Gale.

 

[Gadzorks]

In light of Yeo’s comments today; it’s pretty disappointing that glass head Duggan hasn’t come out, even if it doesn’t t directly help Charlie that he contributed or was trying to shake Charlie off him which contributed to his concussion or I can only assume that he’s happy with the direction the AFL is going or perhaps he’s already thinking ahead to his post career when he plans on looking for his pay day by suing the AFL for his concussions.

Two concussions in a month - he is possibly still sleeping 16 hours a day and not able to put coherent thoughts together.

Based on the experience in my family.

 

[McIvor]

Was thinking the same, if you haven’t played you shouldn’t be in upper management of the game. They missed their chance with Brendan Gale.

Gale would have been a great get but wasn’t part of the nepotistic club at VFL House and you’re left with ego maniacs who couldn’t run a suburban league no less the AFL such is their grandiose self importance who are ALL out of touch and incapable to run the game.

 

[braddsey]

I would say we should appeal and bring out the biomechanics. The arguments by the AFL lawyers were all about what a “reasonable player” should do. A biomechanic can argue about what is reasonably possible.

 

[Brett C]

Ironically, players only started to do this en masse when contact below the knees aka the sliding rule was brought in. Unintended consequences everywhere.

There's a lot of AFL bashing at the moment and I'll put my hand up and say I'm as frustrated with them as most. But I also accept the AFL is thinking it's saving the game by trying to eliminate concussion from the game and thus reduce litigation, but all they're doing is smothering it themselves. I'm waiting for the lawsuit that will come because a player got injured (concussion, organ damage) because the AFL "allowed" allowed players to jump into each other with raised knees in marking contests.

There's something fundamentally wrong with players knowing they are playing a risky sport and yet being allowed to sue for damages. Sure, it's incumbent upon employers to provide a safe working environment but at some point there is a line as to how safe you can make it without it being overkill.

I'm with you on this, my only concern is we allow in a marking contest for a player to drive their knees into someone's ribs/spine/kidneys or head with 100% abandon.

At what point does that get removed from the game as well under the "duty of care" doctorine.

 

[Gadzorks]

And yet this Lisa Hannon who I can only assume has never played a game or even tackled anyone can’t see this or worse still was that three panel tribunal also couldn’t see what is plain as day which leads to the obvious assumption that they had already made their minds up before the hearing and weren’t open to any arguments or mitigating circumstances because they’d all essentially had their preconceived decision made before tonight?

I think that is entirely possible. They are facing compensation claims that can destroy the league from past concussed players, they want to do something to stop that pathway, so the directions are stamp it out at all costs.

I do think we are seeing fundamental changes to the game based on concussion. A greater good type of movement, like seat belts and like gun buy backs.

I personally love seeing tackles that stop a play, and who doesn't love baaaaalllll and want that to continue.

But there is a part of me that feels wrong when a player who is entertaining me is damaged possibly/probably permanently. I can't watch boxing, or mma or bjj anymore because of this.

So I guess I'm soft and at some time in the future i will be OK with tackling having been changed.

 

[Kernel Kurtz]

Absolutely.

And what’s going to be worse is that today Numpty Kane will come out with absolute spin like she always does justifying the Tribunal and that tackling has a place in the game but players have to adapt and all this nonsense when these women are asking players to make a dozen decisions in the space of a second. Kane has never put forward a coherent argument in her life and is up there with the greatest politicians in her nonsensical justifiable spin that just goes round and round in circles.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but let's not forget she represents the AFL .
They want to be carefull , they might get sued because of all these incompetencies.
People sue companies regulary for stress and unable perform work for extended periods .
Far fetched , I wouldn't say never on this one .

I hope we challenge today , cause I believe the AFL won't be this harsh in the future , or even next week, we all know that don't we.
If we wear this then we are just another weak interstate pawn in their tribunal inconsistancies and unfairness .
Stand up Brisbane, GWS.

 

[p4p1]

Sorry briztoon but he was late, maybe only a fraction of a second late to the ball but he was late. Players have been copping suspensions for years for this action, why is this any different?
You are correct, the other player lead with his head which is the wrong way to do it but it doesn’t change the fact that Davies was late to the ball and could have chose to tackle rather than bump.

How was he late? From the vision shown, the Port player had not taken possession of the ball. There is no 'right of way' in our game as far as I know.
The GC player did not bump, he contested for the ball and there was body contact caused by two players going for the ball.

 

[p4p1]

I would say we should appeal and bring out the biomechanics. The arguments by the AFL lawyers were all about what a “reasonable player” should do. A biomechanic can argue about what is reasonably possible.

I would also argue that all past and present players of the game have said what Charlie and Bedford did was a reasonable action within the context of the game. Why is some ****wits who have never played at an elite level opinion of what is a reasonable action outweighing those that have?

 

[p4p1]

I'm with you on this, my only concern is we allow in a marking contest for a player to drive their knees into someone's ribs/spine/kidneys or head with 100% abandon.

At what point does that get removed from the game as well under the "duty of care" doctorine.

While I don't want to see high marking etc out of the game, there is absolutely still a place to legally take someone out the game with intent and malice with your knee in a marking contest, if you wished to.