He should have slowed down and tackled
This kind of stuff can’t happen in footy anymore
Autopsy Round 13, 2021: St.Kilda v Adelaide
- Thread starter George
- Start date
- Tagged users None
This kind of stuff can’t happen in footy anymore
Couldn't a player use that excuse to continually iron out opponents? Just go in like a steam train, flick a hand out to graze the ball, kill a dude..
He's not hopeless. Has played a lot of good games for the club.
100% spot on
KingsRansom
Club Legend
- Aug 23, 2020
- 2,099
- 7,706
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Banned
- #1,632
Judging by some of the umpiring in that game, that's not someone I'd aspire to want to be agreeing with
true
Just hard to believe that people can see it so differently. Regardless no action should cause two breaks in a jaw like Hunters. Any football action that does that should be looked at and stamped out. It takes nothing away from the game at all.
Okay, so you want to see players ensure they're second to the ball at all times, I don't.
The game is a contact sport, the injury was awful, but these contests are a part of the game. He didn't get bumped, it was a collision between two players chasing the ball. A freak accident that doesn't deserve punishment.
They made a great point on one of the Fox Footy shows that many of the marks we all celebrate (like Riewoldt going back with the flight of the ball) has just as much chance of causing the same injuries. Should they be banned, too? They're apparently just as unneeded as going hard at the ball, maybe instead of doing everything possible to mark the ball, they just let the opposition take control of it and try and get the ball later?
KingsRansom
Club Legend
- Aug 23, 2020
- 2,099
- 7,706
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Banned
- #1,638
I think it happened to quick to see anything. At the time of impact it didn't look high, it did look like Clark could have been winded from the hit as well.
Not ones like that
And if it is you can reduce the risk why wouldn’t we want that..?
You can nail a bloke as hard as you want in the back of the head with a knee so long as you're making a reasonable attempt to mark the ball.
Should we ban speccies?
Paddy McCartin got concussed in a contested pack mark, should we ban those?
We can't legislate everything out of the game. Players know it is a contact sport, and they take the risk to play it. It's not touch footy.
No one wants to see elbows and head high contact in a hip and shoulder, but heavy contact should be allowed so long as it's in a reasonable contest for the ball - which it was.
What if it was Mumford and not Mackay that did it?
Paddy didn’t break his jaw in two places. No don’t ban species but if a player runs as fast as they can, then leaps at the player infront of him at full pelt, his knee hits him in the back of the head and he missed the mark, and the guy that got hit is out cold with a fractured skull, then yes the guy trying to take the bark should get 4 weeks.
I don't believe it was, much like Cotchin taking out Shiel
Can see how it can be campaigned and believed to be an accident, absolutely
Should we coach these style accidents into our own play considering? Genuine question, if that is the template and you wanna win, why not get crafty with it?
A concussion is infinitely worse than a broken jaw. But if we want to stop blokes getting concussed, broken jaws, ruined knees, and back problems - maybe we should just ban sport.
- Jan 10, 2011
- 34,367
- 57,683
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Ormond AFC
I hope we are coaching people to run hard at the ball. I hope we are exposing when you bump go low otherwise the injury is on you. This guy ran hard at the ball and contested it.
Always
As I have already said, you have missed the point entirely. You are entitled to view the footage however you like and come to your own conclusions but the basis of the discussion has moved on from what you are suggesting. You are talking about the mechanics of a specific incident. The discussion is about what the incident means and what it says about our game.
Goodwin and Chris Scott have already agreed that this issue is likely to continue the direction the game has already moved in - different tackling and training methods, etc - and most certainly in getting rid of the view that a player who, in exercising their duty of care to an opponent, should never be branded as a squib, or as taking a backward step.
That approach is wrong and the testimony of it being wrong is the large number of former footballers around the country who are trying to live normal lives while suffering the consequences of so-called "tough" football. There are sports such as wrestling, boxing and MMA for those people who enjoy brutal physical contact. That is not the primary basis of aussie rules, its about controlling an oval shaped ball in a huge playing space, at high speed, with a lot of other players trying their best to do the same thing. The physicality involved in doing it is only part of the means of doing it, which is why there are many different sizes and shapes successfully playing our game. Accidents happen but the game has a responsibility to remove those aspects of it that are likely to produce career threatening, and life altering outcomes. Such as big, strong, fast, fit players running at high speed into an opponent who is not aware that they are about to hit.
You jump off a moving vehicle at say 40-45km/hr into some bags of sand and let me know how it feels.
It’s all about reducing risk not eradicating it.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
