Brodie Grundy's tackle- what's the verdict?

[loki04]

loki04 thats all great, but without peer reviewed journals from neurologists counter to protecting the head my POV will remain as is.

Put yourself in the shoes of Brown's family awaiting the results of CT scans following the incident fearing the worst and hoping for the best. Explaining the difference between concussion and a "KO" will fall on deaf ears I feel. If rules protecting the head prevent only one head trauma moving into the future they have served the purpose well. All other discussion is best left in the other thread you created.

In terms of the discussion around his suspension. As the rules stand the correct decision to deem the incident worthy of a report was made, but the grading was up for debate. We decided not to challenge so it's extremely cut and dried as far as I'm concerned.

Of course you want to protect the head but you can't protect against all incidents without completely changing the fabric and the way the game is played. When you sign up to play footy you are signing up to receive and deal contact which may result in a multitude of injuries and or concussions.

Also there is quotes from the leading neurologists on it all in the other thread, but I see you didn't read it or if you did dismissed it.

How are you going to stop a player running too fast, tripping, stumbling then hitting the post and concussing himself like a Dogs player did last season? who gets suspended in that? the player for being a clutz or the post for not moving? After all we want to stamp out all head trauma. Frustrated use of /sarcasm off.

On top of that and less sarcastically where do they stop? we have legitimate fears that the Marking contest will be next under fire. The AFL tackles these things 1 at a time as to appear to not make too many big changes at once.

Wayne Carey also raised this issue and agreed that a knee to the back of the head or face or lower back is far worse then the Grundy tackle. Which he is dead right.

over 900 tackles were made on the weekend and only 1 incident came of it despite similar tackles being made the rule is not needed as the incidents are generally one offs.

And yes due to the changes in the rules around tackling last year to the letter of the law he gets cited for "pinning the arms", absolutely absurd there is a rider on this execution of the tackle. This is type of "duty of care" liability is what killed the bump. RiP.

As far as being in Browns family's shoes waiting for the scan results sure I'd be worried for my sons health but I would not blame the game or the player who for all intents and purposes laid what was a fair and perfect tackle only 18 months ago and the way the game should be played.

Same if my son was a Boxer and was similarly in for scans they chose to play that sport and know the accompanying risks. This is not an act of thuggery or an innocent by stander on the street getting struck, this is a contact sport where accidents and incidents happen for a variable amount of reasons.

The AFL are meant to be caretakers of the game, not the ones destroying the fabric of it brick by brick for monetary reasons.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Club is Gutless not Appealing

While I agree we should be appealing, you need to cut your s**t of having a dig st the club all the time.

Go support someone else if you hate the club so much.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

My take is they had it explained to them that any challenge this time was a loser.
The AFL don't want this decision going any other way.

Rigged outcomes? Not surprised in the slightest.

 

[Robroy22]

Rigged outcomes? Not surprised in the slightest.

Not rigged....managed!

 

[Robroy22]

I'm just waiting now till soccer has to ban headers because of CT scans....the excrement will hit the fan then!!

 

[Brad Goodman]

I'm just waiting now till soccer has to ban headers because of CT scans....the excrement will hit the fan then!!

A lot of Alzheimer's cases from yesteryear when the ball was a lot harder - the current balls are a lot softer and won't do the same level of damage.

 

[jathanas]

Grundy did not mean to hurt Ben Brown, I believe we all agree.

I was not surprised that he was reported, but find the 2 week suspension to be excessive. I've read the discussion on it and IMO (I repeat IMO) it was a clumsy/dangerous tackle.

I won't romanticise the thuggery that was once part of the game and I'm glad it is being stamped out. My son was/is a ball-player and seeing him get whacked by opposition players as part of a "game strategy" felt like s**t and angered me; but we all know Grundy is no thug.

 

[Robroy22]

A lot of Alzheimer's cases from yesteryear when the ball was a lot harder - the current balls are a lot softer and won't do the same level of damage.

Its not just the ball I'd be worried about, those guys bang heads quite often trying to head the ball. Lots of banged heads = a truckload more concussions than we'll ever have!

 

[toxic]

What if Ben Brown plays this week?

Where does the high impact then stand?

 

[Pie eyed]

No challenge.
Ed has lost his balls.

Time to go Ed.

Sorry but that's why he is pres. To protect our club from the dogs.

 

[MyManLynch]

No challenge.
Ed has lost his balls.

Time to go Ed.

Sorry but that's why he is pres. To protect our club from the dogs.

Well...he did lose 20kg...so they're probably gone as well.

 

[jmac70]

Weak as piss Collingwood.

 

[Black_White]

I was one of 42.
And it feels good.

 

[Pie eyed]

I was one of 42.
And it feels good.

Not sure why?
Is it just the novelty of correctly interpreting which way the Tribunal read the chickens gizzards?

 

[DWil6]

Weak as piss Collingwood.

I feel for you, JMac. You've been very strong in your opinion on how this will go, sometimes the gods of justice fail us.

 

[jmac70]

Not sure why?
Is it just the novelty of correctly interpreting which way the Tribunal read the chickens gizzards?

Beautifully put.

 

[jmac70]

I feel for you, JMac. You've been very strong in your opinion on how this will go, sometimes the gods of justice fail us.

I feel sorry for Grundy. He doesn't deserve to be tarnished with this.

 

[ppoiter]

Wayne Carey also raised this issue and agreed that a knee to the back of the head or face or lower back is far worse then the Grundy tackle. Which he is dead right.

over 900 tackles were made on the weekend and only 1 incident came of it despite similar tackles being made the rule is not needed as the incidents are generally one offs.

And yes due to the changes in the rules around tackling last year to the letter of the law he gets cited for "pinning the arms", absolutely absurd there is a rider on this execution of the tackle. This is type of "duty of care" liability is what killed the bump. RiP.

As far as being in Browns family's shoes waiting for the scan results sure I'd be worried for my sons health but I would not blame the game or the player who for all intents and purposes laid what was a fair and perfect tackle only 18 months ago and the way the game should be played.

Same if my son was a Boxer and was similarly in for scans they chose to play that sport and know the accompanying risks. This is not an act of thuggery or an innocent by stander on the street getting struck, this is a contact sport where accidents and incidents happen for a variable amount of reasons.

The AFL are meant to be caretakers of the game, not the ones destroying the fabric of it brick by brick for monetary reasons.

Just on this - can you think of an example of a player missing a game from concussion because of a knee to the back of the head in a marking contest? I cant.

 

[Black_White]

Not sure why?
Is it just the novelty of correctly interpreting which way the Tribunal read the chickens gizzards?

Nah, it was realising the reality of the situation.
It was not burying our collective heads in the sand and thinking there was no case to answer, or at least there were mitigating circumstances.
I'm used to being right, so it wasn't really a surprise.

 

[jmac70]

Nah, it was realising the reality of the situation.
It was not burying our collective heads in the sand and thinking there was no case to answer, or at least there were mitigating circumstances.
I'm used to being right, so it wasn't really a surprise.

You're a member of the smart party.

 

[TheSierBear]

I was one of 42.
And it feels good.

Lol tgats because you're a raging narcissist

 

[loki04]

Just on this - can you think of an example of a player missing a game from concussion because of a knee to the back of the head in a marking contest? I cant.

Well there is this from just a few weeks ago not back of head but knee to head/jaw it all comes under the same errant knee to head:

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-07-29/waite-gains-from-jettas-slamming-daw-pain.mobileapp

Tell me the difference of "look" and "duty of care" there? Majak could of stayed down, no need to raise the knee, 3 weeks down to 2 I hear the MRP say in future cases.



I remember one from a long time ago big Pebbles came steaming out on a lead and put his knee through a defenders back of head and knocked him out cold stretchered off.

I have also seen them (knees to heads/faces) have players faces caved in and the equivalent of a car crash victim at 60km (Hird, S.Heart and Brown likely all suffered concussion too but injuries far too serious to see them play on anyway and no rule back then), I have seen someone lose a kidney to one and almost die from it.
All theses are far worse then the initial concussion (if brown indeed had it) then Kruezer or Brown who likely wont have any further ill effects (as long as repeated episodes don't happen multiple times a year).

 

[loki04]

Grundy did not mean to hurt Ben Brown, I believe we all agree.

I was not surprised that he was reported, but find the 2 week suspension to be excessive. I've read the discussion on it and IMO (I repeat IMO) it was a clumsy/dangerous tackle.

I won't romanticise the thuggery that was once part of the game and I'm glad it is being stamped out. My son was/is a ball-player and seeing him get whacked by opposition players as part of a "game strategy" felt like s**t and angered me; but we all know Grundy is no thug.

So you can't discern the difference between whacked and acts of thuggery and a perfectly legitimate tackle prior to duty of care rule changes...interesting.

The AFL have done the right thing in stopping malicious acts, off the ball hits and head over the ball contact BUMPS, in the process stepping over the line and adding duty of care rules around bumping that now see's it all but dead. This same process taken too the bump is now applied to the tackle.

Incidents will happen you can't litigate against all accidents in one offs or the game will become Gaelic footy with an oval ball.

 

[loki04]

Its not just the ball I'd be worried about, those guys bang heads quite often trying to head the ball. Lots of banged heads = a truckload more concussions than we'll ever have!

\If you read the article in the other thread the highest rate of "sportmen" with concussions is JOCKEYS.

 

[Robroy22]

\If you read the article in the other thread the highest rate of "sportmen" with concussions is JOCKEYS.

So whats the racing / betting ppl doing about all THOSE concussions? Ooops...that brings in revenue to all governments so we better not pressure them too much...