MRP / Trib. Is the speccy a sacred cow, and for how long?

[kickazz]

You know it's coming.

The AFL in my opinion did the right thing with the bump. You can still sort of do it but it is very risky, and they have basically made the cheap shot extinct, which is good.

They have then gone on to introduce a duty of care for tackling. Fair enough too, but it seems they have become overly strict on this.

And now we have suspensions for spoiling causing injury through lack of care.

The reason behind all of this is so the AFL can cover their arse and not get sued for negligence themselves, by showing they took reasonable steps to punish these acts and hence foster a "duty of care" mindset among the players.

So what about the speccy? How many times do we see players cop a harsh knee to the head in a speccy? James Sicily

6

James Sicily

Age

29

Ht

188cm

Wt

90kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.3

5star

K

12.7

5star

HB

5.7

4star

M

6.3

5star

T

1.5

3star

MG

365.0

5star

D

19.4

4star

K

14.3

5star

HB

5.1

3star

M

5.9

5star

T

1.0

2star

MG

437.4

5star

D

10.0

3star

K

6.0

3star

HB

4.0

3star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

173.8

3star

this year for one. Harry Taylor got KO'd back in 2009 from a speccy.

I think this is a real elephant in the room. The injuries caused by a knee to the head can be pretty severe, more so than from a spoil or most of the tackle related suspensions we are seeing now.

Yet the speccy is THE iconic skill of the game. Getting suspended for taking a speccy would not pass the pub test, even if you knocked a player out. IMO

Surely the AFL won't go there. But what sort of mental/legal gymnastics are required to make their current stand justifiable, whilst not drawing the speccy into the same mire?

Or, is it not the sacred cow we may think or want it to be, and it's time is coming too?

 

[Shadow89]

You know it's coming.

The AFL in my opinion did the right thing with the bump. You can still sort of do it but it is very risky, and they have basically made the cheap shot extinct, which is good.

They have then gone on to introduce a duty of care for tackling. Fair enough too, but it seems they have become overly strict on this.

And now we have suspensions for spoiling causing injury through lack of care.

The reason behind all of this is so the AFL can cover their arse and not get sued for negligence themselves, by showing they took reasonable steps to punish these acts and hence foster a "duty of care" mindset among the players.

So what about the speccy? How many times do we see players cop a harsh knee to the head in a speccy? James Sicily this year for one. Harry Taylor got KO'd back in 2009 from a speccy.

I think this is a real elephant in the room. The injuries caused by a knee to the head can be pretty severe, more so than from a spoil or most of the tackle related suspensions we are seeing now.

Yet the speccy is THE iconic skill of the game. Getting suspended for taking a speccy would not pass the pub test, even if you knocked a player out. IMO

Surely the AFL won't go there. But what sort of mental/legal gymnastics are required to make their current stand justifiable, whilst not drawing the speccy into the same mire?

Or, is it not the sacred cow we may think or want it to be, and it's time is coming too?

They're allowing other players to hit each other - each and every single week. Where is the protection from that?

I seriously don't understand this mentality anymore. You can swing arms at the head like Chol and Newman, but you can't tackle a player to the ground or spoil because you MAY injure the head?

What the actual f*ck?

 

[PenfoldsFan]

You know it's coming.

The AFL in my opinion did the right thing with the bump. You can still sort of do it but it is very risky, and they have basically made the cheap shot extinct, which is good.

They have then gone on to introduce a duty of care for tackling. Fair enough too, but it seems they have become overly strict on this.

And now we have suspensions for spoiling causing injury through lack of care.

The reason behind all of this is so the AFL can cover their arse and not get sued for negligence themselves, by showing they took reasonable steps to punish these acts and hence foster a "duty of care" mindset among the players.

So what about the speccy? How many times do we see players cop a harsh knee to the head in a speccy? James Sicily this year for one. Harry Taylor got KO'd back in 2009 from a speccy.

I think this is a real elephant in the room. The injuries caused by a knee to the head can be pretty severe, more so than from a spoil or most of the tackle related suspensions we are seeing now.

Yet the speccy is THE iconic skill of the game. Getting suspended for taking a speccy would not pass the pub test, even if you knocked a player out. IMO

Surely the AFL won't go there. But what sort of mental/legal gymnastics are required to make their current stand justifiable, whilst not drawing the speccy into the same mire?

Or, is it not the sacred cow we may think or want it to be, and it's time is coming too?

Cant we just pay the speccy devoid of the knee to head contact and deal with the odd poorly executed ones too?

 

[Micksy]

Cant we just pay the speccy devoid of the knee to head contact and deal with the odd poorly executed ones too?

But what about POTENTIAL injury?
The worst type of injury.

 

[Alberto_Magnifico]

Next player that knocks someone out taking a mark will get suspended, based on recent tribunal findings it would go something like this:

"We find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in contesting the mark in the way he did, would likely result in a forceful blow to the other players head"

 

[Carringbush2010]

You know it's coming.

The AFL in my opinion did the right thing with the bump. You can still sort of do it but it is very risky, and they have basically made the cheap shot extinct, which is good.

They have then gone on to introduce a duty of care for tackling. Fair enough too, but it seems they have become overly strict on this.

And now we have suspensions for spoiling causing injury through lack of care.

The reason behind all of this is so the AFL can cover their arse and not get sued for negligence themselves, by showing they took reasonable steps to punish these acts and hence foster a "duty of care" mindset among the players.

So what about the speccy? How many times do we see players cop a harsh knee to the head in a speccy? James Sicily this year for one. Harry Taylor got KO'd back in 2009 from a speccy.

I think this is a real elephant in the room. The injuries caused by a knee to the head can be pretty severe, more so than from a spoil or most of the tackle related suspensions we are seeing now.

Yet the speccy is THE iconic skill of the game. Getting suspended for taking a speccy would not pass the pub test, even if you knocked a player out. IMO

Surely the AFL won't go there. But what sort of mental/legal gymnastics are required to make their current stand justifiable, whilst not drawing the speccy into the same mire?

Or, is it not the sacred cow we may think or want it to be, and it's time is coming too?

The bolded is really the crux of what's happening in broader terms, eventually will lead to a non-contact game and by extension death of the game.

There has been discussion about imdemnity i:e players sign a waiver that they're not able to file suit as they agree to the risks of the game.

That's the only resolution I see possible to keep the game and the league can cover thier ass.

 

[kickazz]

The bolded is really the crux of what's happening in broader terms, eventually will lead to a non-contact game and by extension death of the game.

There has been discussion about imdemnity i:e players sign a waiver that they're not able to file suit as they agree to the risks of the game.

That's the only resolution I see possible to keep the game and the league can cover thier ass.

I'm a little more optimistic - I think we are in a turbulent phase at the moment where we are trying to figure a lot of things out. Going forward, I think there will be a framework set up whereby:

Rules are changed to mitigate actions based on BOTH potential severity of injury AND likelihood/frequency of it happening.
These will get refined based upon data. Indeed, some of the lower risk things might see us easing up a bit. (e.g the speccy might be deemed low likelihood and very rare to cause a bad injury)
They'll continue to refine rules to deal with the highest impact issues.
The AFLPA will need to come to the table and formally accept some level of risk. But only after the known "big problem" actions are dealt with.
The AFL and PA will need to create a fund for players who despite best efforts of everyone still end up requiring ongoing rehab or assistance later in life.

 

[HairyO]

If you make it a free kick to lead with your knee and hit someone high but no other changes there will be a minor change to the way the game plays and we keep the vast majority of awesome marks.

And make it much safer.

We see this maybe once a weekend? Or less? We used to see dozens of tackles each week where the head would hit the ground.

 

[coldlunch]

If you make it a free kick to lead with your knee and hit someone high but no other changes there will be a minor change to the way the game plays and we keep the vast majority of awesome marks.

And make it much safer.

We see this maybe once a weekend? Or less? We used to see dozens of tackles each week where the head would hit the ground.

two of the three mark of the year nominations from this weekend were clean knees to the back of the head (and the third was a hip bump to the head). they're definitely less common within all marking contests, but when they pay off they are immediately elevated to the highlight reel and used to promote the game. it's a very clear and very strange inconsistency in the rules that would baffle anyone new to the game.

a free kick for leading with your knee and making contact would be a pretty palatable and sensible change, I think, but that just underlines how we should also be treating incidental head knocks in tackles etc. as it stands, the league is overreaching in one respect to be (or appear, depending on how cynical you are) proactive on player safety, but leaving themselves open to any future liability by holding onto this one other thing that has helped to sell the game for so long.