This 'Duty of Care' Thing?

[DivideandMultiply]

So Fyfe didnt have a head clash which led to him getting 2 weeks?
There wasnt an outrage amongst many supporters and media?
The AFL didnt change the rule around accidental head clashes?

Which of the above are incorrect?

For perspective, 95% of the outrage is from West Coast Eagles fans. Please guess why?

The Burton and Fyfe comparison is not accurate. But as Reiwoldt suggested, lets assume that Burton could not have reasonably predicted the outcome of electing to bump, well NN could not have predicted the outcome of choosing to tackle.

95% of the outrage is not WC fans, there are a lot of people in the wider AFL world who are not happy, both with the decision and Christian. In fact all of the major decisions this year have drawn reactions of confusion, frustration of disagreement.

 

[HairyO]

The Burton and Fyfe comparison is not accurate.

Of course it is. Both did something which is currently allowed in the rules of the game, and had a head clash which saw the other player knocked out. In 2014 you were responsible for the outcome of the bump regardless. In 2018 you are only responsible if the bump goes high.

People really are getting sucked in by the media which 7 days ago was devastated at the drop in ratings, but now has some real life drama to milk.

 

[Alesana]

So Fyfe didnt have a head clash which led to him getting 2 weeks?
There wasnt an outrage amongst many supporters and media?
The AFL didnt change the rule around accidental head clashes?

Which of the above are incorrect?

For perspective, 95% of the outrage is from West Coast Eagles fans. Please guess why?

Bullsht. 'Like' this post if you're a neutral and disagree with Naitanui's ban

 

[HairyO]

Bullsht. 'Like' this post if you're a neutral and disagree with Naitanui's ban

I say 'outrage' you say 'disagree'.

Nice one.

 

[Benny78]

It's a load of shit. There is no duty of care. If there was the game would be banned as science has shown tiny bumps to the head cause brain trauma.

 

[Alesana]

I say 'outrage' you say 'disagree'.

Nice one.

What are you referring to then? I can't disagree without with being outraged because I'm a WC supporter?

 

[Boxhead_31]

I agree that "DOC" is a confusing and unhelpful term to apply to a contact sport.

There are legal and illegal actions. That is it.

Driving a player into the ground with force should be illegal, whether it is a sling tackle or not. I think players are skillful enough to know how to control this.

But this tackle should be perfectly legal...

Under the new interpretation that would be weeks.
Hannabery was in a vulnerable position and Roughead drove the tackle

 

[Boxhead_31]

Its not about Nic Nat missing the week. Its about the state of the game. How did Burton get off?

Better question is how did Cotchin get off for his tackle on Blair that was much more dangerous than the Nicnat one

 

[Faz 2000]

The AFL - as per usual - make things unnecessarily complicated and grey are "duty of care". In footy you are allowed - and encouraged - to do tremendously violent things to opponents. You are allowed to tackle them to the ground. You are allowed to jump onto them. You are allowed to run into them and bump them. You can cause heinous injuries to opponents if you're flying for a mark (think Lonergan's kidney). You can push them, nudge them, irritate them. It's a rough sport, and that's one of the reasons we love it. They're modern-day gladiators. The idea that it's a workplace is fine and all - but it's not an office. Everyone steps onto the field on the understanding of the risks they are taking.

The problem is the AFL doesn't like the optics - doesn't like the PR - that says violence or blood or injuries are desirable. Yet they are NECESSARY to play the game. They are an absolute guarantee from 36 strong guys running around a field after one ball. You cannot avoid some injuries and collisions.

In footy, most would agree you're allowed to try to "hurt" your opponent. Tackle hard, but fair, etc. But to try to "injure" your opponent would be considered a dog-act, the lowest of the low. It's a fine line, but most have a strong sense on where particular acts fall.

More recently, the AFL has tried the (frankly idiotic) approach of retrospectively judging whether an incident was right or not by what the outcome is. Eg. Slinging tackles where the player walks away - no case to answer (even though the potential for injury is high). Now they're pinging guys who tackle with enthusiasm and wind up squashing their opponent - all the while screaming "duty of care" and "the head is sacrosanct" - a word nobody knew until the AFL started crapping on about it.

I think the AFL is confused. I think AFL fans are confused. I think Michael Christian is confused. Commentators are confused. They don't know what they're aiming to do, all they know is they want everyone to keep playing the incredibly rough sport at an ever increasing pace (congestion is the enemy, apparently) but nobody to ever get hurt.

Damn it, I'm confused.

 

[wowlace]

Has anyone ever been concussed by a point blank falcon?

 

[Oxirane]

Has anyone ever been concussed by a point blank falcon?

 

[wowlace]

Jeez you'd think he'd get a week for that. Can't be carelessly kicking the ball at people.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

When does a player owe a duty of care to himself?

It doesn't seem they ever do.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

How quick was the Saints doctor on the scene!!

Same thing happened with Dwayne Lamb many years ago at the WACA with a saints doctor - saved his life then.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

When does a player owe a duty of care to himself?

It doesn't seem they ever do.

Or to their team-mates

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Or to their team-mates

Very true

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Very true

It's a funny thing - a player could crash a pack recklessly and knock out another player. But that recklessness label wouldn't necessarily apply if they knocked out their own team-mate. I can understand why - you wouldn't want to see a player rubbed out for knocking out a team-mate unintentionally - but that shouldn't discount the fact that they may have been reckless

In all honesty I can't remember something like that ever happening - but I've seen players injured/hurt from their team-mates when they crash a pack for a mark or a spoil. A player miss-timing a bump and injuring his team-mate - or worse an umpire - could be interesting

But the whole duty of care thing only seems to apply to opposition players. If you don't apply duty of care to yourself you are "brave". If you don't apply duty of care to your team-mates I'm not sure what you are called? "win at all costs"? idk

 

[The Falcon Strike]

It's a funny thing - a player could crash a pack recklessly and knock out another player. But that recklessness label wouldn't necessarily apply if they knocked out their own team-mate. I can understand why - you wouldn't want to see a player rubbed out for knocking out a team-mate unintentionally - but that shouldn't discount the fact that they may have been reckless

In all honesty I can't remember something like that ever happening - but I've seen players injured/hurt from their team-mates when they crash a pack for a mark or a spoil. A player miss-timing a bump and injuring his team-mate - or worse an umpire - could be interesting

But the whole duty of care thing only seems to apply to opposition players. If you don't apply duty of care to yourself you are "brave". If you don't apply duty of care to your team-mates I'm not sure what you are called? "win at all costs"? idk

A bloke being tackled has his arms free and is slung into the ground. They could have braced but chose not to - whose fault is that?

Two blokes attack the ball, one comes in side on and the other dives forward head first - again whose fault?

There was a bump in the Melbourne game yesterday - Vince i think - left the ground and bumped Daisy high. The actions there are almost as bad as there is - yet he will get a fine due to dumb luck.

 

[bkozican]

I agree that "DOC" is a confusing and unhelpful term to apply to a contact sport.

There are legal and illegal actions. That is it.

Driving a player into the ground with force should be illegal, whether it is a sling tackle or not. I think players are skillful enough to know how to control this.

But this tackle should be perfectly legal...

That is a brutal tackle (legal 100%), One has to ask himself, Would you rather cop an old fashioned shirt front or be caught wide open and catch in the guts like that

 

[basashi]

Firstly, let me begin by stating that I'm not a 'bring back the biff' kind of guy.

I don't pine for the good old days of king hits behind play and Grand Finals descending into street brawls to decide who is the better team.

But...

The high chance of being hurt whilst playing football is, and always has been one of its most important attributes. Not only as a spectator did your respect for these dudes go through the roof because of what they were putting on the line every time they played, but as a player you walked taller in every day life because the danger you faced whilst walking down the street was child's play compared to the shit you copped playing footy every week.

When did we get conned into this 'duty of care' nonsense we keep hearing about these days?

The intention of almost every player, was to actually hurt your opponent. To 'make him earn it'. That was the whole point! To run him into the ground, to mentally break him down, to make him get up slowly after a tackle, to put your knees into his ribs in a marking contest, to collect the back of his head when spoiling - all aimed either getting him off the ground, or making him think twice about the next time he went near the ball.

But I totally get that the world has changed (for the better), and much of the shit that used to happen simply is unacceptable now.

But 'duty of care'? WTF is that??

What does it even mean? And where does it end?

Does it mean avoiding flying for a mark because you might hurt the guy standing in front of you? Does it mean not tackling a bloke because you might fall on him and hurt him? Or does it mean you should tackle him, but just not very hard. Hard enough to stop him, but not hard enough to hurt him?

And what does 'hurt' even mean? I reckon I'd probably cry if Caleb Daniel even looked at me angrily - so does this need to be taken into account when guys are considering their duty of care to me?

When a guy misses a goal, and 10 opposition players attempt to publicly humiliate and denigrate him in front of his friends, family and millions of strangers - do they consider their duty of care to his mental well-being?

When a defender runs out on the ground and immediately tries to bully the forward by intimidating him physically and verbally, should he consider his duty of care to that player?


The AFL needs to shelve vague and senseless terms such as 'duty of care' and simply enforce rules.

Imagine a coach dragging a player off the ground for not going hard at a marking contest, and screaming down the phone at the player as to why he allowed him an uncontested mark - and the player simply explains that he was exercising his duty of care to that player because if he crashed into him he might have hurt him.


I love this game, and I love sport in general, but the AFL is just getting harder and harder to support let alone watch these days.

It's a very confused sport.

Footy is like cheesecake, single malt whisky, school discos, short skirts and cycling.

Historic but if you invented it now you would be regarded as a dangerous lunatic.