No Oppo Supporters General AFL discussion and other club news

[RoughysMullet]

Umpires getting the saints back into it- phantom free kicks to King have been unbelievable. We’d never get that kind of treatment in a final

 

[Brishawk]

Ling breathing life into the game. Kelly trying to squeeze the life back out of it.

 

[Paul Kersey]

Standard no footage of another King flop.

 

[Mr Lizard]

pretty good goal to Kelly...Giants move it quick.

now Hill... this game is good!

 

[Rioli magic]

Who is the umpire in the saints forward line…. seems very whistle happy.

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

One also has a duty of care to oneself as self preservation comes first for most people. Unfortunately I think his undoing will be his leaving the ground and not having a pilot licence.
This isn't directed at you, just thinking in an obscure way, what if Maynard was the one that got concussed? Who then owes who a duty of care?

You want a bloke who is running full pelt towards goal and about to kick the ball to think about self preservation. Wow

why do people come up with these really weird arguments

 

[MinerBoy]

I don't have a narrative, mate.

Previously, I would've considered a smother to be diving across someone's boot as they kick, not jumping up to touch the ball. I'm still learning...it does seem like a stretch of definition.

You're battling here. Not sure what other term you'd ever use for a man on the mark leaping to touch the ball...call it a smother or some other description if you don't reckon a smother suits, but still the same as what Maynard did. Jumped up arms extended to get touch or completely kill the ball's trajectory.

Pretty clearly a type of smother to me. Doesn't need to be the dive across the boot version you're looking for.

 

[MinerBoy]

I'm not sure what it is you think I'm being, but I don't think I'm being it. I think you have me mistaken.

Here, for completeness from earlier, is down the ground of Brayshaw "moving off his line" (which I would describe as "Brayshaw kicks the ball").

View attachment 1798090

Maynard's intent is to smother the ball (still feels weird).

Not sure this makes the point you want it to. Quite the opposite actually.

 

[Mr Lizard]

ffs

 

[Mr Lizard]

Not sure this makes the point you want it to. Quite the opposite actually.

You reckon the ump got it wrong with the free downfield?

I reckon (not that I really care either way) that Maynard put in a sh*t effort, and will likely miss 2 or 3 games.

I'm liking watching the Giants in their shonky jumpers, I'm going to watch the rest of that now.

 

[Millsie69]

Lol EAD Saints

 

[RoughysMullet]

Bennet couldn’t be barracking harder for St Kilda

 

[TylerDurden]

Saints got this.
Giants absolutely stopped.

 

[Billyc]

Riccardi very handy player.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

AFL definition of a smother - zero mention of whether someone has to dive vertically or horizontally:

SMOTHER

Suppressing an opposition disposal by either changing the trajectory of the ball immediately after the disposal or by blocking the disposal altogether.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Bennet couldn’t be barracking harder for St Kilda

I’d take a partial Bennett every day of the week versus an impartial JB/BT. Best caller on 7 by a country mile.

 

[Davo23]

Saints got this.
Giants absolutely stopped.

Or not

Saints bring in a coach with expertise in losing finals …

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

Bennet couldn’t be barracking harder for St Kilda

I thought the same but isn’t he another cats supporter

 

[Yardie]

Yep it should be actions based over outcomes. Its the best way to mitigate risk and lower incidence because players will change their behaviour. Launching at a player to [smother, tackle, bump, pressure] is an action likely to result in significant contact and a risk of concussion. Especially where a player turns the shoulder towards their opponent. For better or worse, what maynard did has no future in the game.

Only problem is that you can't make an example of someone if this is the first time seeing it.

 

[jenniferHAWKinS]

Saints clearly the worst team in the 8.

 

[TylerDurden]

Or not

Saints bring in a coach with expertise in losing finals …

I stand corrected.

 

[phlogiston]

To my mind the whole thing is pretty straightforward: you split the consideration of penalty into two parts.

There is a sequence of parts here: an intention -> an action -> an outcome.

I'm proposing that you consider the intention and action separately from the outcome.

Base the penalty for suspension on the action, trying to infer intention as little as possible. Of course, there's always "eyes on the ball" vs "eyes on the man" for intent, as well as a hit well after the player has disposed of the ball. Make up whatever frameworks you want to determine fine or suspension, use as many colours as you want, whatever.

If the outcome of an action is a player being concussed, then it is a fine. $10K, say, payable by the player causing it, to go into a future fund for class actions on concussion, or maybe split X%:Y% with X% into a future fund and Y% into concussion prevention research. (I don't know if $10K is the right number, maybe it's a percentage of player's annual contract for that year. It's just for illustrative purposes).

This means that Sis, for example, cops a $10K fine based on the outcome, but no suspension based on his intent from earlier in the year. "It's just one of those football things".

Maynard will cop a $10K fine based on the outcome, but it's up to the MRO / tribunal to determine intent and action. There's a fair bit of debate on this board about it, but at least we are then separating the outcome from that discussion.

I think there was a game a few weeks ago where two Port Adelaide players knoecked heads and one of them was concussed. Friendly fire, sure, but the outcome was concussion, so the other player ponies up his $10K into the fund.

Suppose a player legitimately hip and shoulders his opponent off the ball, and the opponent goes sliding into the hoarding and gets concussed. $10K fine, no suspension. It also removes the debate around "taking the unique stuff out of the game" and the frankly ridiculous comments about wearing bibs.

Then if you think about the fellow (Sonsie I think it was) who broke the other fella's jaw, well, clearly that warrants a suspension, but we're not comparing and saying how did Sis get three weeks for a legit tackle, and this other fellow get three (or was it two) for breaking a person's jaw?

This seems pretty logical, fair and straightforward to me, but happy for folks on hear to pick holes in it or improve it

P

 

[Steven Tyler]

Suck Saint Failure

May you continue to sit in mediocrity

 

[Off The Couch]

So Jack Martin

21

Jack Martin

Age

29

Ht

186cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.2

4star

K

10.0

4star

HB

6.3

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

3.7

5star

G

0.9

4star

D

14.9

4star

K

7.9

3star

HB

7.0

4star

M

4.3

4star

T

3.6

4star

G

1.1

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

4.6

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.0

4star

G

0.6

3star

gets 2 weeks and VR only one

No wonder supporters lose their shit

 

[peetoo]

Let’s all spare a though for ‘rossy’



LOL