MRP / Trib. Harvey will end up affecting us.

[Ned_Flanders]

Harvey bashing aside, there is a reason the bump rule has become so tight, and it's the new medical info on concussions

As much as we love the big hits, the long term price players pay for them is only beginning to become clear.

Just IMO, but I think this issue will only get bigger as the years go on.

 

[Tigerforlife78]

Harvey bashing aside, there is a reason the bump rule has become so tight, and it's the new medical info on concussions

As much as we love the big hits, the long term price players pay for them is only beginning to become clear.

Just IMO, but I think this issue will only get bigger as the years go on.

Dont know if you saw my updated sober post mate but Im fine with the huge hits that can cause serious injury being eliminated from the game. The ones the MRP want to rub guys out for like harveys hit that dont cause serious injury or are even close to causing it should just be thrown out in my opinion before we turn the AFL into soccer with kicks and marks.

 

[Westicle]

1 week is exactly the right punishment for jumping into a player off the ball and splitting his head open.

Happy for him to lay the world's biggest shepherd, break some ribs (see: Matt Arnot on Rory Thompson) and block for his team mate. But why should that involve connecting with Selwood's head and forcing him from the ground for treatment?

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

I don't agree with it but it's just hard to feel sorry for the grub.
He's even got that Northern Suburbs accent.
Reknowned shittest of s**t blokes.
Even his mates don't really like him so there isn't a lot of sympathy for him.

 

[a_fighting_fury]

Harvey didn't need to leave the ground to lay a fair and legal bump, just look at Thomas' hit on Reid last year that wasn't suspended. The other thing that goes against Boomer is that he has a very poor record at the tribunal, so something that should have been nothing more than a reprimand became a suspension. Finally what need was there to protect Swallow, they were not involved in the play so there was no need to pick Selwood off.

1. You may think he didn't need to leave the ground, but he obviously thought he did.
It's just a shame that heads made contact and that Selwood's a bleeder.

2. To fly the flag, to intimidate, to 'send a message'. As previously stated, I'd expect our boys to do the same. Hey, it's footy not tennis.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Dont know if you saw my updated sober post mate but Im fine with the huge hits that can cause serious injury being eliminated from the game. The ones the MRP want to rub guys out for like harveys hit that dont cause serious injury or are even close to causing it should just be thrown out in my opinion before we turn the AFL into soccer with kicks and marks.

This is the point with the new info, its not just the massive hits

Soccer players in the UK are being found now to have brain injuries from heading the ball (although there is debate as to if ditching leather balls has stopped this issue)

Im no expert, so just going off what Ive seen in the media, but apparently its not just the size of the hit causing these issues. Its also smaller hits on an ongoing long term basis. Basically anything that causes enough impact to cause the brain to rattle in the skull

I have no idea what the long term solution is. Helmets are not it (NFL is actually debating losing the current ones because they encourage harder hits). Asking the players to restrain themselves isnt the answer (20 year olds think they are immortal). It leaves changing the game, a very unpopular option.

Something has to change though, the NFL have already agreed to a massive settlement with some players (one which most say was massively unders). Leagues cannot afford to keep paying players out, and players should be expected to play a game that can significantly effect their post retirement lives

 

[richoatthedisco]

The MRP is a joke and Harvey is stiff to be suspended, especially when Franklin and Goodes got off for worse. But what he did was outside the rules. The ball was 15m away. Can't have blokes being picked off when they're not in the play. I would be ok if Harvey's poor record bumped it up to a suspension but the incident in isolation should be worth a free + 50m, nothing more.

 

[Tigerforlife78]

This is the point with the new info, its not just the massive hits

Soccer players in the UK are being found now to have brain injuries from heading the ball (although there is debate as to if ditching leather balls has stopped this issue)

Im no expert, so just going off what Ive seen in the media, but apparently its not just the size of the hit causing these issues. Its also smaller hits on an ongoing long term basis. Basically anything that causes enough impact to cause the brain to rattle in the skull

I have no idea what the long term solution is. Helmets are not it (NFL is actually debating losing the current ones because they encourage harder hits). Asking the players to restrain themselves isnt the answer (20 year olds think they are immortal). It leaves changing the game, a very unpopular option.

Something has to change though, the NFL have already agreed to a massive settlement with some players (one which most say was massively unders). Leagues cannot afford to keep paying players out, and players should be expected to play a game that can significantly effect their post retirement lives

I get your point on this mate, the only real solution is for us though is to never leave our homes due to risk of car accidents, skin cancer, air pollution, plane crashes, poisonous gasses, eye damage from sunlight, ban alcohol, ban cigerettes, ban fatty food, ban cancer causing foods, ban contact sport, ban mobile phones, and just stay inside and keep banning everything until were all completely safe from risk or injury and wrapped in cotton wool. Ive obviously gone over the top but this whole new idea of no one gets hurt in life is just plain bullshit. Possibly the sensible answer is 2 weeks before the draft all the young fellows have a 2 week course about the dangers of a career playing a contact sport and sign waivers to the point of the AFL will maintain its duty of care to players and they understand the risks but want to play anyway.

 

[_RT_]

1. You may think he didn't need to leave the ground, but he obviously thought he did.
It's just a shame that heads made contact and that Selwood's a bleeder.

That's his problem then because if you choose to leave the ground when bumping and make contact with the head you run the risk of being rubbed out. Thomas ironed out Reid without leaving the ground and the height difference is much greater than that between Harvey and Selwood.

2. To fly the flag, to intimidate, to 'send a message'. As previously stated, I'd expect our boys to do the same. Hey, it's footy not tennis.

If you pick off someone behind the play/away from the contest you're not playing footy, you're being a dirty sniper and deserve to get rubbed out. Exact reason why Concas elbow to the back of Smiths head was not tough or intimidating, it was weak and pathetic. You want to fly the flag, intimidate and send a message do it in the contest and do it legally. That is how you intimidate and fly the flag, not by taking cheap shots behind the play.

 

[DrMike]

1. You may think he didn't need to leave the ground, but he obviously thought he did.
It's just a shame that heads made contact and that Selwood's a bleeder.

2. To fly the flag, to intimidate, to 'send a message'. As previously stated, I'd expect our boys to do the same. Hey, it's footy not tennis.

The only reason it's one week, or potentially overturned, is because Selwood is a tough campaigner. He was getting smashed during that game, yet still comes out and backs the opposition player. I have massive respect for him for that.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I get your point on this mate, the only real solution is for us though is to never leave our homes due to risk of car accidents, skin cancer, air pollution, plane crashes, poisonous gasses, eye damage from sunlight, ban alcohol, ban cigerettes, ban fatty food, ban cancer causing foods, ban contact sport, ban mobile phones, and just stay inside and keep banning everything until were all completely safe from risk or injury and wrapped in cotton wool. Ive obviously gone over the top but this whole new idea of no one gets hurt in life is just plain bullshit. Possibly the sensible answer is 2 weeks before the draft all the young fellows have a 2 week course about the dangers of a career playing a contact sport and sign waivers to the point of the AFL will maintain its duty of care to players and they understand the risks but want to play anyway.

nice argument, but massively flawed

- the proportion of drivers suffering life changing injuries in car accidents as a percentage of total drivers is significantly smaller than the number of actual drivers. More importantly, a massive amount of regulation goes into the safety features of cars and roads so as to ensure that if a car accident occurs, the risk of serious injury is significantly reduced. Proof of this is we have seen deaths and serious injury from car accidents as a percentage of trips taken fall every year.

- we have campaigns to slip, slop, and slap for a reason - skin cancer is avoidable and preventable for the most part

- the issue with air pollution has dramatically fallen since the 70's and 80's, even in cities like Los Angeles due to massive changes in air pollution regulations (ie. EPA). In the developing world, it is an issue, and there are repercussions as a result. Kids in Beijing are suffering massive health issues, companies are relocating out of Beijing due to staff complaints, and US workers now get paid danger money to agree to the posting.

- plane crashes kill an incredibly small percentage of travelers on a per person per trip basis. Most over hyped cause of death on the planet. More importantly, like cars planes, airports, and air navigation controls have a massive amount of focus on risk minimization, and again deaths per flight pa has continued to generally fall.

- what poisonous gases? The only ones I can think of are chemical plant leaks, and regs on their production, storage, and movement has massively increased in the past 30 years

- eye damage from sunlight is a key reason parents are told to have their kids wear sunglasses now. with the thinning of the o-zone layer it is a real and legit problem. This is why the Australian standard for sunglasses is a mandatory one.

- alcohol is a restricted substance, with a massive campaign underway to educate consumers on how to manage consumption. Also its very likely cheap booze options (ie goon bags) will be taxed out of existence shortly (they currently exploit a tax loophole)

- cigarettes are heavily regulated, with modified labeling, advertising bans, and taxes/education reducing the number of smokers annually

- fatty foods are under attack. All fast food outlets in Australia who sell a certain amount of product must advise the consumers of the calorie content at point of sale, schools now have requirements for healthy foods only in some states, all packaged foods must now have a nutritional information panel (including %age of energy/fat of ave daily intake), and there is talk about a move against transfats similar to NYC. If you want proof of this, look at the recent offerings out of Maccas (all grilled chook/salads/wraps), and the growth in Subway and Sumo Salad.

- Any ingredient found to cause cancer is banned. There is a reason certain foods permitted in Asia (for instance) are banned from import here.

- Mobile phones are the biggest red herring ever. They don't blow up petrol stations, they dont down planes, and they don't cause brain cancer. Reality is you get exposure to electromagnetic emissions constantly, and often in degrees greater than a phone emits. Also emissions are regulated if for no other reason than interference with communications, and its a hell of a lot easier to mess with a TV signal than someones brain.

Do you know what all of these things have in common? They are either legitimate risks and hazards which are acknowledged and being reduced or eliminated though regulation and management, or they are urban myths.

Does repeated head contact in sport cause late life brain damage? We now have the medical evidence that says yes. Scans of NFL, ELP, and even AFL players have proven this. Yet despite this acknowledgement of a real and legit risk, you say we should just shrug our shoulders and ignore the risk because you like footy old school.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Put this in another thread but think its a valid point, as fans of the Australian game we need to stand up as one against this softening of our game. Love to hear your veiws on it.

Hope i dont get banned for a late night drunk rave on the mrp, but oh well here goes. This weak s**t like with Harvey doing his JOB sticking up for the captain and blocking the guys run is completely normal in AFL football. I honestly dont like north but i do think there due a fair suck of the sav with the rules as EVERY club should be (except collingwood f@ck them ). If we look at the future of the game even just for our own players if you want to be that narrow about it if Harvey gets banned its setting a dangerous precedent that finals footy wont even save you from a questionable mrp charge with negligible contact. Its bad for the game and at some point ill gaurentee it will be also be bad for us. Its a shame everyone is so caught up on the hating boomer bit as we have missed a potential shift in the game none of us will appreciate, the enemy of my enemy is my friend fellow Tigs, so boomer is a on the thinest ice possible friend and the enemy is the currently loopy MRP.

Id rather pay attention in all likelyhood Melbourne will get Pick 3 for compensation for losing Frawley.Now fair enough if Frawley was contributing in a postive way to the side that the actual side would miss his output,But he hasn't,So how in hell can the AFL justify it? Makes my blood boil that we have been crap for so long and we have never got any such assistance.

 

[SplintWhisky]

Listen when I watched it I thought that it was fair enough for him to be rubbed out. There was a head clash and it was after the ball had already been moved on. It was off the ball and to be perfectly honest that is the rules and he deserved the rub out

 

[Tigerforlife78]

nice argument, but massively flawed

- the proportion of drivers suffering life changing injuries in car accidents as a percentage of total drivers is significantly smaller than the number of actual drivers. More importantly, a massive amount of regulation goes into the safety features of cars and roads so as to ensure that if a car accident occurs, the risk of serious injury is significantly reduced. Proof of this is we have seen deaths and serious injury from car accidents as a percentage of trips taken fall every year.

- we have campaigns to slip, slop, and slap for a reason - skin cancer is avoidable and preventable for the most part

- the issue with air pollution has dramatically fallen since the 70's and 80's, even in cities like Los Angeles due to massive changes in air pollution regulations (ie. EPA). In the developing world, it is an issue, and there are repercussions as a result. Kids in Beijing are suffering massive health issues, companies are relocating out of Beijing due to staff complaints, and US workers now get paid danger money to agree to the posting.

- plane crashes kill an incredibly small percentage of travelers on a per person per trip basis. Most over hyped cause of death on the planet. More importantly, like cars planes, airports, and air navigation controls have a massive amount of focus on risk minimization, and again deaths per flight pa has continued to generally fall.

- what poisonous gases? The only ones I can think of are chemical plant leaks, and regs on their production, storage, and movement has massively increased in the past 30 years

- eye damage from sunlight is a key reason parents are told to have their kids wear sunglasses now. with the thinning of the o-zone layer it is a real and legit problem. This is why the Australian standard for sunglasses is a mandatory one.

- alcohol is a restricted substance, with a massive campaign underway to educate consumers on how to manage consumption. Also its very likely cheap booze options (ie goon bags) will be taxed out of existence shortly (they currently exploit a tax loophole)

- cigarettes are heavily regulated, with modified labeling, advertising bans, and taxes/education reducing the number of smokers annually

- fatty foods are under attack. All fast food outlets in Australia who sell a certain amount of product must advise the consumers of the calorie content at point of sale, schools now have requirements for healthy foods only in some states, all packaged foods must now have a nutritional information panel (including %age of energy/fat of ave daily intake), and there is talk about a move against transfats similar to NYC. If you want proof of this, look at the recent offerings out of Maccas (all grilled chook/salads/wraps), and the growth in Subway and Sumo Salad.

- Any ingredient found to cause cancer is banned. There is a reason certain foods permitted in Asia (for instance) are banned from import here.

- Mobile phones are the biggest red herring ever. They don't blow up petrol stations, they dont down planes, and they don't cause brain cancer. Reality is you get exposure to electromagnetic emissions constantly, and often in degrees greater than a phone emits. Also emissions are regulated if for no other reason than interference with communications, and its a hell of a lot easier to mess with a TV signal than someones brain.

Do you know what all of these things have in common? They are either legitimate risks and hazards which are acknowledged and being reduced or eliminated though regulation and management, or they are urban myths.

Does repeated head contact in sport cause late life brain damage? We now have the medical evidence that says yes. Scans of NFL, ELP, and even AFL players have proven this. Yet despite this acknowledgement of a real and legit risk, you say we should just shrug our shoulders and ignore the risk because you like footy old school.

Wow way to take my general statements and turn it into a massive fact sheet, im impressed. My point is there are a million different ways to get injured on this planet for the human race so why all the fuss about it at the moment, we will never eliminate serious injury from life unless we take very extreem measures. I dont want footy old school either as ive stated many times previous that there is no place for the heavy hits that K.O'd blokes in footy anymore as we never want to see what happened to that poor bloke in the NRL in one of our AFL games.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Wow way to take my general statements and turn it into a massive fact sheet, im impressed. My point is there are a million different ways to get injured on this planet for the human race so why all the fuss about it at the moment, we will never eliminate serious injury from life unless we take very extreem measures. I dont want footy old school either as ive stated many times previous that there is no place for the heavy hits that K.O'd blokes in footy anymore as we never want to see what happened to that poor bloke in the NRL in one of our AFL games.

This is the point though, all of those issues were either non-issues, or issues which have been dealt with.

Unfortunately unlike all the examples I gave, contact sports are heading in the opposite direction. They are actually not minimizing this risk, but increasing it.

To use footy as an example, yes the dirty behind the play and direct hits have been eliminated, but in play impacts are still condoned and encouraged. The big neg is the players. In the old days players used to beer up after training. Today they are all very fit, incredibly strong, and hit like human cannonballs. So while the dirty stuff is out, the legit stuff is causing much greater injury because of the increased speed and strength in the game.

If no change is done, the league is opening itself up to massive compo claims in future years, just like the NFL recently incurred

 

[Livonski]

Totally soft, should not even get cited for an accidental head knock.
Just a simple front on block that happens 1000 times. Joke.

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

If you pick off someone behind the play/away from the contest you're not playing footy, you're being a dirty sniper and deserve to get rubbed out. Exact reason why Concas elbow to the back of Smiths head was not tough or intimidating, it was weak and pathetic. You want to fly the flag, intimidate and send a message do it in the contest and do it legally. That is how you intimidate and fly the flag, not by taking cheap shots behind the play.

I'm not a fan of Harvey but jeez I wouldn't start calling his bump a 'cheap shot'? He deserved a reprimand which is what he got, and good on Selwood for sticking up for him too. I just hope they change the accidental head clash rule over summer or better still change the MRP.

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

The MRP is a joke and Harvey is stiff to be suspended, especially when Franklin and Goodes got off for worse. But what he did was outside the rules. The ball was 15m away. Can't have blokes being picked off when they're not in the play. I would be ok if Harvey's poor record bumped it up to a suspension but the incident in isolation should be worth a free + 50m, nothing more.

Totally agree, the MRP is a joke. How can they be taken seriously when their decisions have been blatantly inconsistent - if not biased - all season!

 

[_RT_]

I'm not a fan of Harvey but jeez I wouldn't start calling his bump a 'cheap shot'? He deserved a reprimand which is what he got, and good on Selwood for sticking up for him too. I just hope they change the accidental head clash rule over summer or better still change the MRP.

It is when you're going pick someone off away from the contest. That to me is a cheap shot. You lay a bump in a contest or around a contest like a clearance situation that is legitimate and fair and in the spirit of the game.

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

It is when you're going pick someone off away from the contest. That to me is a cheap shot. You lay a bump in a contest or around a contest like a clearance situation that is legitimate and fair and in the spirit of the game.

Are you now saying he sniped Selwood?

Harvey was in front of him and blocked his run. Look at the vision again.

 

[_RT_]

Are you now saying he sniped Selwood?

Harvey was in front of him and blocked his run. Look at the vision again.

No where near the contest though.

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

No where near the contest though.

That's not the definition of a sniper.

It's academic now.

 

[hagansbull]

Honestly??? I reckon the HS run this show just so they have something for the back 4 pages for a Tuesday of what they call a NEWS PAPER

 

[smasha]

Stuff all in it imo.


Don't want the bump to be an extinct part of the game.


Richo said players have been doing that for over 100 years.

It's part of why our game is great.

 

[sante]

He got off.