MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sideburns Ahern

Team Captain
Apr 6, 2019
371
1,382
AFL Club
North Melbourne
There's a $10,000 fine heading his way

He'll probably get a please explain like Dane Rampe.

Speaking of which, why does Rampe have to explain himself to the AFL for doing something that the umpires on the ground, the umpiring department, and the CEO of the AFL have all decided was unworthy of a free kick? Seems they feel it was handled adequately on the night, so why would there be any need for further explanation from the player?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Jan 25, 2016
2,019
6,093
AFL Club
North Melbourne
you need to understand the consequences if the AFL fail to act on concussion. There are over 2000 claims in the NFL, the first 200 paid out totaled something like 150 mil.

It's a simple fact now, if you chose to bump and it results in a concussion then you are in trouble.
I really don’t think this theory (that the AFL is acting on concussion by implementing the current rules and suspending players who cause a concussion) will have any impact on any future claims. If in the future Player X decides to sue the AFL for concussions received whilst playing, it would go something like:

Player X: I’m suing you for all the concussions I received.

AFL: But we put in place rules to try to prevent it and suspended the players that concussed you.

Player X: Did it stop me from getting concussed?

AFL: No, but we tried...

Player X: I’m suing you for all the concussions I received.
 

Billy Not Really

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 7, 2018
6,598
17,342
Licking windows at the back of the bus.
AFL Club
North Melbourne
NFL players CTE occurs due to 100's of repeated impacts to the head due to the nature of the game.

Exactly. Their game is inherent on front on contact, and the protection actually has been proven to increase the lack of any care towards their bodies when in play, they'll view a headbash as nothing. There's tonnes of research on all this but basically what it is, is the AFL models all of its modern day rules not on the game itself, but other games.

And by also adding more rules, rather than adjusting it, and then you wind up with, I forget the number but its like 100+ rule changes in the past 20 years.
 
Jan 25, 2016
2,019
6,093
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest the AFL didn’t actually think through the current rules completely, with the AFL only considering the application of the rule to bumping vs tackling (and not considering how it would be applied to shepherding).

I’d like to see us test that.
 
I didn't watch deliberately for that reason didn't need additional blood pressure.
Let me guess , nothing in it for Ablett as the rules stand?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
Do you really think Ablett should be suspended for that?? It was a free kick, nothing more. Sammy got straight up, he wasn’t hurt.

F’en hell, in one breath we complain the game is going soft, and then we want a player suspended for a slight tap to the jaw.

This thread is so hypocritical it’s hilarious.
 

SonofSamsquanch

Enjoy decent coffee but don't dunk yer biscuits
Mar 31, 2016
19,287
45,049
Victoria
AFL Club
North Melbourne
If this suspension is upheld, the AFL needs to consider legalising holding the man if it's within 5 metres of the ball. Otherwise what can players do but stand and watch their opponents?
We saw that on Sunday as well. It worked for Geelong - they were able to hold and tackle North players without the ball, and without penalty.
 
Apr 24, 2013
81,024
153,170
Arden Street Hill
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
I am now convinced that we are the AFL's guinea pig when it comes down to this ridiculous tribunal crap.

They get the message out there with the least amount of blow back because we're the little guy on the block.

Look no further than Ziebell & Thomas.

What is that putrid excuse for a board, or the coach going to do about it? Sweet **** all. They're too busy looking after themselves.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Do you really think Ablett should be suspended for that?? It was a free kick, nothing more. Sammy got straight up, he wasn’t hurt.

F’en hell, in one breath we complain the game is going soft, and then we want a player suspended for a slight tap to the jaw.

This thread is so hypocritical it’s hilarious.

So you think that all that matters is the outcome? That is, Sammy never got hurt so it was okay for Ablett to change direction, raise his arm and whack Sammy in the jaw, after the ball had well and truly left the zone? What if Sammy had have had his jaw broken or been concussed? What would you say to that?

And is it acceptable that 2 weeks running, one of the all time greats, allegedly a role model to young kids following the game, is doing that sort of act on the football field? Do we now tell kids that it is perfectly okay to execute those sorts of acts on the football field, providing you don't injure someone?

Ablett got off last week because of his "exemplary" record. I probably would have let him off too but I think he was lucky. But two weeks running?

If you've got some credits in the bank, then I think those should have been wiped clean. But this week he (and Fyfe who hardly is a clean skin) should have copped a week when compared to what Sam Durdin copped.

And don't start your usual rubbish about bumping and outcomes because of the rule change after Burton's hit on Higgo last year. Burton's hit was delivered with intent, whereas Durdin applied a shepherd/block and did not deliberately use his head to knock out Rohan.
 
So you think that all that matters is the outcome? That is, Sammy never got hurt so it was okay for Ablett to change direction, raise his arm and whack Sammy in the jaw, after the ball had well and truly left the zone? What if Sammy had have had his jaw broken or been concussed? What would you say to that?

And is it acceptable that 2 weeks running, one of the all time greats, allegedly a role model to young kids following the game, is doing that sort of act on the football field? Do we now tell kids that it is perfectly okay to execute those sorts of acts on the football field, providing you don't injure someone?

Ablett got off last week because of his "exemplary" record. I probably would have let him off too but I think he was lucky. But two weeks running?

If you've got some credits in the bank, then I think those should have been wiped clean. But this week he (and Fyfe who hardly is a clean skin) should have copped a week when compared to what Sam Durdin copped.

And don't start your usual rubbish about bumping and outcomes because of the rule change after Burton's hit on Higgo last year. Burton's hit was delivered with intent, whereas Durdin applied a shepherd/block and did not deliberately use his head to knock out Rohan.
No, I don’t think it was alright. I think it deserved a free kick...except it should have been paid cause we had the ball.
 
And don't start your usual rubbish about bumping and outcomes because of the rule change after Burton's hit on Higgo last year. Burton's hit was delivered with intent, whereas Durdin applied a shepherd/block and did not deliberately use his head to knock out Rohan.
so Burton deliberately head butted Higgo to KO him? Right-o. Hard to argue with fools.
 
Aug 25, 2006
18,250
33,728
Mount Waverley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
It should have been suspended purely on intent.

The ball was gone, there was no need for him to even make contact with Wrighty. The blocking argument is crap. He saw it as an opportunity for a cheap shot. He may not have intended for it to go high, but it did.

Under the rules, he had alternatives. He chose to execute an unnecessary block and got it wrong and should pay the penalty.

That being said the Fyfe one was worse and shows this system is all about engineering results to push agendas.
 
so Burton deliberately head butted Higgo to KO him? Right-o. Hard to argue with fools.

Point out to me where I said Burton "deliberately head butted Higgo". I said nothing of the sort.

I said that that his "hit was delivered with intent", which it was. Watch the incident and you will see Burton running towards Higgo, bracing for contact, then delivering the hit. He could and should have tackled but chose not to.

And please leave the personal insults out of this. If I was in charge here, you would have had a holiday for your earlier, extremely uncalled for post, which I believe has now been deleted.
 
No, I don’t think it was alright. I think it deserved a free kick...except it should have been paid cause we had the ball.

And what if Sammy had have received a broken jaw or maybe been concussed if as a result of Ablett's contact, he had hit his head hard when he went down. Still just a free kick?
 
Aug 25, 2006
18,250
33,728
Mount Waverley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
And what if Sammy had have received a broken jaw or maybe been concussed if as a result of Ablett's contact, he had hit his head hard when he went down. Still just a free kick?
It’s actually a 50 metre penalty, but the dead shits couldn’t even get that right.

Not only did the let the turd off, but they actually stopped the play and made us go back and take the kick from the spot of the incident.

The game is the biggest running joke at the moment. The sport is now secondary, to the entertainment value.
 
While Ablett has escaped suspension 2 weeks running, someone at the Cats needs to have a word to him. He may not be quite so lucky in the future. Imagine if he uses that technique around finals time. The credits might be well and truly extinguished and who knows a GF might be missed?
 
And what if Sammy had have received a broken jaw or maybe been concussed if as a result of Ablett's contact, he had hit his head hard when he went down. Still just a free kick?
WTF kind of question is that? Have you not ready anything I’ve posted tonight? Outcome matters.
 
Point out to me where I said Burton "deliberately head butted Higgo". I said nothing of the sort.

I said that that his "hit was delivered with intent", which it was. Watch the incident and you will see Burton running towards Higgo, bracing for contact, then delivering the hit. He could and should have tackled but chose not to.

And please leave the personal insults out of this. If I was in charge here, you would have had a holiday for your earlier, extremely uncalled for post, which I believe has now been deleted.
“Where as Durdin...did not deliberately use his head...” You have implied Burton did.
 

Sideburns Ahern

Team Captain
Apr 6, 2019
371
1,382
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I really don’t think this theory (that the AFL is acting on concussion by implementing the current rules and suspending players who cause a concussion) will have any impact on any future claims. If in the future Player X decides to sue the AFL for concussions received whilst playing, it would go something like:

Player X: I’m suing you for all the concussions I received.

AFL: But we put in place rules to try to prevent it and suspended the players that concussed you.

Player X: Did it stop me from getting concussed?

AFL: No, but we tried...

Player X: I’m suing you for all the concussions I received.

Absolutely yes, and as Mav has assured us, intent is largely irrelevant and outcome is the only thing that matters. Was Player X concussed several times? Yes. Okay, open the bank vault. But... but... but... we tried to stop it. Too bad, it's all about "strict liability." The AFL is strictly liable despite their good intentions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back