MFC Fans Only Non-Dees AFL discussion - 2015

[ManWithNoName]

I've heard of this rumour but not the interviews this week. Did they sound negative or something?

Basically said he wasn't enjoying footy anymore.

 

[Bluelegs]

Basically said he wasn't enjoying footy anymore.

Fair enough all things considered

 

[deeco]

Fair enough all things considered

Convenient if they rub him out for a year too

 

[Bluelegs]

Basically said he wasn't enjoying footy anymore.

Btw are you writing up the unofficial preview for next week?

 

[ManWithNoName]

Btw are you writing up the unofficial preview for next week?

That I am. Unless someone else has put their hand up wanting it?

 

[Sylvia Saint]

What are the chances of Daniher kicking 5.0 or above next week? I'd say pretty high.

 

[schmuttt]

What are the chances of Daniher kicking 5.0 or above next week? I'd say pretty high.

Just like Cloke 7.0 -__-

 

[CWaffles]

What are the chances of Daniher kicking 5.0 or above next week? I'd say pretty high.

Good chance if we put McDonald on him.

 

[MAXIMUM GRUNDAGE]

Good chance if we put McDonald on him.

Reckon he'd play TMac back into form. He's been down on confidence since getting mauled by Cloke.

 

[CWaffles]

Reckon he'd play TMac back into form. He's been down on confidence since getting mauled by Cloke.

I would hope so, He needs a confidence builder.

 

[Demon 16]

Imagine if they sacked Hird and put Neeld in charge

One can only dream..

 

[ManWithNoName]

What are the chances of Daniher kicking 5.0 or above next week? I'd say pretty high.

Essendon will struggle to kick 5 goals, let alone a single player.

 

[Topkent]

Collingwood: Seedsman has kicked 4 goals, Williams has 1 goal.

Hawthorn: Suckling has 6 goals, Birchall has 1 goal.

Essendon: Hibberd has kicked 2 goals.

There's no such thing as a goal kicking defender, they are just blokes that drift forward for a cheap goal when their team is belting their opposition or in Hibberd's case today getting belted themselves.

Let me explain, it's not so much the kicking goals its also the ability to run forward and hit a target inside 50, Garland had been doing it on occasion but the rest of our defenders are defenders

 

[Bluelegs]

Let me explain, it's not so much the kicking goals its also the ability to run forward and hit a target inside 50, Garland had been doing it on occasion but the rest of our defenders are defenders

This is why we need Salem back so desperately

 

[Topkent]

This is why we need Salem back so desperately

A lot of people have been saying we need quick outside types and we do
But more importantly we need accountable blokes who can kick the footy well because the majority of goals now especially from us come from back half turnovers

 

[Djcjdees]

Go the Giants.

I want to hear me some Meltdown Mario from Doncaster on SEN tonight please.

No. Just no. Not ever.

 

[MUYB]

Good on Worsfold for stepping in to help out in a really tough time for the crows.

 

[Djcjdees]

SO the Schulz one.

Just had this huge argument with my mate at work about it. I dont think he should have been suspended, he thinks he should have.

As with the Gibbs one, I don't think there has been a rule broken. They sorta catch all with the 'Rough conduct' 'rule' but it's way too grey and is basically dependent on the ramifications of the action to determine whether it was actually rough conduct or not.

Ie. If the player being tackled bounces to his feet, then we play on and it's no worries, even though it may have caused some damage that will appear later or after another knock. If the suffer immediate affects, however, the 'offending' player gets rubbed out at present.

Now, I agree that these actions are potentially dangerous. Don't get me wrong. However, I can't really see what rule they are breaking. Rough conduct? Isn't everything (when Cale Morton isn't involved) rough conduct in the AFL? Aren't you meant to be rough?

Then all of a sudden these terms like 'two actions' and 'one continuous motion' and 'duty of care' get introduced and taken as gospel. Now i've done a search (probably WAY more than any AFL player would do) within the (f)laws of the game document and can't find any reference to any of those terms. If it's not in the rules, how the hell are we expecting players to all of a sudden know what they can and can't do. More importantly, how are the fans meant to know?

 

[wowlace]

Since Gibbs went so should have Shulz. The Shulz tackle looked like 2 motions to me. Like it's impossible to not spin someone around like that in one motion. First motion is grabbing the player, 2nd is the spin. Shulz could have easily just grabbed onto the player then try to use his weight to bring him to ground. But his used force and momentum to take it further and spin him.

IMHO

 

[Dory_77]

SO the Schulz one.

Just had this huge argument with my mate at work about it. I dont think he should have been suspended, he thinks he should have.

As with the Gibbs one, I don't think there has been a rule broken. They sorta catch all with the 'Rough conduct' 'rule' but it's way too grey and is basically dependent on the ramifications of the action to determine whether it was actually rough conduct or not.

Ie. If the player being tackled bounces to his feet, then we play on and it's no worries, even though it may have caused some damage that will appear later or after another knock. If the suffer immediate affects, however, the 'offending' player gets rubbed out at present.

Now, I agree that these actions are potentially dangerous. Don't get me wrong. However, I can't really see what rule they are breaking. Rough conduct? Isn't everything (when Cale Morton isn't involved) rough conduct in the AFL? Aren't you meant to be rough?

Then all of a sudden these terms like 'two actions' and 'one continuous motion' and 'duty of care' get introduced and taken as gospel. Now i've done a search (probably WAY more than any AFL player would do) within the (f)laws of the game document and can't find any reference to any of those terms. If it's not in the rules, how the hell are we expecting players to all of a sudden know what they can and can't do. More importantly, how are the fans meant to know?

Duty of care is a pretty universal legal concept in Australia. In footy terms it'd apply to assessing reckless/negligent/rough conduct etc; it's kind of ingrained in the rules. Whether the offending player had a duty of care to the other person (e.g. in a tackle) and whether they breached that (e.g. by spear tackling them) and then whether that caused injury.
The sling is a ridiculously hard thing to try and 'legislate away' though. So many tackles involve some sort of slinging motion as it helps a lot in bringing a guy to ground. And now we have situations where Gibbs is suspended for 2 and Schulz none for pretty much the same thing. Silly. They're never going to get real consistency with it (most of the time umps don't give away a free for it anyways) so should stop the crusade. Let players know to avoid it if possible, but giving out 2-3 week suspensions is over the top I think.

 

[wowlace]

The rules are ****ed for a start.

You get a free kick if you spin the ball handler 360 degrees in a tackle.

If you spin the same guy 180 degrees and something goes wrong and he ends up injured; you get suspended.

The rules for this game are illogical.

 

[Cannon82]

Duty of care is a pretty universal legal concept in Australia. In footy terms it'd apply to assessing reckless/negligent/rough conduct etc; it's kind of ingrained in the rules. Whether the offending player had a duty of care to the other person (e.g. in a tackle) and whether they breached that (e.g. by spear tackling them) and then whether that caused injury.
The sling is a ridiculously hard thing to try and 'legislate away' though. So many tackles involve some sort of slinging motion as it helps a lot in bringing a guy to ground. And now we have situations where Gibbs is suspended for 2 and Schulz none for pretty much the same thing. Silly. They're never going to get real consistency with it (most of the time umps don't give away a free for it anyways) so should stop the crusade. Let players know to avoid it if possible, but giving out 2-3 week suspensions is over the top I think.

Not sure how it can apply in a sporting sense. Do boxers have a duty of care to hit each other enough to win their match, but make sure they don't hit hard enough to do permanent damage? Rules are supposed to be clearly defined lines, and that's where the AFL has been failing badly in recent years. The rules change every year, and the interpretation changes week to week. No one knows what's going on - the only thing you know is that if someone gets hurt in an action involving another player, that action is going to get "looked at" and that player is probably going to get weeks. Why? Who knows. Make something up, and add another week if they contest it.

 

[wowlace]

Not sure how it can apply in a sporting sense. Do boxers have a duty of care to hit each other enough to win their match, but make sure they don't hit hard enough to do permanent damage? Rules are supposed to be clearly defined lines, and that's where the AFL has been failing badly in recent years. The rules change every year, and the interpretation changes week to week. No one knows what's going on - the only thing you know is that if someone gets hurt in an action involving another player, that action is going to get "looked at" and that player is probably going to get weeks. Why? Who knows. Make something up, and add another week if they contest it.

Yep, it's complete nonsense. I would just like to see our players play hard and come what may. If you * someone up and get suspended who cares. It will only come down to luck in the end and there is no way to mitigate that.

 

[Djcjdees]

Duty of care is a pretty universal legal concept in Australia. In footy terms it'd apply to assessing reckless/negligent/rough conduct etc; it's kind of ingrained in the rules. Whether the offending player had a duty of care to the other person (e.g. in a tackle) and whether they breached that (e.g. by spear tackling them) and then whether that caused injury.
The sling is a ridiculously hard thing to try and 'legislate away' though. So many tackles involve some sort of slinging motion as it helps a lot in bringing a guy to ground. And now we have situations where Gibbs is suspended for 2 and Schulz none for pretty much the same thing. Silly. They're never going to get real consistency with it (most of the time umps don't give away a free for it anyways) so should stop the crusade. Let players know to avoid it if possible, but giving out 2-3 week suspensions is over the top I think.

Exactly my point. The umps don't see it as a reportable offence and hence not a breach of the rules (because there is no rule that specifically deals with it) so they don't pay a free.

If duty of care is such an important concept with regard to the rules, I think it needs to be explicitly written in there then. I know it's a grey thing to be trying to make black and white, but I think there could be something actually saying that 'you have a duty of care to not cause injury to an opponent's head where it could reasonably be avoided' or something like that. At least then when these things happen there is something they can fall back on immediately. At the moment, the 'infringement' is 'engaging in rough conduct which in the circumstances was unreasonable.'

Almost every word of that is grey. It couldn't be more open to interpretation. No wonder the umpires never pay a free kick for it.

If i had to judge, in real time and live (on tv) i thought what schulz did was fine. I don't think it was 'unreasonable' as the rule reads. Same with Trenners. There's no way that was unreasonable in the circumstances. Gibbs probably moved more into the unreasonable category. Just. I think all the breathless bored journos that are quick to compare the two have really examined the rules properly.

Another thing, if they are going to start, well they have started, but if they are going to continue rubbing out players for these sling tackles, they need to suspend players for EVERY sling tackle. Whether there was an (immediately obvious or not immediately obvious) injury caused or not.

Now I totally do not want the above to have to happen, I believe people unfortunately get knocked out while playing footy. It happens. Obviously though, if there is a way to prevent bad concussions taking place, then yeah im all for it. The point is though, you need to have a rule in place in order to break it. The 'rule' that exists at the moment is nowhere near adequate and that is why there is all this confusion.

 

[Cannon82]

Great article on the AFL website today.

Intriguing reading

Can't wait to hear more.