Those 3 points don't suggest I was relating specifically to the hamstring letting go tonight, and their treatment of it?
Everybody else got it.
-
Guest - BigFooty Tipping 2026 - Get on! - $500 first prize - Weekly Prizes - Click to Join
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Opening Round
The Golden Ticket - Official AFL on-seller of MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Cousins Hamstring!!
- Thread starter dale_mighty_pies
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Those 3 points don't suggest I was relating specifically to the hamstring letting go tonight, and their treatment of it?
Everybody else got it.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Posts
- 20,768
- Reaction score
- 23,521
- Location
- Nthn Beaches
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- BBGFC and LRGC
Stop blaming the medico's when it is a recrutiment issue
not sure what you're getting at about logic, marks. the ineptitude of the richmond organisations ineptitude has been pretty clearly layed out for you step by step in dot point form. also, if you add a bit of context to the overall statement, richmond have not got a great track record of judgement and player management over the last few seasons...
I don't know about that. some steroids have the effect of stiffening the muscles...
(did I just say that out loud?
)Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Posts
- 67,733
- Reaction score
- 80,825
- Location
- Narre Warren North
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- .
At least they didn't pay two draft picks and a player for him.
And a back-peddling we go. ***Elvis**** said Richmong are a joke of an organisation. Anyway, his points relate to the recruiting and player management of Cuz. So that argument is still false. Richmond, may or may not be terrible. But from the given points you cannot draw that conclusion. Those points do not support the claim that Richmond have not got a great track record of judgement and player management over the last few years. That may be true, but it does not follow (non-sequitur). It doesn't even follow about Cuz, because the saga is not over. Unless he never plays again. Anyway I await evidence of how Richmond making a speculative bid on Cuz makes Richmond a joke of an organization. You (or Elvis or somebody) will provide the logical arguments I'm sure.
****I misrepresented the claims of blackhead boil. I apologize. Too busy enjoying the argument to notice whom I was arguing with.
Yes he's awesome...shame his body isn't better than 2% of the AFL footballing community .
inspired draft choice by the Tiges ..looks like it's really paying off
You just suck at basic reading comprehension, and are now trying to muddy the waters to avoid looking stupid.
Trying, but failing.
try and keep up, marks. I'm not the guy who made the original comments.
those points are one example. they relate to this evening's example of player management. that one incident has become the latest of the poor decisions made by the richmond management as a whole (coach, medical staff, recruitment, etc.) which has led the original poster to then make reference to his opinion of the club.
there is no back-peddling, and the comments do follow. I'm sorry that you have trouble grasping that...
Please show how I've muddied the water. I've already acknowledge my error in confusing a comment made by another poster with your comment. None of that detracts from my points. Please show where I err. Thanks.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Posts
- 16,715
- Reaction score
- 11,065
- Location
- Fight Club
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- 76ers, Storm, Broad St.
Idiot.
Don't care about Richmond, but do want Cousins to play well this year and was upset to see him go off. I'll blame it on the medicos because I don't think drafting Cousins was the problem. Heck I wanted him at Carlton. But still, the guys put his body through so much pain and here's hoping he'll get back sooner rather than later and give footy fans something to smile about.
I've apologized above. Sorry again. But however, the topic was that Richmond were a joke of an organization or whatever. Not that Richmond, on this occassion, given the evidence of this night, acted poorly. Even given all the poor decisions they've made, how is that any worse than all the poor decisions any other team has made? Let's remember that Elvis made a general statement (Richmond = joke of an organization), that is for all things Richmond does, Richmond is a joke of an organization. That's false. Richmond do a lot of good things. Anyway.......Let's not let logic and truth get in the way of a good rant.
And your comments do not follow, they are just further evidence, something contingent. They could be different and thus do NOT follow. That's logic. If something follows it could not be otherwise. And before tonight you could not have known with certainty that Cuz would do a hammy.
I've apologized above. Sorry again. But however, the topic was that Richmond were aweful or whatever. Not that Richmond, on this occassion, given the evidence of this night, was proof of their awefullness. Even given all the poor decisions they've made, how is that any worse than all the poor decisions any other team has made? Let's remember that Elvis made a general statement, that for all things Richmond does, Richmond is aweful. That's false. Richmond do a lot of good things. Anyway.......Let's not let logic and truth get in the way of a good rant.
And your comments do not follow, they are just further evidence, something contingent. They could be different and thus do NOT follow. That's logic.
unfortunately, they do follow. I'm trying to make it as simple and clear as I can.
how about I put it this way: elvis did not cite tonight as proof that richmond are a joke. he was using it as further proof that richmond are a joke.
obviously there is no AFL footy side that is perfect at everything, and richmond are not a side that is awful at everything. however, there are certain levels of competency that you would expect from a professional and high paying organisation. I don't think the richmond medical team met those standards tonight in respect to ben cousins. that was a pretty big, obvious and significant stuff up. a simple case of extremely poor judgement.
there are also numerous examples (look around in the recruiting threads, for example) of choices and judgements made by the rfc that have proved to be way off the mark. and, at the end of the day, the way the team plays is definitive evidence of the success of their overall management. given that wallace has been given 5 years to totally rebuild and mould the team in the fashion that he saw fit, I don't think you could judge them as having met the expectations that they set up for themselves.
these, I believe, are part of the justifications for the original statement by elvis, that richmond are a joke...
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2007
- Posts
- 61,201
- Reaction score
- 65,937
- Location
- Adelaide
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- The Autobots and Team America
Not a good way to end his last two real games of footy.
Got to admit I had a bit of a smile, because it is him and am sick of hearing about him and his "problems" especially when he has that smug look on his face every time he is interviewed.
Got to admit I had a bit of a smile, because it is him and am sick of hearing about him and his "problems" especially when he has that smug look on his face every time he is interviewed.
Where in Elvis' comment did he say anything other than Richmond is a joke of an organization and then offered evidence of this apart from the recruitment of Cuz and the (in hindsight) poor choice of playing him in the last quarter? And even if all your following points were true, how would that make Richmond a joke of an organization? It does not follow. Unless you define joke of an organization as something you don't like too much.
well, I would have to say that it was most likely implied. it was only a short post and I don't think anybody here has the time to post and read all the background information relating to what it is we are discussing.
what defines a 'joke of an organisation'? well, I guess an organisation that is so poorly run so as it makes you laugh might be considered to be a joke...
So, according to you, it was bad? I think the Richmond medical team is just super. How is my argument better or worse than yours? Neither follow from logical necessity. How does that make a logical argument? Please present the formal argument. Then if it's valid (the conclusion follows from the premises), and I agree to the premises, then I'll agree with the conclusion.
gunnar? is that you!?
I think you'll find that the formal argument has been presented as a logical argument several times. however, if you think that the richmond medical team's decision to send cousins back onto the ground is "just super", then we are arguing from entirely different perspectives of reality, and no further re-stating of the case will have any impact on your ability to grasp it.
goodnight...
Fair enough then. I guess the Victorian and Australian governments, the Essendon, Hawthorn, Geelong, Carlton, West Coast, etc (and Richmond) football clubs and pretty much any organization that has stuffed up is a joke in my opinion. Because making someone laugh is a subjective condition. It does not logically follow. To follow logically means that there is no other way it could occur given a valid argument. And with footy clubs, it could always be different. If it logically followed that Richmond was a joke of a club, even Richmond supporters would loose faith in the end. However, each season they have faith that this year there will be improvement. Why? Because it's possible, if unlikely. Therefore it does not logically follow.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
benny cousins will be back in a few weeks, but something tells me why did they leave him on, he was struggling slightly and richmond left him on wen the game was well over, and wanted him to have a few more touches... i believe
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Posts
- 67,733
- Reaction score
- 80,825
- Location
- Narre Warren North
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- .
OK I said it in a shit stirring way, but amongst all the hype , Cousins is a guy they picked up in the pre-season draft. He does not represent a huge investment in compromising their draft or list.
No it has not been presented as a demonstrative argument. It has always been: I think Richmond stuffed up given the evidence. It has never been something like: Ben Cuz is by definintion injured and it's a bad thing to play Ben Cuz because he's injured and Richmond have played Ben Cuz (who by definition is injured and thats bad), therefore Richmond were wrong. That is a logical demonstration. If that argument was presented, then it would be wrong because it's based on contingent assumptions (i.e. Ben Cuz is not always injured).gunnar? is that you!?
I think you'll find that the formal argument has been presented as a logical argument several times. however, if you think that the richmond medical team's decision to send cousins back onto the ground is "just super", then we are arguing from entirely different perspectives of reality, and no further re-stating of the case will have any impact on your ability to grasp it.
goodnight...
As for the Richmond medical team. You're using hindsight. You have no idea of how they made their decisions. Even if you're a qualified doctor, you still didn't have the evidence to make the call. You are not in a position to judge them. I can grasp reality. I don't think I'm a qualified medical expert who knows the right call given that I have no training and no evidence of the situation.
Perhaps you feel qualified to deny global warming or evolution with no training?
No it has not been presented as a demonstrative argument. It has always been: I think Richmond stuffed up given the evidence. It has never been something like: Ben Cuz is by definintion injured and it's a bad thing to play Ben Cuz because he's injured and Richmond have played Ben Cuz (who by definition is injured and thats bad), therefore Richmond were wrong. That is a logical demonstration. If that argument was presented, then it would be wrong because it's based on contingent assumptions (i.e. Ben Cuz is not always injured).
As for the Richmond medical team. You're using hindsight. You have no idea of how they made their decisions. Even if you're a qualified doctor, you still didn't have the evidence to make the call. You are not in a position to judge them. I can grasp reality. I don't think I'm a qualified medical expert who knows the right call given that I have no training and no evidence of the situation.
arg! I really didn't want to continue this argument, but I just can't leave it on that note!
first off, the first part of your post about a demonstrative argument is something approaching gibberish, and I find it quite ironic that you bang on about logic when you clearly have a very limited rgasp of the concept and how it relates to the real world. did you just start doing a philosophy unit at uni, or something? trying to fit in all those new words and concepts, are we?
secondly, the richmond medical staff do not have the benefit of hindsight, but they are expected to have some degree of foresight. you're right, I'm not a doctor, and I didn't have all the evidence at hand, however I am actually heavily involved and experienced in sports coaching and I have a pretty fair idea about the sorts of conditions, signs and circumstances that lead to injury. the human body can be quite predicatble in that way. that is why so many people have jumped into this thread and expressed frustration at the seemingly ludicrous decision the send him back onto the field. especially since the game was all but over!
given ben's background and circumstances, I don't think you need to be there and hands on to know that at the slightest hint of any hamstring twinge he should have been off the ground and on ice (so to speak) to ensure that he made it through the game uninjured. pretty simple, really...
