MRP / Trib. 2024 MRP Lotto thread II

[Ichiro #51]

Because no one wants the AFL to take away a speccy where you knee a guy in the back of the head. And if you do you need to * right off.

You can take a speccy and knee a guy in the head, if they don’t get knocked out you’re fine. If they do, have a couple of weeks off. What’s the big deal? The concussions have to be treated seriously or there won’t be a game full stop.

 

[Mav]

You can take a speccy and knee a guy in the head, if they don’t get knocked out you’re fine. If they do, have a couple of weeks off. What’s the big deal? The concussions have to be treated seriously or there won’t be a game full stop.

You can’t be penalized for a legal act, where, cause of the movement of others the outcome is detrimental.

 

[ferball]

in my ideal setting intent should never, ever, ever matter. it is impossible to know what someone intends. judge the action alone. bump a guy and hit their head? that sucks, learn to bump better, sit out. cut out all this "football act", carelless, blah blah bullshit.

you jumped to smother, missed the smother by miles, collected him in the head, sit out.

I'm pretty sure the tribunal said he made contact with the ball in which case he successfully prevented the opposition from being able to mark the ball down field. Y ou can't stamp that out of the game imo.

 

[Ichiro #51]

You can’t be penalized for a legal act, where, cause of the movement of others the outcome is detrimental.

I understand your point. I personally think the mentality around it needs to change to it’s just the rub of the green. I honestly don’t think the look of the game would change that much - players will just generally be more careful of other player’s heads - which is exactly what needs to happen.

 

[Mav]

I understand your point. I personally think the mentality around it needs to change to it’s just the rub of the green. I honestly don’t think the look of the game would change that much - players will just generally be more careful of other player’s heads - which is exactly what needs to happen.

I always wonder, if accidental head high wasn’t a free, would we see more people protecting their own head?

 

[ferball]

100% agree. Even in a ruck or marking contest. If you collect a bloke in the head, you should be rubbed out. AFL missed the chance to set a clear standard tonight. They’ll lose kids to other sports because they refuse to move with the times and protect player welfare first.

You may as well end the game now then.

There is evidence emerging that body contact alone, with other players or the ground, is as likely to cause multiple minor head injuries that contribute to CTE as single incidents of serious head trauma. Which is what we now have in the game - ie a single serious head trauma means you miss the rest of this game and all potential further head trauma at training or in game for 12 days.

IE We protect players after concussive impacts but subconcussive impacts appear as bad or worse for players.

So all high contact. Legal bumps and tackles (by todays definition too, not sling tackles just ones involving impact that shakes the body) all collisions in contests where both players are eyes only for the ball, including marking contests. Not just contests where players crash packs or marks that involve knees in the head. Marks that involve knees to the back and shake the other player (on your own side or the opponents side) are potentially just as dangerous. So are marks where two players body up on each other and one controls the area of the ball drop then leans into the spot to mark it.

 

[ferball]

I always wonder, if accidental head high wasn’t a free, would we see more people protecting their own head?

i often wonder the same thing and since the change in the game to protect the head I think players have become more reckless, leading with their heads to win frees when in the past they'd have just both bumped each other, rode the impact and played on.

Tho if you see my post just above about the possibility subconcussive impacts do as much or more damage ... that riding the impact may be as bad anyway.

 

[Bend_It_Like_Brown]

Can we retrospective appeal Jack’s verdict? Jack didn’t even knock him out

 

[Horace]

in my ideal setting intent should never, ever, ever matter. it is impossible to know what someone intends. judge the action alone. bump a guy and hit their head? that sucks, learn to bump better, sit out. cut out all this "football act", carelless, blah blah bullshit.

you jumped to smother, missed the smother by miles, collected him in the head, sit out.

I think this is the key bit.

He jumped to smother, but surely that was a reckless action if he missed the smother, and then lowered his arms as he saw contact imminent.

If he had have left his arms up in the air, then in my view, that would have demonstrated his sole intent was to smother and anything other than that would have been an accidental collision.

But instead as soon as he realised he had missed the smother, he lowered his arms to protect himself. Yes, self survival is understandable, but in doing that he failed in his duty of care to protect the other player. It should be remembered he initiated the jumping/smothering/tackling/bumping action, not Brayshaw. While he could not have known what was to transpire, surely he should have realised there was a strong chance of a collision when he propelled himself into the air.

I would be very surprised if the Brayshaw family, does not at the very least commence talking to some smart legal people, in anticipation that Angus might have his career ended now and at the very least, be in far more trouble post career from a head injury perspective.

To protect themselves, the AFL should appeal this decision.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Why are players who knock out their own teammates in accidental collisions not suspended under ‘duty of care’?

Concussion doesn’t know what jumper you’re wearing.

The whole thing is a farce.

 

[Horace]

Why are players who knock out their own teammates in accidental collisions not suspended under ‘duty of care’?

Concussion doesn’t know what jumper you’re wearing.

The whole thing is a farce.

In my opinion a truly accidental collision is a collision where two players, opposing or teammates, run into one another, each completely unaware that the other was in the vicinity. I don't think teammates competing against one another or even side by side, who collide, would be safe under "duty of care".

The Des Healey/Bluey Adams collision in the 1955 GF has been described as an "accidental collision" yet reading the article in the Argus, it seems to me that the actions of Adams, perhaps do not clear him of blame and that in running straight at Healey, he really didn't exercise a duty of care.

“Every spectator at the ground gasped as Adams flashed from the boundary line and hurled headlong into Healey with a crash that could be heard in many parts of the ground. Healey, who was racing with the ball, had no defence against Adams, who had just been sent on as a replacement for Geoff Case.”

Healey lay unconscious on the MCG turf, on his back, an arm draped almost unnaturally across his chest.

A few metres away Adams was on his side with one hand to his face, knocked out by the force of the collision and the head clash.

The game’s umpire, Harry Beitzel, had a first-hand account of the incident, saying in The Red Fox, “Out of the blue came ‘Bluey’, like a bullet out of a gun, straight at him. Poor ‘Dessy’ didn’t even see him coming.”

Years later Adams would recall in the Herald Sun: “It was quite a severe knock. He was running reasonably quickly…I was at absolute top seed.”

“It was a complete accident. Just as I was about to run on, Des has got the ball. He’s looked up and all he could see was empty space. I was going to bump him; it probably would have cost me a couple of weeks these days.

“When I got close, I dropped the head, as you do, and just kept going. He turned slightly and we just ran into each other.”

He insisted it was an accidental collision.

Adams said: “I remembered coach Norm Smith told us to go straight at Collingwood players. Smith said it was useless to pull up two yards from them as they are so clever they would baulk and dodge around you.”

Healey would jokingly tell Adams a few days later: “If you had grabbed me, I would have dropped the ball in fright. I had no idea anyone was near me and you would have got a free kick.”

I remember at the time that the incident was huge in the media. In those days Melbourne and Collingwood were arch enemies.

But, this is not such a situation. This collision was in the heat of battle and in my opinion, each player should have had a reasonable expectation that there might be a collision as Maynard ran straight at Brayshaw, to try to tackle/smother/spoil.

In my opinion, Maynard, in running straight at Brayshaw, had a duty of care to Brayshaw, to ensure that any tackle/smother/spoil, did not injure Brayshaw, and at the very least, did not concuss him.

There has been a lot spoken about this being a "football act". But surely a football act must be carried out with due regard to the consequences of the act. Running and jumping and then bumping, I don't think had much regard for the consequences of the act in this situation.

 

[hilly]

Can't wait for one of our players to cop a suspension early next year for this.

On SM-S901E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[shintemaster]

As usual. Rules are different depending on the player, club and "attention" of the event. The AFL are completely without consistency - the game is being butchered to satisfy potential future claims and without any consistency they will still be open to legal action down the track.

 

[shintemaster]

The AFL contends that Maynard chose to bump. Ihle on behalf of Maynard says the evidence demonstrates he had no time to make such a decision and that Maynard did no more than brace for contact.

We are clearly satisfied Maynard did not engage in the act of bumping Brayshaw.

It is not suggested by the AFL and nor could it be sensibly suggested that Maynard made a decision to bump his opponent at the moment of jumping in the air to smother.

At that point in time, Maynard was clearly making a decision to smother.

In order for it to be concluded that he engaged in the act of bumping. It would be necessary to find that he formed that intention when in midair at approximately at the apex of his leap.

We accept the evidence of Professor Cole as being consistent with a common sense viewing of the video evidence. Maynard had no time to form that intention.

The charge is dismissed.

This is the crux of why I have an issue with this. There have been many, I'd argue countless scenarios where a player had no time to make such a decision, braced themselves and were suspended. The entire push over the last 5-10 years has been for players not to put themselves in marginal situations where they will "brace themselves". Genuinely a poorly regulated comp that wastes so many players time and money trying to enforce standards that it then throws out the door when it suits commercial purposes.

 

[shintemaster]

in my ideal setting intent should never, ever, ever matter. it is impossible to know what someone intends. judge the action alone. bump a guy and hit their head? that sucks, learn to bump better, sit out. cut out all this "football act", carelless, blah blah bullshit.

you jumped to smother, missed the smother by miles, collected him in the head, sit out.

Agree. Ultimately this is the only way to push systemic change that protects the players (as best possible) and the sport from future litigation. See how quickly players adapt to rules of the week and take advantage - protected zones, reversals, off the line - you name it and the players and club look to exploit as soon as possible. Strict liability is the only way that will maximise player protection, whether we like it or not. There was zero need for a smother to end up in a player concussed and out of the game - potentially for life.

Presume that means you're fine with such outcomes as JZ getting four for that hit on Joseph and Logue copping a week this year then

That's exactly the point though. We are copping these bans either way, the least that can happen is for other clubs to have to operate under the same rule book as ours. They already get preferential economics, fixturing, coverage and umpires - how many advantages do they need?

 

[shintemaster]

But they’re mates, it’s just unlikely. Everyone makes the assumptions that if he chose a different option the outcome would have different. Brayshaw has a history of concussions, if Maynard’s palm or forearm had of connect cause he was trying to soften the blow, there’s every chance he still would have been concussed. Simple fact is, if Brayshaw had held the line he was running on he would have been fine. But he moved to the right and helped to cause the impact.
Play on.

For real Mav?

You ever see how hard brothers go each other who otherwise get along? If anything "mates" can tend to do even stupider things to one up each other.

I always wonder, if accidental head high wasn’t a free, would we see more people protecting their own head?

Absolutely. The problem with this is that the AFL in their previous efforts to outlaw high contact have effectively made this a dangerous act to take - the traditional way of turning your body to protect would now be interpreted as choosing to bump. That ship has sailed.

 

[domiroo]

The game is finished .. it’s rules as you go and penalties for some clubs aren’t the same for others .. it’s a joke comp now . A dinosaur sport that’s trying to avoid the comet .

 

[WayneShimmiesTheBush]

 

[WayneShimmiesTheBush]

In all seriousness, when I first saw the incident my thought was it was just unlucky as he went to smother the kick and there was nothing in it. And I still believe that to be the case, as I am sure those who play footy or have played footy, if we were jumping up to smother the football (like Maynard), I am sure we are bracing ourselves as we come down.

However, the fact the AFL has suspended players based on the potential to cause injury (even though the player wasn't injured), then he should have been suspended as he actually injured someone. You can't have in one case, a suspension to a player for a football act on the basis of potential to cause injury, even though the player wasn't injured, and then suddenly saying it was just unlucky that someone got injured as part of a football act. For me, this potential to cause injury clause is for the dumpster and they should only be ruling on the actually outcome of an incident.

 

[nj23]

I wonder how they’d dertermine a smother if the kicker’s boot landed square in the opponent who is attempting to smother’s face and concussed them. Unrelated of course, but I’m curious.

 

[Merlin007]

In the long term, I just can't see how the Tribunal decision is going to hold up legally - Maynard's counsel admitted he braced for contact, a self-protective measure denied the player he made contact with. At this point, anybody prosecuting the AFL down the track asks: what measures did the League take to prevent this injury? Answer: none (and in fact, worse than none, the person causing the injury was allowed to protect himself, the injured party was not).

It can't stand.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Hmm, I don't think anyone will argue the injured player wasn't 'allowed' to protect himself. Of course he was allowed to. He failed to do so.

 

[shintemaster]

Hmm, I don't think anyone will argue the injured player wasn't 'allowed' to protect himself. Of course he was allowed to. He failed to do so.

Could he reasonably have done so? As in outside of not kicking the ball?

 

[Jasemon]

We’ve just ticked past midday and no word of an appeal. I’m fairly sure I read somewhere that the AFL had until midday today to appeal the decision so I’m guessing that, unless something’s happened for the moment behind closed doors the decision will stand. Absolute disgrace.

 

[giantroo]