Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVII

Remove this Banner Ad

he's certainly continuing the fine tradition of the brayshaw family having nothing useful to say

i mean, to be serious, he's using a lot of examples without really citing the AFL position non that the independent AFL tribunal over-turned many of these decisions .

for example:

Charlie Cameron: he was still found guilty of his action. the AFL stated they were comfortable with the initial ban and will review the Tribunal guidelines that allowed the Tribunal to scrap the ban. which is obviously a diplomatic way of saying the tribunal did a silly thing and we'll be changing that.

Jesse Hogan: the punch was clearly of negligible impact. Despite that, the MRO charged him with a week's suspension because they felt the potential to cause an injury allowed for it be elevated to low impact. GWS were able to exploit a loophole in the guidelines to get him off. I think it's pretty obvious this will be fixed up next season.

Tom Barrass: I don't really even understand the point he's making here? which is good because I don't think there's much to talk about here anyway. The Jack Trengrove tackle on Dangerfield that saw him suspended and a bunch of football people say the same thing as Hamish Brayshaw is saying there about "he can't really do it differently!" literally happened 13 seasons ago. Easy suspension.

Matt Crouch: Crouch got suspended for forceful front-on contact. That is, the players head was over the ball when Crough made contact. that is different to the rough conduct bans we see for bumps. As I recall, the forceful front-on contact rules were brought in when Blake Caracella had his neck injury almost 20 years ago now. it predates the AFL caring about concussion! people forget that the AFL was intitally concerned about neck injures. then they discovered that brain injures are not good either. anyway, the MRO clearly laid out why Crouch got done. if Hamish's position is that as children we were all taught to make contact with the player first and then get the ball, the AFL's position is, please don't do that. This position from Hamish, btw, is just like all the dumb shit that was said when Trengrove was suspended 13 years ago - we were taught to tackle that way as kids! ok, change that, ok?

Peter Wright/Toby Greene/Maynard/Brayshaw: Look, obviously it's fine that Hamish is upset about his brother. But he says "Wright and Green, 4 weeks and 1 week respectively for football acts with not a whole lot of difference." and so the implication there is that should have got a similar ban, which means ignoring that Wright did a whole lot more damage than Grenne did. This is obviously a position we see all the time from AFL fans, media etc etc. I disagree with it, I think not considering the damage [for something that is a reportable offence] is insane, but whatever. But Hamish spends the rest of this blog clearly upset that Maynard didn't do time for the damage he did to Angus. So I think this is a fundamentally inconsistent position from Hamish. In any case, the AFL's MRO suspended Maynard, the Tribunal over-turned it, and the AFL changed the rules in the off-season because they wanted him suspended!

If Hamish had spent this blog going after the independent afl tribunal for not caring about player safety and going after the AFL for being slack in ensuring their intentions hold up in the equivalent to AFL court, then I think this blog would be ok. As it stands, I think it's just stupid and not taking the time to learn the merits of each incident
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Phone said:
he's certainly continuing the fine tradition of the brayshaw family having nothing useful to say

i mean, to be serious, he's using a lot of examples without really citing the AFL position non that the independent AFL tribunal over-turned many of these decisions .

for example:

Charlie Cameron: he was still found guilty of his action. the AFL stated they were comfortable with the initial ban and will review the Tribunal guidelines that allowed the Tribunal to scrap the ban. which is obviously a diplomatic way of saying the tribunal did a silly thing and we'll be changing that.

Jesse Hogan: the punch was clearly of negligible impact. Despite that, the MRO charged him with a week's suspension because they felt the potential to cause an injury allowed for it be elevated to low impact. GWS were able to exploit a loophole in the guidelines to get him off. I think it's pretty obvious this will be fixed up next season.

Tom Barrass: I don't really even understand the point he's making here? which is good because I don't think there's much to talk about here anyway. The Jack Trengrove tackle on Dangerfield that saw him suspended and a bunch of football people say the same thing as Hamish Brayshaw is saying there about "he can't really do it differently!" literally happened 13 seasons ago. Easy suspension.

Matt Crouch: Crouch got suspended for forceful front-on contact. That is, the players head was over the ball when Crough made contact. that is different to the rough conduct bans we see for bumps. As I recall, the forceful front-on contact rules were brought in when Blake Caracella had his neck injury almost 20 years ago now. it predates the AFL caring about concussion! people forget that the AFL was intitally concerned about neck injures. then they discovered that brain injures are not good either. anyway, the MRO clearly laid out why Crouch got done. if Hamish's position is that as children we were all taught to make contact with the player first and then get the ball, the AFL's position is, please don't do that. This position from Hamish, btw, is just like all the dumb s**t that was said when Trengrove was suspended 13 years ago - we were taught to tackle that way as kids! ok, change that, ok?

Peter Wright/Toby Greene/Maynard/Brayshaw: Look, obviously it's fine that Hamish is upset about his brother. But he says "Wright and Green, 4 weeks and 1 week respectively for football acts with not a whole lot of difference." and so the implication there is that should have got a similar ban, which means ignoring that Wright did a whole lot more damage than Grenne did. This is obviously a position we see all the time from AFL fans, media etc etc. I disagree with it, I think not considering the damage cause [for something that is a reportable offence] is insane, but whatever. But Hamish spends the rest of this blog clearly upset that Maynard didn't do time for the damage he did to Angus. So I think this is a fundamentally inconsistent position from Hamish. In any case, the AFL's MRO suspended Maynard, the Tribunal over-turned it, and the AFL changed the rules in the off-season because they wanted him suspended!

If Hamish had spent this blog going after the independent afl tribunal for not caring about player safety and going after the AFL for being slack in ensuring their intentions hold up in the equivalent to AFL court, then I think this blog would be ok. As it stands, I think it's just stupid and not taking the time to learn the merits of each incident
Click to expand...
You honestly believe in the "independence" of the tribunal? Ha.

How is the AFL going with their "review" of the guidelines, no updates by any chance is there? Because I have a funny feeling that's the last we'll hear of it until the next time they want someone to play or not to play.

Re: Crouch - players have become more reckless every year since they eliminated the bumps, biffs and brawlers stuff. These days players are going in head first rather than protecting themself from probable contact. It's reckless. The way "we were all taught" to pick up a footy, to me, was to turn your shoulder and protect yourself. The way Crouch went in for that ball he is less likely to suffer brain damage.
 
how you can doubt the independence of the tribunal when some of the things that Brayshaw is upset about are players not being banned when they should have been.......when the AFL/the MRO did try to ban the player, and the tribunal said I don't think so! when you added rule 645.2 you forgot to remove rule 351.7! the ban must be dismissed! We see the independence of the tribunal. All the time! To the AFL's embarrassment!

Why would we know about the the AFL's end-of-season review when it's May?

RE Crouch - well, yes the way Crouch went for the ball, he is less likely to suffer brain damage. just a shame about the existence of his opponent. brain damage is not the concern here. this rule was brought in to protect players' spines. for the most part, we're pretty good at it now. we don't see many forceful front-on incidents anymore, and the ones we do see usually happen with a whole lot less force. matt crouch made a blooper. it happens. but this isn't same new thing. we've been doing this for over 15 years now.
 
Phone said:
how you can doubt the independence of the tribunal when some of the things that Brayshaw is upset about are players not being banned when they should have been.......when the AFL/the MRO did try to ban the player, and the tribunal said I don't think so! when you added rule 645.2 you forgot to remove rule 351.7! the ban must be dismissed! We see the independence of the tribunal. All the time! To the AFL's embarrassment!

Why would we know about the the AFL's end-of-season review when it's May?

RE Crouch - well, yes the way Crouch went for the ball, he is less likely to suffer brain damage. just a shame about the existence of his opponent. brain damage is not the concern here. this rule was brought in to protect players' spines. for the most part, we're pretty good at it now. we don't see many forceful front-on incidents anymore, and the ones we do see usually happen with a whole lot less force. matt crouch made a blooper. it happens. but this isn't same new thing. we've been doing this for over 15 years now.
Click to expand...
It'll be Bumps, Biffs and Bloopers when someone does get a spinal injury or brain damage from failing to protect themselves the way Crouch did. I agree it's a shame about his opponent, but that's what you get when people have it in their heads they can earn a free or get the ball away quicker if they disregard their own personal safety.
 
yodellinhank said:
You honestly believe in the "independence" of the tribunal? Ha.

How is the AFL going with their "review" of the guidelines, no updates by any chance is there? Because I have a funny feeling that's the last we'll hear of it until the next time they want someone to play or not to play.

Re: Crouch - players have become more reckless every year since they eliminated the bumps, biffs and brawlers stuff. These days players are going in head first rather than protecting themself from probable contact. It's reckless. The way "we were all taught" to pick up a footy, to me, was to turn your shoulder and protect yourself. The way Crouch went in for that ball he is less likely to suffer brain damage.
Click to expand...


Well the current system has been good for punishing players.

How that constitutes doing all reasonable things to eliminate a risk of head knocks so far as reasonably practicable, is unclear. I struggle to see how the AFL is protecting its liability position. To start discharging its duty it needs to issue clear directives setting out expextations for incidents (including demanding players protect themselves - add a free kick against for leading with your head), creating a right of way to prevent players recklessly going back with the flight.

Almost all of these scenarios we've been talking about for at least 7 years now are 100% incidental to legitimate football actions.

Commentators love to point out that 'there is no football actions box to be checked in the MRO's matrix', and that's great. But that's not the point. We're supposed to be protecting the head not punishing players for its sake. The reason a football action is relevant, and it's a position that a club should have taken to the Tribunal and to appeal by now, is because its the football action which causes the contact. If you don't stop that action you don't stop the collision because even though Peter Wright is suspended he's going to try to take a chest mark of a ball kicked to him, and dips**t is going to charge into his path and not protect himself, and its going to result in the same thing. Wright needs to be told exactly what was expected of him so that it is a useful precedent for the next time a player is faced with that scenario.

How does any player factor a suspension into Wright's decision about whether to take a chest mark?

The only way to actually stop these incidents, and not undermine the game, is not to put it on the suspended player. It's almost always the guy hurt who is at fault. He's the only one who can protect himself.

No amount of virtue signalling changes the reality that we are no closer to stamping out these big head knocks and it's been how many years now?
 
Last edited:
BrunoV said:
Well the current system has been good for punishing players.

How that constitutes doing all reasonable things to eliminate a risk of head knocks so far as reasonably practicable, is unclear. I struggle to see how the AFL is protecting its liability position. To start discharging its duty it needs to issue clear directives setting out expextations for incidents (including demanding players protect themselves - add a free kick against for leading with your head), creating a right of way to prevent players recklessly going back with the flight.

Almost all of these scenarios we've been talking about for at least 7 years now are 100% incidental to legitimate football actions.

Commentators love to point out that 'there is no football actions box to be checked in the MRO's matrix', and that's great. But that's not the point. We're supposed to be protecting the head not punishing players for its sake. The reason a football action is relevant, and it's a position that a club should have taken to the Tribunal and to appeal by now, is because its the football action which causes the contact. If you don't stop that action you don't stop the collision because even though Peter Wright is suspended he's going to try to take a chest mark of a ball kicked to him, and dips**t is going to charge into his path and not protect himself, and its going to result in the same thing. Wright needs to be told exactly what was expected of him so that it is a useful precedent for the next time a player is faced with that scenario.

How does any player factor a suspension into Wright's decision about whether to take a chest mark?

The only way to actually stop these incidents, and not undermine the game, is not to put it on the suspended player. It's almost always the guy hurt who is at fault. He's the only one who can protect himself.

No amount of virtue signalling changes the reality that we are no closer to stamping out these big head knocks and it's been how many years now?
Click to expand...
If I get injured at work there's a meeting with management. They work out what steps could have been taken to prevent it, equipment/employee actions etc. If there's anything that sticks out SOPs are changed, the working environment is altered etc

I wonder if anyone ever meets with an injured player in the same way?
 
One of the frustrating things for me is how the outcome of an incident determines the punishment.

Wright and Green did virtually the same thing, but by sheer chance Green’s opponent wasn’t knocked out. When the punishment is based on something only vaguely under the player’s control it isn’t a deterrent, players will just think it won’t happen to them and keep doing it.
 
Old Campaigner said:
One of the frustrating things for me is how the outcome of an incident determines the punishment.

Wright and Green did virtually the same thing, but by sheer chance Green’s opponent wasn’t knocked out. When the punishment is based on something only vaguely under the player’s control it isn’t a deterrent, players will just think it won’t happen to them and keep doing it.
Click to expand...
while i do agree, wright has like 20kgs on greene and by my limited understanding of mathematics, probably had more momentum when he collided than greene may have
 
mcgrath_truther said:
while i do agree, wright has like 20kgs on greene and by my limited understanding of mathematics, probably had more momentum when he collided than greene may have
Click to expand...
But a lighter player can still do damage. If the bodies were positioned slightly differently in both cases the outcome has potential to be very different.
 
Old Campaigner said:
But a lighter player can still do damage. If the bodies were positioned slightly differently in both cases the outcome has potential to be very different.
Click to expand...
oh of course, it's just my perspective of how i view it. i still don't think 2mp should've gotten the 4 weeks but he's not a brownlow favourite (or "good bloke" like charlie cameron) so it's all moot.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mcgrath_truther said:
is it? that's a bit illogical to me
Click to expand...

12 Jan

www.dailymail.co.uk

Why the AFL won't reveal players' weights for the first time ever

The AFL has come under fire after not revealing the weight of players in the season guide ahead of the 2024 season. Ash Browne, editor of the AFL Record, confirmed the bombshell development.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

24 April

theconversation.com

Does the AFL ban on skinfold testing avoid fat shaming – or has footy ‘gone soft’?

Skinfold tests were once a staple of AFL fitness assessments, but are now banned for junior athletes. Is this a sign footballers have ‘gone soft’, or is there good reason for it?
theconversation.com theconversation.com

Quit fat shaming hehe
 
Call Me Cake said:
12 Jan

www.dailymail.co.uk

Why the AFL won't reveal players' weights for the first time ever

The AFL has come under fire after not revealing the weight of players in the season guide ahead of the 2024 season. Ash Browne, editor of the AFL Record, confirmed the bombshell development.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

24 April

theconversation.com

Does the AFL ban on skinfold testing avoid fat shaming – or has footy ‘gone soft’?

Skinfold tests were once a staple of AFL fitness assessments, but are now banned for junior athletes. Is this a sign footballers have ‘gone soft’, or is there good reason for it?
theconversation.com theconversation.com

Quit fat shaming hehe
Click to expand...
interesting stuff. i'm not against this kind of stuff but it'll always be (in)directly taken into account with regards to injuries and what not. all in all afl house is a corrupt bunch of dimwits
 
mcgrath_truther said:
interesting stuff. i'm not against this kind of stuff but it'll always be (in)directly taken into account with regards to injuries and what not. all in all afl house is a corrupt bunch of dimwits
Click to expand...

Not released to the public doesn't mean clubs won't know it, and the skinfold stuff is for the U18 guys, not once they're in the AFL system.
 
yodellinhank said:
You'd be spewing if you missed out on the draft but it turned out you really were just big boned.
Click to expand...


iu
 
Anyone who has a decent understanding of the rules:
Was that free against dawson for tripping rozee the correct reading of the rules? Never seen it happen before, he grabbed rozee around the thigh area, rozee wriggles out of it and the hold drops to the shin area.
If someone tackles around chest area and the player drops to evade it so the tacklers arms go above the shoulder, umps will call play on, so shouldnt the same judgement be used in this instance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ant555
VFL Essendon v Southport
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
BrunoV
BrunoV
yaco55
  • Locked
MVP Round 13. Essendon vs Carlton
Replies
24
Views
398
eth-dog
eth-dog
ant555
VFL Footscray v Essendon
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
3K
faible
faible
yaco55
  • Locked
MVP Round 11. Richmond VS Essendon
2
Replies
36
Views
568
Nifft
Nifft
ghostdog
Oppo Camp Non-Essendon AFLW Thread
2 3 4 5
Replies
118
Views
7K
Lore
Lore
Nuggs Bunny
  • Locked
MVP Round 10 . Essendon vs Kangaroos
2
Replies
30
Views
754
ant555
ant555
yaco55
  • Locked
MVP Round 12. Gold Coast Suns VS Essendon
2
Replies
26
Views
451
windyhill
windyhill

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top