Meek v Lipinkski

[HeHateMe]

Should you be allowed to spoil if it means you're very late, high, and launch yourself into the air with enough force that you concuss your opponent?

I mean, even if Lipinski was fine, it was so late that it was one of the clearest 50s you'll ever see, so a clearly illegal act according to the laws of the game, and an illegal act that will see his opponent miss a week to give his brain a chance to heal. Surely this sort of dumb late hit that gives a player a brain injury is something we want out of the game?

Every single club has former players that are either living with the horrific effects of CTE or have died because of it. It's incredibly frustrating to come into these threads and have people applauding this sort of shit being excused by the MRP.

We 100% need to get the defence of "just a footy act" or "I had to go in hard so I didn't let my team down" out of these discussions. The duty of care to opponents when it comes to brain injuries needs to be a priority over winning the ball.

Thats an okay opinion to have, we will see a number of similar situations throughout the year. So will have to wait and see if the MRO adjust or continue to rule as a footy act.

 

[lordbob]

Sanity prevails.

Surprised it was not a fine for rough conduct however.

If itnwas any reportable offence at all it would be a minimum 3 weeks.

 

[Elixuh]

Was late and ko’d him. That’s a few weeks every time.

Hawks look to be on life support so this might be a generous nothing to see here from the AFL to give them a chance. Akin to if it were an incident involving a Brownlow favourite.

 

[kingswood71]

Should you be allowed to spoil if it means you're very late, high, and launch yourself into the air with enough force that you concuss your opponent?

I mean, even if Lipinski was fine, it was so late that it was one of the clearest 50s you'll ever see, so a clearly illegal act according to the laws of the game, and an illegal act that will see his opponent miss a week to give his brain a chance to heal. Surely this sort of dumb late hit that gives a player a brain injury is something we want out of the game?

Every single club has former players that are either living with the horrific effects of CTE or have died because of it. It's incredibly frustrating to come into these threads and have people applauding this sort of shit being excused by the MRP.

We 100% need to get the defence of "just a footy act" or "I had to go in hard so I didn't let my team down" out of these discussions. The duty of care to opponents when it comes to brain injuries needs to be a priority over winning the ball.

The main issue with CTE though isnt concussions, its repeated non-concussive head impacts over many years.

 

[z547043]

Was late and ko’d him. That’s a few weeks every time.

Hawks look to be on life support so this might be a generous nothing to see here from the AFL to give them a chance. Akin to if it were an incident involving a Brownlow favourite.

Correct. Any other colours and he’s gone. They have been the umpires pets all year and the AFL has been riding their resurgence all year and the money it brings. They saw the benefit of the Hollywood Hawks at the back end of last year, so the AFL engineered resurgence has continued. They aren’t stopping now.

 

[SC_Power]

I learned last week that marginal incidents are football incidents.
Proved by the decision today to let this one go.
Wonder which club is going to be the sacrificial lamb that will be the auto correct on this type of “football incident”?

 

[Vankri]

What I find the most bizarre on this one is that this is exactly why the AFL changed its interpretation of duty of care in football acts in the off season that followed the Maynard-Brayshaw collision because they deemed it was a gap in the book. But then why is it not used here if that’s the case? Especially with the AFL’s bias towards judging the consequence (concussion) over the intent.

You’d say it’s puzzling but ultimately it’s another one in a long line of knee jerk AFL decisions or interpretations that only last as long as the media commentary around it does.

 

[lordbob]

Correct. Any other colours and he’s gone. They have been the umpires pets all year and the AFL has been riding their resurgence all year and the money it brings. They saw the benefit of the Hollywood Hawks at the back end of last year, so the AFL engineered resurgence has continued. They aren’t stopping now.

Ask gunston's bloody eye from the end of the 3rd quater that wasnt deemed high contact how it feels about being the umpires pet.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Should you be allowed to spoil if it means you're very late, high, and launch yourself into the air with enough force that you concuss your opponent?

I mean, even if Lipinski was fine, it was so late that it was one of the clearest 50s you'll ever see, so a clearly illegal act according to the laws of the game, and an illegal act that will see his opponent miss a week to give his brain a chance to heal. Surely this sort of dumb late hit that gives a player a brain injury is something we want out of the game?

Every single club has former players that are either living with the horrific effects of CTE or have died because of it. It's incredibly frustrating to come into these threads and have people applauding this sort of shit being excused by the MRP.

We 100% need to get the defence of "just a footy act" or "I had to go in hard so I didn't let my team down" out of these discussions. The duty of care to opponents when it comes to brain injuries needs to be a priority over winning the ball.

The main issue with CTE though isnt concussions, its repeated non-concussive head impacts over many years.

Actually, CTE does include concussions.

However, the broader point is where is the game going? As the bolded from Scorcho suggests that full contact needs to be taken out of the game.

And whilst I agree, players should be squibbing contests instead of causing head injuries and saving them their reputation and the dreaded spray from the coach and getting dropped for squibbing the contest.

The game will soon reach a point of impasse and ultimately an existential decision, at the end of the day you can't legislate contact out of the game unless you do so completely.

Some players will cop a knee to the head in a marking contest and will be just fine (or seem to be) and others will be knocked out.

So, you can't make rules for individual players. 'yep he can take a head knock, accused can play next week', 'nah old mate will have long lasting effects or possibly CTE, accused can spend 3 weeks on the sidelines'

(Allowance of head knock in legitimate marking contests is yet another can of worms!)

So, what does the game do then? I've suggested before that players sign waivers as employees, but apparently this is not possible.

If the league / game is serious about CTE (and other life altering injuries coz of contact) then it has to remove contact altogether. When that'll happen I don't know but it will and will be the end of the sport.

 

[HairyO]

Ask gunston's bloody eye from the end of the 3rd quater that wasnt deemed high contact how it feels about being the umpires pet.
View attachment 2331726View attachment 2331725

Matt Rowell threw a punch and collected someone in the head and didnt even get a fine.

But yeah, its all about us being well treated. Even though this year we have had one player get 3 weeks and another player get 4 weeks.

Pies fans complaining about the AFL being soft on another team after one of their players literally ended the career of an opposition player and didnt even get a single week.

Boo ****ing hoo.

 

[kingswood71]

Actually, CTE does include concussions.

i didnt mean to imply that concussions arent related....I was merely pointing out that the AFL has focused primarily on concussions when CTE is also very much related to repeated non-concussive impacts over many years. I have no idea how the AFL resolves that long term.

 

[z547043]

Ask gunston's bloody eye from the end of the 3rd quater that wasnt deemed high contact how it feels about being the umpires pet.
View attachment 2331726View attachment 2331725

1 high contact non free kick versus about 40 paid ducks to Dyls, Ginni and Wiz is probably a net win for our forward line would be Jack’s answer.

 

[z547043]

Matt Rowell threw a punch and collected someone in the head and didnt even get a fine.

But yeah, its all about us being well treated. Even though this year we have had one player get 3 weeks and another player get 4 weeks.

Pies fans complaining about the AFL being soft on another team after one of their players literally ended the career of an opposition player and didnt even get a single week.

Boo ****ing hoo.

I know, but somehow after all the Hawk and Tigers moans about umpire pets, AFL engineered rule changes to favour us, protected species claims and alleged favourable tribunal decisions, this somehow feels right. Maybe, I’ve just figured out logical and rational does not happen here and you might as well join the army.

But FWIW, I think Meek had to go. It’s late, it’s illegal and leaves a bloke concussed. We’ve seen more reasonable football acts punished with the mandatory 3 in the last 12-18 months. I’m of the opinion that Pearce should have gone too, so as one astute poster already pointed out, be aware of the recalibration and just hopefully it isn’t your team that falls foul of it.

Do I seriously believe Hawthorn are favoured like some fans think Geelong are. No, I just think the AFL are consistently inconsistent and sometimes they hit you, sometimes they miss.

 

[Xtreme]

We 100% need to get the defence of "just a footy act" or "I had to go in hard so I didn't let my team down" out of these discussions. The duty of care to opponents when it comes to brain injuries needs to be a priority over winning the ball.

The fabric of our game is already torn to shreds. May as well call it touch footy or netball.

 

[El_Scorcho]

The fabric of our game is already torn to shreds. May as well call it touch footy or netball.

Ridiculous comment.

Go and ask John Platten and his family how they feel about head injuries in footy. Platten is just a Hawthorn example, every single club has greats who are suffering or dead because they had their brain destroyed in the "golden era" of football where it was considered tough to smash a defenceless opponent in the head.

People always act like these sorts of incidents are unavoidable and that we have to accept them to keep footy a tough contact sport.

I'm sorry, but launching yourself into a guy's head when you're this late isn't unavoidable. It's so avoidable that players avoid doing it at 99.9% of the time an opponent takes a mark. Smashing a guy very late and high isn't part of the fabric of the game.

 

[Xtreme]

Ridiculous comment.

Go and ask John Platten and his family how they feel about head injuries in footy. Platten is just a Hawthorn example, every single club has greats who are suffering or dead because they had their brain destroyed in the "golden era" of football where it was considered tough to smash a defenceless opponent in the head.

People always act like these sorts of incidents are unavoidable and that we have to accept them to keep footy a tough contact sport.

I'm sorry, but launching yourself into a guy's head when you're this late isn't unavoidable. It's so avoidable that players avoid doing it at 99.9% of the time an opponent takes a mark. Smashing a guy very late and high isn't part of the fabric of the game.

Football is and always will be a high contact sport. Don't like it ? Play something safer like Chess!

 

[El_Scorcho]

Football is and always will be a high contact sport. Don't like it ? Play something safer like Chess!

And if you want to watch guys get brain injuries for no reason, go and watch powerslap.

Idiotic, unnecessary and late head high contact shouldn't be part of the game and should draw suspensions. In fact, until this last week, it already did. Now it's up in the air again for some reason.

 

[kingswood71]

And if you want to watch guys get brain injuries for no reason, go and watch powerslap.

Idiotic, unnecessary and late head high contact shouldn't be part of the game and should draw suspensions. In fact, until this last week, it already did. Now it's up in the air again for some reason.

I get that you are passionate about concussions as is the AFL for the most part. But, as I alluded to previously, the repeated non-concussive episodes over many years are very much linked to CTE.
Do you have an opinion on that? How would you make the game safer to avoid both concussions and non concussive impacts?

 

[HairyO]

I know, but somehow after all the Hawk and Tigers moans about umpire pets, AFL engineered rule changes to favour us, protected species claims and alleged favourable tribunal decisions, this somehow feels right. Maybe, I’ve just figured out logical and rational does not happen here and you might as well join the army.

But FWIW, I think Meek had to go. It’s late, it’s illegal and leaves a bloke concussed. We’ve seen more reasonable football acts punished with the mandatory 3 in the last 12-18 months. I’m of the opinion that Pearce should have gone too, so as one astute poster already pointed out, be aware of the recalibration and just hopefully it isn’t your team that falls foul of it.

Do I seriously believe Hawthorn are favoured like some fans think Geelong are. No, I just think the AFL are consistently inconsistent and sometimes they hit you, sometimes they miss.

The AFL has been far too hard on football acts where there was zero intention to harm. The whole 0 weeks or 3 weeks is a farce. If its dangerous, punish it. Dont make it dangerous simply because someone got hurt.

Every week there are dangerous acts which dont injure and dangerous acts which do. There are also acts which dont on the surface look dangerous which injure. Ignoring dangerous acts which dont injure is wrong.

A late spoil where no contact with the head is made is not inherently dangerous. Should Meek have known that Lipinski's head would hit the ground? That is just as likely to happen in a spoil which isnt late.

If we are going to punish this then we 100% have to punish any player going into a contested mark leading with their knee. Mostly its fine but sometimes there is a collection of a head or neck. Its dangerous regardless of whether the contact is made.

The AFL needs to dump the 0 or 3 and go back to dealing with each case on its merits. As I said above, if Meek got 1 week its probably reasonable as he was late. Saying that it should be 3 or 4 just shows how quickly the AFL has spread their stupidity to the viewers. And as for the commentators spending 10 minutes arguing over whether it would be 3 or 4 weeks just shows how infectious stupidity is.

I get that you are passionate about concussions as is the AFL for the most part. But, as I alluded to previously, the repeated non-concussive episodes over many years are very much linked to CTE.
Do you have an opinion on that? How would you make the game safer to avoid both concussions and non concussive impacts?

We all know the only truly safe option is to make the game non-contact. There is literally no way of making the game 100% CTE safe without that.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Ridiculous comment.

Go and ask John Platten and his family how they feel about head injuries in footy. Platten is just a Hawthorn example, every single club has greats who are suffering or dead because they had their brain destroyed in the "golden era" of football where it was considered tough to smash a defenceless opponent in the head.

People always act like these sorts of incidents are unavoidable and that we have to accept them to keep footy a tough contact sport.

I'm sorry, but launching yourself into a guy's head when you're this late isn't unavoidable. It's so avoidable that players avoid doing it at 99.9% of the time an opponent takes a mark. Smashing a guy very late and high isn't part of the fabric of the game.

View attachment 2331879

So what's the answer? If Meek didn't contest then he'd be lambasted and maybe dropped.

Look I agree with you broadly, it'd be nice to keep contact in the game where it's balanced and there's no serious injuries. But that's impossible, too much nuance. Fact is concussion can't be legislated out of the game.

So what's the answer? I've suggested players sign a waiver, but apparently not possible.

Like I said earlier, the game has to face up to an existential decision. Contact or no contact, no contact fixes many problems and also kills the game.

 

[kingswood71]

So what's the answer? I've suggested players sign a waiver, but apparently not possible.

I would think that past players pre known CTE risks would have a good case.
Now not so much for current and future players. CTE is a known risk from both concussive and non concussive impacts and if its explained to players, then I would have thought the AFL could counter future claims under the Voluntary acceptance of risk doctrine. Dunno really..

 

[HairyO]

I would think that past players pre known CTE risks would have a good case.
Now not so much for current and future players. CTE is a known risk from both concussive and non concussive impacts and if its explained to players, then I would have thought the AFL could counter future claims under the Voluntary acceptance of risk doctrine. Dunno really..

Negligence is the big thing the AFL is afraid of. They have to show that they are care and are doing all they reasonably can. Of course, this means we end up with unreasonable rules like we have now - because the AFL doesnt actually know what will come of the lawsuits.

 

[El_Scorcho]

So what's the answer? If Meek didn't contest then he'd be lambasted and maybe dropped.

No, he wouldn't be.

He should be lambasted and dropped for giving away a stupid 50, guaranteeing an opposition goal.

Can anyone give me an example of someone being lambasted or dropped for pulling out of a contest where they would have been as late as Meek was here?

It's a complete myth that players have to smash other players high because otherwise they'll be letting their teammates down. Players are constantly moderating their attack on contests to avoid giving away frees or 50s.

 

[z547043]

The AFL has been far too hard on football acts where there was zero intention to harm. The whole 0 weeks or 3 weeks is a farce. If its dangerous, punish it. Dont make it dangerous simply because someone got hurt.

Every week there are dangerous acts which dont injure and dangerous acts which do. There are also acts which dont on the surface look dangerous which injure. Ignoring dangerous acts which dont injure is wrong.

A late spoil where no contact with the head is made is not inherently dangerous. Should Meek have known that Lipinski's head would hit the ground? That is just as likely to happen in a spoil which isnt late.

If we are going to punish this then we 100% have to punish any player going into a contested mark leading with their knee. Mostly its fine but sometimes there is a collection of a head or neck. Its dangerous regardless of whether the contact is made.

The AFL needs to dump the 0 or 3 and go back to dealing with each case on its merits. As I said above, if Meek got 1 week its probably reasonable as he was late. Saying that it should be 3 or 4 just shows how quickly the AFL has spread their stupidity to the viewers. And as for the commentators spending 10 minutes arguing over whether it would be 3 or 4 weeks just shows how infectious stupidity is.


We all know the only truly safe option is to make the game non-contact. There is literally no way of making the game 100% CTE safe without that.

You’ve made the leap that I and others are happy that it is 3 and think the reasoning is sound.

We don’t, but given the landscape that has been established, that looks like a 3 week offence, along with Pearce, given what has gone before.

There has been far more reasonable and genuine plays on the ball, less dangerous than that, which have got significant weeks.

I agree that often dangerous acts are overlooked. I still remember during the dangerous/sling tackle era, Dangerfield getting lassoed into the turf by Silk and fortunately for him, PD rolled straight back up. At that time, far less reckless tackles with similar action were getting weeks, especially if there was concussion.



It’s often a lottery and I doubt the AFL actually has the resources or the desire to review all these incidents on their merits and evaluate all the dangerous actions that don’t lead to injury that occur on the field, so it seems they’ve elected simply to punish the ones that do and on that basis, the last two weeks have been anomalies.

I think, even if you want to go merit based, the Pearce one comes out far better for him than Meek. Meek is significantly late, he should also know that given his size that forceful body contact he makes will impair Lipinskis ability to protect himself on landing. There is also an argument that there is some contact to the head from his shoulder during the spoiling motion.

I think, while the official AFL line is you should not be punished for a size advantage, if we go back to the case of Lycett on McHenry tackle, he received 4 weeks for an action that looks pretty damn similar to Burgoynes.

Scott Lycett handed four-week suspension

Scott Lycett has been give a four-week suspension by the AFL Tribunal for his tackle on Ned McHenry.

www.portadelaidefc.com.au

But I guess that’s the game, the MRO and tribunal are consistently inconsistent. However, the general shift has been towards punishing players when there have been bad outcomes for the other party. That’s been the pattern, for at least 24-36 months, so I think it’s a little unfair to label fans and commentators stupid for thinking that this pattern would continue. Or maybe it isn’t, if you’ve followed the game long enough, nothing would surprise you about the AFL on an administrative level.

 

[z547043]

These are two stills from the round and anyone who cares enough can watch both incidents. Both were essentially given 50m penalties with no other penalty. I think there is enough comparison between the two. Both defenders running to the contest at pace, both leaving the ground at similar stages relative to their opponent and position of the ball. If we think Meek’s only option is to clatter into Lipinski with full force and make him earn it, then that’s fine. 0 weeks. If we think he could have done a Connor O’Sullivan and recognise he couldn’t impact the contest and take measures to pull up and lessen the impact, then he should be serving weeks. Especially if the AFL is serious about concussion. And side note, I think the O’Sullivan one is really poor umpiring to pay the 50 and a failure to see that the player has reduced speed and impact and done everything he could to soften the blow, while ensuring he didn’t overshoot the mark and allow a play on situation.