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

[braddsey]

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?

The AFL Tribunal Panel includes past players. Gerard Wately said Jason Johnson and another player were on the panel last night.
This is the complete panel, but I don't know enough about the tribunal to know if they are all always in attendance:
Tribunal Panel Members: Jordan Bannister, Michelle Dench, Darren Gaspar, Wayne Henwood, Jason Johnson, Stephen Jurica, Richard Loveridge, Stewart Loewe, Shannon McFerran, David Neitz, Talia Radan, Scott Stevens, Shane Wakelin, Paul Williams.

Clearly opinions differ even amongst past players, dependent on their bias (though they largely lean towards Charlie and Bedford have done nothing wrong). Luke Hodge gave a very good explanation on SEN this morning as past player who has been on both sides of the tackle equation (a smaller player tackling a bigger player, a bigger player being tackled by a smaller player).

 

[Perrip]

The AFL Panel includes past players. Gerard Wately said Jason Johnson and another player were on the panel last night.
This is the complete panel, but I don't know enough about the tribunal to know if they are all always in attendance:
Tribunal Panel Members: Jordan Bannister, Michelle Dench, Darren Gaspar, Wayne Henwood, Jason Johnson, Stephen Jurica, Richard Loveridge, Stewart Loewe, Shannon McFerran, David Neitz, Talia Radan, Scott Stevens, Shane Wakelin, Paul Williams.

There's 2 panel members of past players + a chair person who is a legal professional. Panel members and chairs usually change week to week

 

[Sproj]

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.

Surely though, the players themselves go into their careers knowing the risks and even so, they CHOOSE to become players. Therefore, as long as the risks are outlined to them in full detail, if they CHOOSE to pursue this sport as a career, whatever happens as a result is on them. This may seem harsh but it is reality.

This is the same for MMA fighters, boxers, etc. I would never engage in those sports but there are people out there who love it and it is their life and they know the risks and potential consequences of pursuing such a career. At the same time, the people who choose to pursue these sports as a career, if they are really good or even moderately good, tend to make quite a lot of money out of it during their careers. Should they be forced to hand the money back because some players got injured?

In any full contact sport, which AFL is very much one of, there are always going to be risks that CANNOT be fully mitigated unless the sport itself is fundamentally changed and who has the right to make these decisions for others?

It is like the whole cheerleading debate, just because it offends, perhaps even hurts some sensitive people, those that really love it and being a part of it have opportunities taken away from them. I don't see how this is fair.

Just get the players to sign off on head injury training sessions, etc and sign a waiver and understand that sometimes, accidents just happen and the laws of physics are not a choice to follow, they are unbreakable scientific laws.

 

[braddsey]

Surely though, the players themselves go into their careers knowing the risks and even so, they CHOOSE to become players. Therefore, as long as the risks are outlined to them in full detail, if they CHOOSE to pursue this sport as a career, whatever happens as a result is on them. This may seem harsh but it is reality.

This is the same for MMA fighters, boxers, etc. I would never engage in those sports but there are people out there who love it and it is their life and they know the risks and potential consequences of pursuing such a career. At the same time, the people who choose to pursue these sports as a career, if they are really good or even moderately good, tend to make quite a lot of money out of it during their careers. Should they be forced to hand the money back because some players got injured?

In any full contact sport, which AFL is very much one of, there are always going to be risks that CANNOT be fully mitigated unless the sport itself is fundamentally changed and who has the right to make these decisions for others?

It is like the whole cheerleading debate, just because it offends, perhaps even hurts some sensitive people, those that really love it and being a part of it have opportunities taken away from them. I don't see how this is fair.

Just get the players to sign off on head injury training sessions, etc and sign a waiver and understand that sometimes, accidents just happen and the laws of physics are not a choice to follow, they are unbreakable scientific laws.

That’s all fair - however employers are obliged to provide a safe workplace. If an employer identifies a workplace risk, then they either need to mitigate or train employees to avoid the risk. This is why my previous employer made me do compliance training and sign that i had been trained, that showed i know how to sit in a chair or walk around a spill on the floor.

For the AFL they have identified that head injury is a risk, so moving forward they need to do everything they possible can to show they are mitigating the risk. It doesn’t help past players (and the AFL may lose the concussion lawsuits), but it will help to protect current players, and protect the AFL from futute litigation.

 

[braddsey]

Confirmed on SEN - Brisbane & GWS to appeal .

 

[p4p1]

The AFL Tribunal Panel includes past players. Gerard Wately said Jason Johnson and another player were on the panel last night.
This is the complete panel, but I don't know enough about the tribunal to know if they are all always in attendance:
Tribunal Panel Members: Jordan Bannister, Michelle Dench, Darren Gaspar, Wayne Henwood, Jason Johnson, Stephen Jurica, Richard Loveridge, Stewart Loewe, Shannon McFerran, David Neitz, Talia Radan, Scott Stevens, Shane Wakelin, Paul Williams.

Clearly opinions differ even amongst past players, dependent on their bias (though they largely lean towards Charlie and Bedford have done nothing wrong). Luke Hodge gave a very good explanation on SEN this morning as past player who has been on both sides of the tackle equation (a smaller player tackling a bigger player, a bigger player being tackled by a smaller player).

The reasoning IMO stunk of legalese rather than what an ex-player would expect in that scenario. Their reason for upholding the 3 suspension IMO was not based on something any player could have reasonably (Davies was line ball) seen coming or could not be expected to do in the situation they were in. The only realistic option for Cameron and Bedford could have done is not tackle, not something we want from the players. Davies option was to not contest the ball, wait for the opposition player to get the ball and then tackling him, potentially exposing him to the same situation that Cameron and Bedford are currently in.
As long as tackling is a footballing action, the onus must be on the tackled players to protect themselves to the best of their ability as well as the tackler to not take an action that will clearly result in a dangerous tackle. If the tackled player's only option to protect themselves is to drop the ball and give away a free kick so they can protect themselves, how does that differ from the tackler being expected to not pin arms, to stop the tackled player from getting a handball out etc.

Question to tackled player: 'Why didn't you drop the ball in your hand so you could brace yourself for contact with the ground'
Player: 'I didn't want to give a free kick away and give the ball to the opposition.'
Question to tackling player: 'Why didn't you let go of the player or leave an arm free?'
Player: 'I didn't want the other player to have his arms free so he could hand pass the ball to a teammate.'
Question to tackled player: 'Do you think if you hadn't tried to break the tackle and fought the tackle so hard that there would have been less chance of your head hitting the ground dangerously? If so why did you fight the tackle so hard when knowing that it might not have been the safest, most reasonable action to take?'
Player: 'Because I didn't want to give the free kick away and was fighting the tackle to either get free of the tackle or free up my arms to legally get the ball out to a teammate.'
Question to tackling player: 'When your opponent fought the tackle so hard, why did you continue to try and finish the tackle, when the safest and most reasonable option would have been to give up on the tackle?'
Player: 'Because I wanted to win the ball.'

There is a million version of the Q/A for different scenarios but all reach the same conclusion, I didn't want to give the opposition a free hit at getting the ball from both sides.

 

[Elixuh]

Wholesome pic.

 

[woosha24]

Im glad the appeal is going through. Even if you lose (which, lets face it, is probably the most likely outcome), it should at least act as a catalyst for the AFL to review that stupid "no sanction or 3 weeks, no inbetween!" matrix they use in these cases.

 

[M Malice]

 

[Nunez]

It took a lot for me to change my display pic, but God damn Stewy Dew would endorse why.

Come on Charlie!

 

[Nathan Barley]

Im glad the appeal is going through. Even if you lose (which, lets face it, is probably the most likely outcome), it should at least act as a catalyst for the AFL to review that stupid "no sanction or 3 weeks, no inbetween!" matrix they use in these cases.

And keep the "ruining the game" narrative in the newscycle

 

[McIvor]

That’s all fair - however employers are obliged to provide a safe workplace. If an employer identifies a workplace risk, then they either need to mitigate or train employees to avoid the risk. This is why my previous employer made me do compliance training and sign that i had been trained, that showed i know how to sit in a chair or walk around a spill on the floor.

For the AFL they have identified that head injury is a risk, so moving forward they need to do everything they possible can to show they are mitigating the risk. It doesn’t help past players (and the AFL may lose the concussion lawsuits), but it will help to protect current players, and protect the AFL from futute litigation.

So how does an arbitrary “three” week suspension assist with any of that. Why can’t it be “one” week or a “fine”. I quote these because how in a court hearing does suspending a player an arbitrary period of time help either party. What do you suspend someone “three” games means the AFL is taking it more serious than fining or only a one game ban? It doesn’t.

Furthermore, you say providing a safer work environment. So what about knees in marking contests, spoils, ACL injuries, hamstring injuries, friendly fire accidents? What about them? What are your doing to protect them? When can Eric, Cam, Will, Linc, Darcy, Dan Rich etc sue for their cash grab like these concussed players are because of their ACLs.

This is what’s wrong with the world when selfish money hungry ex players sue the game that gave them a livelihood for a period of time when they knew the inherent risks just like park footballers do and know they can never come grovelling with their hand out because their is an organisation with deep pockets and just play for the love of the game like all these selfish ex players are doing knowing it is detrimental to the game? What so their little Timmy doesn’t get a graze on his leg because AFL is such a mean nasty sport when again everyone knows the risks.

Slippery slope that doesn’t need to be gone down when everyone knows the inherent risks.

 

[Dalions]

 

[Grasshopper17]

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'd be surprised if we're able to admit new evidence to the appeal hearing, such as the thoughts of a biomechanist.

But I think not doing so for the actual tribunal hearing was a massive oversight by the club. I thought it was so obvious that they would do so I didn't even bother to tweet about it prior to the hearing. Lesson learned.

 

[Grasshopper17]

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.

More than that, we even allow players to drive their knees into someone's head with 100% abandon... As long as they're attempting a mark.

Noah Answerth says hi

 

[Perrip]

I'd be surprised if we're able to admit new evidence to the appeal hearing

You can submit new evidence at an appeal hearing but there are certain regulations regarding it:

In addition, Regulation 20 provides that an appellant can seek leave ofthe Appeal Board to produce fresh evidence provided the appellant canconvince the Appeal Board that the evidence sought to be produced couldnot, by reasonable diligence, have been obtained prior to the conclusion ofthe Tribunal hearing and where that evidence is of sufficient value that hadit been presented before the Tribunal, the Tribunal would have reached adifferent decision

 

[Grasshopper17]

You can submit new evidence at an appeal hearing but there are certain regulations regarding it:

Ha, interesting. Well given we only had 23 hours between the MRO verdict being made public and the tribunal hearing, we should roll with that.

 

[Jimmy Two Hands]

More than that, we even allow players to drive their knees into someone's head with 100% abandon... As long as they're attempting a mark.

Noah Answerth says hi

In fairness, Rayner did the same thing to the Collingwood rookie in Round 3/4 (stupid fixtures).

However this has got me thinking about the concussion = automatic suspension rule they seem to be moving towards and if marking attempts like these will be the next to go.

 

[Elixuh]

I'd be surprised if we're able to admit new evidence to the appeal hearing, such as the thoughts of a biomechanist.

But I think not doing so for the actual tribunal hearing was a massive oversight by the club. I thought it was so obvious that they would do so I didn't even bother to tweet about it prior to the hearing. Lesson learned.

Ordinarily you can introduce new evidence in limited circumstances. I’m not sure what the rules are for the tribunal but the tribunals reasoning and reliance on Cameron being able to do all of these other actions plus the feet tangling being irrelevant might be grounds to bring in the biomechanist.

 

[Darren Downunder]

More than that, we even allow players to drive their knees into someone's head with 100% abandon... As long as they're attempting a mark.

Noah Answerth says hi

This concussion issue is a can of worms. The other complication that no one talks about is players throwing themselves to the ground to “draw a high free kick”. There are rarely consequences for that behaviour and it is just as dangerous, but all the onus falls on the tackling player.

I honestly can’t see how this can be fixed.

 

[p4p1]

It's an odd one really. You could have a dusty/petracca type injury but more severe where maybe you needed a kidney transplant because of the damage yours sustained and there is nothing to answer for.
It's interesting that currently only head injuries are an issue. Not sure why all injuries to other parts of the body get a pass in the lawsuits.

 

[McIvor]

For those that missed Jono Brown last night

 

[jjami15]

I hope that the Lions also raise the fact that the AFL are providing unsafe workplaces for their players with the fact that the Optus stadium is and has been ridiculously hard.

 

[McIvor]

 

[McIvor]