MRP / Trib. Douglas suspended for 2 games (With subsequent discussion on Viney bump)

[1970crow]

If the AFL is seriously saying hitting your head on the ground like that is on Douglas, they are asking players to play a game that can only exist hypothetically. Either it's a full contact sport, and we ACCEPT that BOTH parties bear responsibility for how they handle contact, or we set boundaries that are reasonably observable by fallible beings.

At the moment we are asking one party to bear all responsibility for everything that happens, and encouraging the other to take no responsibility for taking care of himself. It is ABSURD, and ACTIVELY AT ODDS with the nature of full contact sport.

The vision of lethal legally ironing out vlad explains how we have found ourselves at this point. Just like Good Friday footy, this is vlad leading the charge on body contact.

 

[Tex200]

The issue is what is the line between the inherent risks of the game and the avoidable risks of the game?

Anyone who has played football will know that Dougie took the opportunity to clean up an unsuspecting opponent. Whether motivated by the past incident I don't know but I suspect that it played a part. Not that it was premeditated or anything, just that the footy gods dished up a square up opportunity and he took it with a little too much relish.

Dougie's played how many games? I can't remember him dishing out a single hard bump in all that time so it's not as though a fundamental part of his game has been cruelly snatched away by the wowser rules committee.

I think the dividing line is now set at the point of contact. If the point of contact arises from a deliberate action, then duty of care is firmly with the perpetrator and he will be responsible for all consequences even if not foreseeable.

The inherent risks are those which arise from contact which is accidental in the first instance

Just my guess

 

[fairfooty]

When I first saw the replay I thought he's gone for 2. That was my gut feel based on other bumps involving the head of the bumpee.

Then when they referred it straight to the tribunal, I thought s**t maybe it's going to be 4-5.

Never thought he would get off, so I'm pretty relieved its just the 2.

You just cant do that anymore. At the time I thought it was pretty pointless and silly since IMO Ward wasn't going to get near Smith anyway.

Crowked I agree - you absolutely can't do that stuff anymore - it's what I'd expect from a newbie not a club best and fairest. Love Dougy but it was damn stupid - particularly for such an experienced player. On the day I said to my partner 'he's now booked a date with the MRP'. I think he was probably a bit lucky to only end up with two weeks.

 

[cm_perfect]

The AFL are ruining our once great game

If you legally bump a player like Danger, Browny, Harvey and they bounce back up it is all clear. If you legally bump someone of a lesser physical stature and they are concussed you are screwed. (I know this was not the case here because Ward is a seasoned campaigner but you get my drift)

It has been a downhill slope since AFL Clubs started drafting slight framed athletes hoping to teach them how to play footy and then playing them before they are physically ready. Back when football was a mans game you had to be something special to get games against the big boys as a junior (e.g. Roo)

The AFL have changed the rules to cater for these young under developed athletic bodies, each week it feels more and more like watching a juniors competition, the average age of sides these days is 25 and under FFS. I am getting sick of watching soft athletic juniors week in week out

To start getting the game back closer to its roots the AFL should do the following IMO:

• Every team has a reserves side (would prefer a national competition)
• No player can play seniors until they are 21 (or turn 21 that year), so they have time to develop their frames for the rigours of AFL.
• It will be an AFL Clubs choice to draft a 17 year old if they want but he will be developed in the magoo's until he turns 21. The select few that are physically ready will have to wait.

You wouldn't believe my joy when we drafted BoB, not because he is Brads brother but because he is a footballer that we can teach to be an athlete. Natural footballers don't need to be as fast/evasive etc, their football nous buys them the extra time they need. Football nous is not something that can be easily taught (nic nat still has little idea on what he is doing......$1m ) The majority of natural footballers have a certain "hardness" to them as well.

I could go on and on but I will step down off my soapbox now

RIP the Bump
RIP Tough Football

 

[1970crow]

Wow... If he gets 4 weeks that is very harsh, considering Glass got 1 week for his deliberate act, and last season Thomas got 0 weeks.

Only reason I thought it was sent to the tribunal was because it was behind play (I think it was more than 5meters from the ball, and clearly the GWS player wasn't playing for the ball) because the MRP wasn't sure how to grade it.

If it is 4 weeks, I feel sorry for the game. May as well put everyone in those plastic balls so no one can get injured!

If it's about lawsuits as some are suggesting you'd have to wonder how the australian govt gets away with sending employees to war zones where they know they will be shot at. We've got players earning decent money to play a contact sport and we somehow have to remove the contact for fear of a law suit. What vlad has done to the game over his tenure is absolutely disgusting.

 

[1970crow]

Had an acquaintance that played old fellas footy. Went up for a mark and came down heavily and hit his head on the ground. Within twenty minutes he was having grand mal seizures and ended up in hospital for three months with a serious brain injury. Had to relearn how to do everything. If the bump can lead to players either clashing heads or the unsuspecting player being hit and dropping to the ground hitting his head, it could certainly be like a one punch can kill situation. Not sure you understand how serious head injuries can be.

And yet cigarettes, alcohol, prescription drugs, motor vehicles, motor bikes, riding horses, water skiing, snow skiing, bull riding, bungee jumping, parachuting etc are all legal. It's a contact sport Jen, well it used to be. Pretty soon players will have flags velcroed on their bloody shorts. They're killing the game that used to be Australian rules football.

 

[Mattrox]

Here's a case the NFL prepared earlier:

Attorneys for the over 4,500 former NFL players who sued the league in a class-action concussion lawsuit said in a statement Wednesday that a federal judge has not rejected the $765 million settlement reached between the two sides last summer.

Federal judge Anita Brody signed an order Tuesday in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which states that preliminary approval and class certification is denied without prejudice, but the plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel said the order “is administrative in nature and the status of the litigation remains unchanged.”

“We continue to work at the direction of the Court and Special Master as they review the settlement agreement and rightfully ensure that all members of the class are protected,” said attorneys Christopher Seeger and Sol Weiss. “We look forward to finalizing this agreement so that former players can soon begin taking advantage of its benefits."

The original lawsuit accuses the NFL of covering up the known risks of concussions and head trauma incurred while playing professional football, in an effort to protect the league’s image. The NFL reached a settlement last summer and at the time, Seeger called the proposed deal “extraordinary,” and one which would “provide immediate compensation to severely injured retired players that need the help today, not 10 years from now, or 20 years from now.”



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/f...federal-judge-article-1.1758905#ixzz2zbxU2goh

Has the AFL ever tried to cover up the risks? I would not have thought so. I understand that the AFL wants to reduce liability, but I'd have thought that given an AFL player doesn't get repeated head knocks every game like boxers or NFL linemen no-one could reasonably predict the impact concussion could have in the AFL. As a full contact sport where players are well rewarded, and understand the risks it is a bit precious to blame the AFL.

That being said, I reckon it is more appropriate for incidents where a player knocks someone out, that the player pays an amount into a future fund to assist players with brain injury. A fine if you will. Much better than rubbing players out for otherwise legal bumps. Then the AFL is actually doing something about discouraging the bump without making it illegal (in a full contact sport) and creating a pool of money to assist players in the future.

 

[jenny61_99]

And yet cigarettes, alcohol, prescription drugs, motor vehicles, motor bikes, riding horses, water skiing, snow skiing, bull riding, bungee jumping, parachuting etc are all legal. It's a contact sport Jen, well it used to be. Pretty soon players will have flags velcroed on their bloody shorts. They're killing the game that used to be Australian rules football.

Knowledge is killing the game.

 

[Mattrox]

Knowledge is killing the game.

That is disingenuous.

 

[Ramify]

If it's about lawsuits as some are suggesting you'd have to wonder how the australian govt gets away with sending employees to war zones where they know they will be shot at. We've got players earning decent money to play a contact sport and we somehow have to remove the contact for fear of a law suit. What vlad has done to the game over his tenure is absolutely disgusting.

So how do they get away with it in actual full contact sport I.e MMA, Boxing etc?

Surely this can be handled by having the players sign a waver each year?

 

[Tex200]

If it's about lawsuits as some are suggesting you'd have to wonder how the australian govt gets away with sending employees to war zones where they know they will be shot at. We've got players earning decent money to play a contact sport and we somehow have to remove the contact for fear of a law suit. What vlad has done to the game over his tenure is absolutely disgusting.

If a soldier is killed or injured in action the govt rightly pay compensation. Over the years the govt has spent millions on improving a soldiers chances of survival and reducing unecessary risk

The AFL is now in possession of information that it previously did not have and so have made a conscious decision to actively reduce the potential for head injury.

I get no joy from the thought that Patrick Dangerfield could end up with reduced mental capacity at the age of 40 all for my entertainment.

They are not boxers nor UFC fighters, there is every reason to reduce their exposure to brain injury as much as possible IMO

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

And yet cigarettes, alcohol, prescription drugs, motor vehicles, motor bikes, riding horses, water skiing, snow skiing, bull riding, bungee jumping, parachuting etc are all legal. It's a contact sport Jen, well it used to be. Pretty soon players will have flags velcroed on their bloody shorts. They're killing the game that used to be Australian rules football.

No they are not.

They are taking every means possible to protect the head. The head is now sacrosanct.

The AFL have implemented a system that will protect the players head and it is now the responsibility of every player on the field to have a duty of care to avoid any contact with the head. Either that is direct or indirect.

If a players go to bump someone and hit someone's shoulder with a bump and they then go on to hit their head on the ground, it is now that players duty of care that the head doesn't become endangered.

The bump is not dead. The bump where you make direct or indirect (head hitting the ground) contact with the head is now dead.

Bump at your own risk.

 

[little graham]

They're killing the game that used to be Australian rules football.

 

[Better ahead]

I think the dividing line is now set at the point of contact. If the point of contact arises from a deliberate action, then duty of care is firmly with the perpetrator and he will be responsible for all consequences even if not foreseeable.

The inherent risks are those which arise from contact which is accidental in the first instance

Just my guess

Going up for a mark and deliberately planting your knee in someone's back / head to get airborne could result in concussion or worse.
Will the duty of care lie with the player trying to take the mark?

Where does this end, we play a physical, hard, contact sport where the vast majority of contact arises as a result of deliberate actions, where in most cases the consequences are unforeseen.
If we punish players for consequences resulting from a legal bump then other actions like going for a mark where the consequences are the same must result in the same punishment?

I hope not.

 

[Mike Smyth]

2 games sounds about right.

 

[Hank93]

I'm going to assume Douglas was suspended with the belief he was outside the 5m (Which I agree with based on my calculation of 8m).

He was always going to be guilty if the hit was determined to be outside 5m.

What if he applied the bump within 5m, or even closer? What if Ward was inches away from laying the tackle, and the shepherd prevented Smith from holding the ball? Even if hypothetically the same head clash and subsequent damage occurred.

Would Douglas have been guilty with the same penalty, guilty with a lesser penalty or innocent?

This doesn't seem to have been explained very well by media folk.

 

[Better ahead]

No they are not.

They are taking every means possible to protect the head. The head is now sacrosanct.

The AFL have implemented a system that will protect the players head and it is now the responsibility of every player on the field to have a duty of care to avoid any contact with the head. Either that is direct or indirect.

If a players go to bump someone and hit someone's shoulder with a bump and they then go on to hit their head on the ground, it is now that players duty of care that the head doesn't become endangered.

The bump is not dead. The bump where you make direct or indirect (head hitting the ground) contact with the head is now dead.

Bump at your own risk.

Like I posted just before, then you can't go up for a mark as you may collect a player in the head with your knee. Like you say, duty of care must apply.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Going up for a mark and deliberately planting your knee in someone's back / head to get airborne could result in concussion or worse.
Will the duty of care lie with the player trying to take the mark?

Where does this end, we play a physical, hard, contact sport where the vast majority of contact arises as a result of deliberate actions, where in most cases the consequences are unforeseen.
If we punish players for consequences resulting from a legal bump then other actions like going for a mark where the consequences are the same must result in the same punishment?

I hope not.

So far we haven't seen players punished for hurting someone in their attempt to win the football. I think that would cross a line. Though perhaps the contact below the knee rule falls under this?

What Dougie's bump has shown is that it is bloody hard to bump someone hard without hurting their head. Even if you tuck your elbow in, stay on the ground, make the majority of the contact with their shoulder... you still risk clash of heads, whiplash, hitting the ground.

The bottom line is that Dougie could have ensured that Ward could definitely not reach Smith to tackle him without cleaning him up. In the olden days Ward's injury would have been seen as an added bonus.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

What if he applied the bump within 5m, or even closer? What if Ward was inches away from laying the tackle, and the shepherd prevented Smith from holding the ball? Even if hypothetically the same head clash and subsequent damage occurred.

Would Douglas have been guilty with the same penalty, guilty with a lesser penalty or innocent?

This doesn't seem to have been explained very well by media folk.

Great question.

I assume that it would have been negligent instead?

 

[crowded house]

Actually there is now a ton of evidence - to the point it's now a dull roar - which is why the AFL is running scared. And there's enough testing going on to provide baselines for future legal use. BTW Williams is not the only one who believes his neuro degeneration is AFL/concussion related - his neuro-psychologist does as well. He was part of a comprehensive study of AFL footballers at Deakin University - and the results were frightening.

Here's a case the NFL prepared earlier:

Attorneys for the over 4,500 former NFL players who sued the league in a class-action concussion lawsuit said in a statement Wednesday that a federal judge has not rejected the $765 million settlement reached between the two sides last summer.

Federal judge Anita Brody signed an order Tuesday in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which states that preliminary approval and class certification is denied without prejudice, but the plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel said the order “is administrative in nature and the status of the litigation remains unchanged.”

“We continue to work at the direction of the Court and Special Master as they review the settlement agreement and rightfully ensure that all members of the class are protected,” said attorneys Christopher Seeger and Sol Weiss. “We look forward to finalizing this agreement so that former players can soon begin taking advantage of its benefits."

The original lawsuit accuses the NFL of covering up the known risks of concussions and head trauma incurred while playing professional football, in an effort to protect the league’s image. The NFL reached a settlement last summer and at the time, Seeger called the proposed deal “extraordinary,” and one which would “provide immediate compensation to severely injured retired players that need the help today, not 10 years from now, or 20 years from now.”



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/f...federal-judge-article-1.1758905#ixzz2zbxU2goh

Just because there is a court case and just because it's a hot topic at the moment doesn't mean there is proper evidence.

I recomend you read this:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/47/5/250.full#sec-13

 

[Hank93]

Great question.

I assume that it would have been negligent instead?

I think they've stated that any damage to the head is instantly guilty, so it probably would have been negligent (As there was no alternative to Douglas other than to lay the shepherd).

 

[Mego Red]

That's just anecdotal evidence.

As far as I'm aware, there is just not a big enough evidence base for concussion in sport, and it will take a lot of time to develop.

Just because Greg Williams thinks his memory issues are due to previous concussions doesn't make it true.

Anecdotal evidence that Greg Williams has degenerative brain disease? That his chronic encephalopathy from repeated concussion, which will lead to dementia - that's just anecdotal?

His doctor and family will be happy to hear that.

You should do a google or two before mouthing off. In the meantime, let's move your posts to the "immunization causes autism" or "climate change is a myth" board.

 

[crowded house]

The important bit is
What is the evidence for chronic concussion-related changes?—behavioural, pathological and clinical outcomes
It was agreed that CTE represents a distinct tauopathy with an unknown incidence in athletic populations. It was further agreed that CTE was not related to concussions alone or simply exposure to contact sports. At present, there are no published epidemiological, cohort or prospective studies relating to modern CTE. Owing to the nature of the case reports and pathological case series that have been published, it is not possible to determine the causality or risk factors with any certainty. As such, the speculation that repeated concussion or subconcussive impacts cause CTE remains unproven. The extent to which age-related changes, psychiatric or mental health illness, alcohol/drug use or co-existing medical or dementing illnesses contribute to this process is largely unaccounted for in the published literature. At present, the interpretation of causation in the modern CTE case studies should proceed cautiously. It was also recognised that it is important to address the fears of parents/athletes from media pressure related to the possibility of CTE.

So in summary we are currently taking a preventative approach to concussion as there is a paucity of good evidence relating to long term outcomes. So yes Jenny. I am totally serious.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Pretty much the result I predicted. The AFL were always going to make s**t up to suspend Douglas because Ward was concussed. In other words players shouldn't put themselves in stupid positions. They should know by now the AFL suspend at the drop of a hat.

 

[Tex200]

Going up for a mark and deliberately planting your knee in someone's back / head to get airborne could result in concussion or worse.
Will the duty of care lie with the player trying to take the mark?

Where does this end, we play a physical, hard, contact sport where the vast majority of contact arises as a result of deliberate actions, where in most cases the consequences are unforeseen.
If we punish players for consequences resulting from a legal bump then other actions like going for a mark where the consequences are the same must result in the same punishment?

I hope not.

In that instance it should be pretty clear if the player has eyes on the ball or eyes on the player