Meek v Lipinkski

[Carringbush2010]

He should be lambasted and dropped for giving away a stupid 50

Y'know it was a split second 'late' right?

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?

Oh gee I dunno throughout the history of the game players have been criticized for pulling out of contests

It's a complete myth that players have to smash other players high because otherwise they'll be letting their teammates down.

No one is advocating for this, you're just being emotional about the subject.

Players and fans are advocating for consistency and less head injuries but no one has an answer to completely eradicate concussion from the game unless contact is completely removed from the game.

So back to the broader discussion, apart from completely removing contact from the game, what is the answer? If you don't have one that's ok, don't think anyone does. But please don't let your anger determine your commentary, like this one above.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Y'know it was a split second 'late' right?

It was late enough that there was absolutely no question about the fact that it was going to be late. So late that to even get as close as he did he had to charge in at full speed and launch, which meant he hit Lipinski high and at speed, causing Lipinski to rotate down quickly and hit his head on the ground. If he hadn't launched off the ground, he still would have given away a dumb late 50 but he would have hit Lipinski closer to his centre of gravity and Lipinski wouldn't have rotated over so quickly.

Oh gee I dunno throughout the history of the game players have been criticized for pulling out of contests

Okay, can you give me a recent example? Just a single one where a player was widely criticised after the game for not going hard enough into a risky marking contest? Surely there's a single example of a player being widely criticised by the media or dropped by his team because he chose to slow down into a contest to avoid injury, because players slow down when entering contests when they know they're going to be late constantly.

No one is advocating for this, you're just being emotional about the subject.

Every thread and every comments section after every single rough conduct incident has people defending the action on the grounds that a player "has to be allowed to compete" or the fabric of the game is broken and he's disgraced his family and let his teammates down and football has now been cancelled for life and we are all required to watch netball.

Like this thread, for example.

Players and fans are advocating for consistency and less head injuries but no one has an answer to completely eradicate concussion from the game unless contact is completely removed from the game.

So back to the broader discussion, apart from completely removing contact from the game, what is the answer? If you don't have one that's ok, don't think anyone does. But please don't let your anger determine your commentary, like this one above.

Footy players are competing at high speed and with great force and are hitting each other hard constantly throughout every game, but we don't have people getting concussed at every contest because players don't want to give away a free, or get suspended, or simply don't want to hurt their opponent, so they take action to avoid hitting their opponent in the head. 99.9% of the time an AFL player is going to be late to a contest like Meek was there, they pull out, or move laterally to avoid contact, because they don't want to give away a stupid 50. We just need to push that up to 100% of the time.

You can't completely eradicate the concussion from a contact sport, because there are plenty of times where neither player in the contest would have reasonably known a concussion risk collision was going to occur, or even times where the player who got knocked out was at fault. But you absolutely have to punish stupid illegal acts where a player pushes so hard to get to a contest they're too late to get to that they lose control of their body and hurt an opponent.

From a practical perspective, your duty of care to your opponent needs to override your need to win a contest or win the ball, every time. I'm sick of these bullshit excuses when someone gets knocked out that a player had to go in so hard because he has to be able to compete or he's letting his teammates down. That argument should simply be taken by the MRP/Tribunal as an admission of carelessness and treated as such. If you can't get to a contest without hitting your opponent high and with force, you can't get to the contest. Slow down.

Meek should be getting weeks for a late, high, forceful hit that caused a concussion. It's ludicrous that he's allowed to crunch a bloke late like that and play the following week while the opponent you hurt is in concussion protocols.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It was late enough that there was absolutely no question about the fact that it was going to be late.

We're talking about changing decisions in a split second, easier said than done. I view the Meek one as careless and shouldn't have decided to contest in the first place, should get a week for that imo. But alas, I don't think there was intent to hurt

Okay, can you give me a recent example?

I believe there was one last year where someone clearly squibbed, can't remember who but I'm not gonna go looking for it. It's clear 'contest at all costs' is still a strong narrative in the game.

It's not a switch you just flick off, gonna take time for the footy world and public to gradually move that way, which we are.

Every thread and every comments section after every single rough conduct incident has people defending the action on the grounds that a player "has to be allowed to compete" or the fabric of the game is broken and he's disgraced his family and let his teammates down and football has now been cancelled for life and we are all required to watch netball.

Bit too much mayo in this, but I agree with your premise.

Still at the end of the day, if you don't erase contact then you're gonna get life impacting injuries like CTE, doesn't matter how much you try and legislate it out of the game you won't be able to.

It's one or the other, or as Yoda says 'there is no try, just do' - there'll be a time when the league / game will have to consider an existential decision. To avoid life effecting injuries you need to remove contest, combat, contact.

Without contest and combat no one will watch the game, it's one of the few cornerstone elements that attracts such high spectatorship.

Footy players are competing at high speed and with great force and are hitting each other hard constantly throughout every game

Yeah and a lot of players are getting injured / rubbed out because of it.

so they take action to avoid hitting their opponent in the head. 99.9% of the time an AFL player is going to be late to a contest like Meek was there, they pull out, or move laterally to avoid contact,

And they might pull out too late and still contact, which could result in worse.

But you absolutely have to punish stupid illegal acts where a player pushes so hard to get to a contest they're too late to get to that they lose control of their body and hurt an opponent.

From a practical perspective, your duty of care to your opponent needs to override your need to win a contest or win the ball, every time.

Pity the AFL doesn't come across as the bolded, it's all knee jerk reactive, your duty of care also needs to be to yourself.

For example, DBJ running back with the flight of the ball in an attempt to mark the ball wasn't taking duty of care for his own safety, there's been argument that DBJ should've shown that to himself.

In a situation like that, surely the duty of care can't be only one player and not the other. That'd be impractical.

If you can't get to a contest without hitting your opponent high and with force, you can't get to the contest. Slow down.

Justin Longmuir really does not like this, I'm sure ALL coaches would not like this.

This is the impasse we're dealing with, coaches and clubs will be 'win at all costs' which is inconsistent with 'players safety comes first'. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Doggy Dan]

Meek should have got rubbed out 100%. Favours for the Hoks again.

 

[El_Scorcho]

This is the impasse we're dealing with, coaches and clubs will be 'win at all costs' which is inconsistent with 'players safety comes first'. You can't have it both ways.

I think we agree in general, but this part is where the AFL have to legislate it out of the coaches' hands. Get your players to avoid incidents like the Meek one or they'll end up on the sideline for a few weeks.

I think generally the AFL was doing that and punishing players appropriately. It seemed harsh because it was beyond what we'd been used to, but it was consistent, apart from one offs like the Maynard decision where the tribunal, being human beings, didn't want a rub a bloke out for a potential GF.

But this last week has been bizarre. Pearce and Meek both went in too hard to contests they weren't in a position to get to, got there late and concussed a vulnerable opponent. Both got off in a way that I feel is very inconsistent with the last decade of tribunal decisions.

I'm expecting we'll see an evener upper at some stage where the AFL resets the standard a bit, because at the moment the message is be as late and as reckless as you like, as long as you can argue that you were contesting the footy, you're fine.

 

[SC_Power]

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.

Maybe ask yourself what the definition of “reckless” is.

 

[SC_Power]

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.

the AFL literally accepted this as a defence in Pearce’s case.

 

[HairyO]

Maybe ask yourself what the definition of “reckless” is.

Reckless no longer exists, does it? Careless and Intentional.

 

[SC_Power]

Reckless no longer exists, does it? Careless and Intentional.

My bad, I was referring to the word not the tribunal, sorry.

Careless works just as well.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I think we agree in general, but this part is where the AFL have to legislate it out of the coaches' hands. Get your players to avoid incidents like the Meek one or they'll end up on the sideline for a few weeks.

The game will get to that point, and that is where the existential bit is because if you take out the 'contest at all costs' element of the game it'll turn the fans off. It will be the end of contact footy.

I think generally the AFL was doing that and punishing players appropriately. It seemed harsh because it was beyond what we'd been used to, but it was consistent, apart from one offs like the Maynard decision where the tribunal, being human beings, didn't want a rub a bloke out for a potential GF.

It was also in the rules that he got off, immediately after that the AFL put in a ruling to attempt to counter similar future incidents.

FWIW I don't think Bruzzy's intent was to knock Brayshaw out, just went flat out to smother and once in the air was too late.

But this last week has been bizarre. Pearce and Meek both went in too hard to contests they weren't in a position to get to, got there late and concussed a vulnerable opponent. Both got off in a way that I feel is very inconsistent with the last decade of tribunal decisions.

The Pearce one has been debated heavily on whether too late or not, like I replied earlier IF Pearce had slowed down or pulled out in that split second, it would've given the impression he avoided contest, or worse still collided and a worse injury to both players.

Doesn't matter if avoiding contact is squibbing it or 'duty of care' to the oppo player blindly running back with the flight of the ball. 'Contest at all costs' is the narrative.

Take away 100% contest at all costs, rightly or wrongly, the fan will go 'meh they're not giving it all I'm out' (the impasse).

 

[Carringbush2010]

the AFL literally accepted this as a defence in Pearce’s case.

Unless the defence said exactly this then it is not literal.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Take away 100% contest at all costs, rightly or wrongly, the fan will go 'meh they're not giving it all I'm out' (the impasse).

We've been hearing this for at least 30 years though as the AFL has legislated thuggery out of the game, and attendances continue to climb.

I'd also argue you can give your all and still manage to avoid hurting opponents. Plenty of players, even some with tough reputations manage to get through long careers without ever getting suspended.

 

[Carringbush2010]

We've been hearing this for at least 30 years though as the AFL has legislated thuggery out of the game, and attendances continue to climb.

I'd also argue you can give your all and still manage to avoid hurting opponents. Plenty of players, even some with tough reputations manage to get through long careers without ever getting suspended.

Thuggery is not what we're talking about though are we. That's 70s and 80s stuff, nonexistent today. We're talking about incidental contact that results in injury and then players are punished on outcome rather than intent. At least that's the way it has been for atleast the last decade.

Well if you, as you put it, 'slow down' then you're giving your all. At least most fans will view it that way.

 

[Cyclops]

Some great points esp. Carringbush2010 and El_Scorcho , can't add too much.

The thuggery has been eliminated as much by cameras as rules: Leigh Matthews on Bruns was trial by camera and was one turning point. The rules have helped but it's being fussily over administered atm.

The sad results of Plattens decade of beatings (Rat was regularly smashed, no other way to slow him down as he was arguably the GOAT rover) is proving to be another. Footage of Platten is more persuasive than any argument to me.

I feel Meeks hit was a footy act, tried to spoil and the up-ending hit was an unintended side effect. Rough play? Moore clipped Gunston equally unintended, not quite as rough but had it not been on the siren hes off for the bloodrule= consequences...and no scrutiny.

Not whatabouting, Moore was obviously feeling for his opponent not attempting to draw blood, it's just the cases relate somewhat and they highlight inconsistency.

The lack of faith in the administration of the game colours all this.

Pies and Hawks both play an umpire friendly style. Poor umps tend to pay the frontrunners, we ran out in front so the Hawks got skinned.

Christian doing his best with the rules in place. Umps doing their best with rules that keep getting tampered with. The problems are mostly down to weak admin reacting to slow mo replays.

 

[HairyO]

We've been hearing this for at least 30 years though as the AFL has legislated thuggery out of the game, and attendances continue to climb.

I'd also argue you can give your all and still manage to avoid hurting opponents. Plenty of players, even some with tough reputations manage to get through long careers without ever getting suspended.

Many people have never liked the thuggery. But Id say everyone likes the tough contest (except maybe Naicos )
The AFL needs to be open about what they are doing about CTE and how their changes will actually help reduce the risk.

At the moment they operate in a vacuum and appear to be guessing. But wont admit that they are guessing.

Why do they say that a dangerous act which luckily doesnt hurt gets 0 weeks, but a dangerous act which does hurt gets 3.

Why do they say that a football act where someone is hurt sometimes gets weeks and sometimes doesnt. We simply dont believe the explanations which the MRO gives and Laura Kane lasted 2 weeks in the weekly roundup she would present.

We used to get feedback from the umpire coach as well. But that also disappeared. Because no-one believed the excuses they would make. Now sometimes we just hear a "Ooops maybe we got that one wrong". Insufficient intent being absolutely terribly judged now, as well as HTB - where game by game we see completely different ways of ruling.

 

[LongSerong]

That image of Lipinski marking the ball just before Meek leaves the ground is pretty damning.

Pretty shocked he didn't even get the tribunal merry-go-round at the very least like Pearce had to.