Should reckless play resulting in injury to a player in the same team be suspendible?

[Gaborone]

My recent thread on Rohan sending Cameron to hospital was deleted by the mod on the technical grounds that the rules only refer to opposition players making prohibited contact. The incident was reckless, high contact causing a head injury. That Cameron only was injured was Rohan's good luck.

Reckless play resulting in high contact and a head injury is still reckless irrespective of whether or not the victim is a team mate or an opponent. That is what I understand the AFL is trying to stamp out.

The AFL needs to get its house in order.

 

[Paul Kersey]

Litigation isn't gonna care if it's friendly fire or not.

 

[TW Sherrin]

the AFL have a dilemma.

if they decide its not reckless or dangerous and it's an accident why is it only an accident when you hit a team mate?

 

[Sttew]

The Rohan incident just goes to show that accidents in football occur and players should not necessarily be suspended. There was obviously no malice in what Rohan did. Both he and Cameron were contesting a mark. I get it that Cameron could just as easily have been a Demon player and we'd be talking "how many weeks"? But maybe we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that every injury on the field resulting from contact between two players contesting the ball is punishable?

Does the OP genuinely believe Geelong should cop a double whammy, i.e., Cameron out for 2 weeks and Rohan suspended?

 

[Crankyhawk]

The Rohan incident just goes to show that accidents in football occur and players should not necessarily be suspended. There was obviously no malice in what Rohan did. Both he and Cameron were contesting a mark. I get it that Cameron could just as easily have been a Demon player and we'd be talking "how many weeks"? But maybe we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that every injury on the field resulting from contact between two players contesting the ball is punishable?

Does the OP genuinely believe Geelong should cop a double whammy, i.e., Cameron out for 2 weeks and Rohan suspended?

No, more it’s around that what other players do to opposing players can also be accidents and not dispensable. No one is seriously arguing for Rohan to get suspended, more applying the AFL logic which most recently was used on Sicily that any concussion = liability

 

[Sttew]

No, more it’s around that what other players do to opposing players can also be accidents and not dispensable. No one is seriously arguing for Rohan to get suspended, more applying the AFL logic which most recently was used on Sicily that any concussion = liability

I know. I never thought Sicily should be suspended.

 

[Dragz]

Well, let’s look at it in slow motion.
Roman approaches the contest and makes a decision to leave the ground and turn his shoulder towards the oncoming players.

He should have know this could risk serious injury.
He could have chosen to not leave the ground.
He could have chosen to swerve left behind the other two players

Reckless, severe impact!

Of course, he shouldn’t be suspended, but in this brave new world, 4 weeks sunshine.

 

[STPer18]

How good is the week after a Geelong win? No other team can get the masses frothing quite like we can.

 

[kingswood71]

The AFL tribunal guidelines say that "
A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where his conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players. Each Player owes a duty of care to all other Players, Umpires and other persons (as applicable) not to engage in conduct which will constitute a Reportable Offence being committed against that other Player, Umpire or other person"....
Now a couple of reportable offences mention specifically "opposition players", whilst others dont.
My interpretation of all this is: You can knock your team mate out with a high bump, but cant punch or kick him