Of course you want to protect the head but you can't protect against all incidents without completely changing the fabric and the way the game is played. When you sign up to play footy you are signing up to receive and deal contact which may result in a multitude of injuries and or concussions.loki04 thats all great, but without peer reviewed journals from neurologists counter to protecting the head my POV will remain as is.
Put yourself in the shoes of Brown's family awaiting the results of CT scans following the incident fearing the worst and hoping for the best. Explaining the difference between concussion and a "KO" will fall on deaf ears I feel. If rules protecting the head prevent only one head trauma moving into the future they have served the purpose well. All other discussion is best left in the other thread you created.
In terms of the discussion around his suspension. As the rules stand the correct decision to deem the incident worthy of a report was made, but the grading was up for debate. We decided not to challenge so it's extremely cut and dried as far as I'm concerned.
Also there is quotes from the leading neurologists on it all in the other thread, but I see you didn't read it or if you did dismissed it.
How are you going to stop a player running too fast, tripping, stumbling then hitting the post and concussing himself like a Dogs player did last season? who gets suspended in that? the player for being a clutz or the post for not moving? After all we want to stamp out all head trauma. Frustrated use of /sarcasm off.
On top of that and less sarcastically where do they stop? we have legitimate fears that the Marking contest will be next under fire. The AFL tackles these things 1 at a time as to appear to not make too many big changes at once.
Wayne Carey also raised this issue and agreed that a knee to the back of the head or face or lower back is far worse then the Grundy tackle. Which he is dead right.
over 900 tackles were made on the weekend and only 1 incident came of it despite similar tackles being made the rule is not needed as the incidents are generally one offs.
And yes due to the changes in the rules around tackling last year to the letter of the law he gets cited for "pinning the arms", absolutely absurd there is a rider on this execution of the tackle. This is type of "duty of care" liability is what killed the bump. RiP.
As far as being in Browns family's shoes waiting for the scan results sure I'd be worried for my sons health but I would not blame the game or the player who for all intents and purposes laid what was a fair and perfect tackle only 18 months ago and the way the game should be played.
Same if my son was a Boxer and was similarly in for scans they chose to play that sport and know the accompanying risks. This is not an act of thuggery or an innocent by stander on the street getting struck, this is a contact sport where accidents and incidents happen for a variable amount of reasons.
The AFL are meant to be caretakers of the game, not the ones destroying the fabric of it brick by brick for monetary reasons.