Yeah well and trully spooked, if Van Rooyen got 2 for a clumsy spoil , I fear Rioli could cop 4, 3 is looking the best we can hope for.
-
LIVE: Sydney v Brisbane Lions - 2:30PM AEST Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 61% chance -- What's your tip? -- Ticketing Buy, Sell -- Teams on Thurs »
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Player Watch Willie Rioli
- Thread starter JakeNeadeFan
- Start date
- Tagged users None
If the AFL are genuinely sincere in mitigating the risk of head injuries, why haven’t they mandated head protective apparel for all players?
The Van Rooyen decision is an utter disgrace. No one wants to see players get hurt, but if the AFL are going to penalise every incidental football collision, the game is lost.
bomberclifford
Importer/Exporter
The suggestions were that the concussion could have been caused by his impact with the ground, not that he wasn't concussed.
This response feels like deja vu, but head protective apparel does nothing to prevent concussions. Concussion occurs because of the brain impacting the inside of the skull following contact. Helmet, hat or ear muffs will not save a player from brain damage
Kenny can't get his ear muffs to work
They keep playing sweet caroline
I think the issue of the benefts of protective headwear and concussions are yet to be fully resolved. Whilst its true that to say that in most high impact events the brain movement inside the skull is not decelerated sufficiently to prevent injury, but there may be some benefits in cases of moderate to minor impacts. Concussions can occur from both straight on impact and from violent rotational movements. Lots of good research coming from light weight bike helmet design. I'd be recommending your child wear something if playing the sport. Unfortunately nothing much of quality out there for afl.
I think the concussion was created when he acted like he'd been shot, gave himself whiplash.
The fact the AFL were still paying frees to Selwood and Schuey (and now Weightman) for ducking into tackles, after supposedly making the head sancrosant, shows it's about appearing to do the right thing, rather than doing the right thing. These three should have been suspended for multiple weeks each time until they learnt to set that the AFL was/is serious about protecting the head. Whilst we get those ducking are still rewarded, rather than punished, and the continual Vic/Non-Vic difference in the severity of penalties. the AFL deserve all the lawsuits that will come their way.
Last edited:
Just to reiterate:
These findings go back as far as trials performed in 2005.Similar results have been found for mouthguards. Of course there are those who would not be aware of these findings and that's fair enough. It is just amusing though that some, after being made aware of them, go on to argue the point contrarily.I'd love it if headgear did help and maybe could have helped some of those who are now suffering from concussion related syndromes. But current headgear doesn't unless maybe it looks like this:
If the head is to be truly sacrosanct in Aussie Rules my opinion is that players who duck, particularly those who do so obviously and repeatedly, should be as liable for match review sanctions as those who are the instigators. They are just as responsible for head high contact in the game, even if it is their own heads they are putting at risk.
- Aug 21, 2007
- 32,623
- 106,131
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
Yep.
There is now a mountain of evidence that the penalties are entirely outcome based. So a far more dangerous action against someone less susceptible to concussion will get a lesser penalty to a relatively innocuous action that results in a concussion.
Rioli's 3 will be upheld for an innocuous trailing hand accidentally colliding with an opponent, more than Pickett got for lining someone up and throwing his entire bodyweight into their head a few short weeks ago.
The vitriol from Essendon supporters and the calls of "sniper" will be vindicated by the tribunal, they'll boo him when we play them next as if he's Andrew Gaff.
And you can't even tell Rioli to play differently and you won't get suspended. There's no lesson for him to learn here. He's not a dirty player, he's not overly physical, he's not trying to hurt blokes. He was just involved in a footy collision where the other guy was concussion prone and got concussed.
- Jan 20, 2015
- 3,027
- 5,792
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Yep. There is no room for accidents any more. Someone has to be responsible for every incident. It’s bullshit.
Concussing/hurting someone when you go up for a mark will be outlawed in the not to distant future.
Rioli can be told to keep his arms lower and especially his feet on the ground.
He is dead unlucky here but had his feet been on the ground id say it's highly likely he wouldn't have been reported here.
On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app
Impossible unless you want players not jumping at all for there are multiple ways for copping a head knock in a marking contest not just a knee in a hanger attempt.
May as well just end the sport if it gets to that level of Berylness.
Can say the exact same for what people are getting rubbed out now compared to what they were 10-20 years ago.
Going for marks is slightly different to things like making it hurt in a spoiling attempt, once you take out see ball get ball football actions the sport is dead.
- Aug 21, 2007
- 32,623
- 106,131
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
I'm not sure how that's relevant given he didn't bump. If a trailing arm concussing someone is severe impact, it's severe impact whether he jumped or not.
- Apr 27, 2002
- 16,212
- 13,252
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Edmonton Oilers, Newcastle
There is clearly room for an elite sports scientist to pick apart the biophysics of the "collision" and delayed reaction, to illuminate the fact that there should be significant doubt over the narrative that Junior caused the injury.
But will we engage one? No chance.
But will we engage one? No chance.
- Sep 29, 2012
- 10,354
- 11,413
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Feet leaving the ground is a major issue.
- Mar 1, 2014
- 14,404
- 18,286
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Cronulla Sutherland Sharks
Hooray, someone else asks the question that I have been asking for several years. It applies not only the AFL but the NRL as well. The NRL is even worse than the AFL as the game stops while players get an on field assessment prior to a full off field HIA. If sporting codes are that worried about the repercussions make head protection mandatory. Players who do not want to wear head protection take up golf or tennis.
You are 100% correct in that there are occasions when a head collision is purely incidental and the view as espoused by some that players should not elect to bump or spoil is crap. Last Saturday when Connor Rozee was flattened Dermot Brereton was full of, 'how great the body contact was', yet if Rozee had hit his head on the ground when he fell and had a HIA the incident would have been looked at by the tribunal. That is how hit or miss the current situation is.
Our game is a body contact sport and the option to bump a player as Tom Jonas did a few weeks back must be upheld. We had a few posters on this site who kept referring to the Jonas collision as a head butt which was total bs. It was not a deliberate act but an incidental collision of heads. I think the Jonas decision was worse than Van Rooyen but in both cases the players intent was not to hit an opponent in the head and the contact was incidental.
The Rioli case is different as on face value there appears to be some intent on Junior's part and therefore a case to answer but the fact remains that we are in danger of changing the fabric of Australian Rules football. The changes will not be made out of concern for the safety of players but out of fear that the AFL will be defending countless court actions from past players and their ambulance chasing lawyers.
