No Oppo Supporters General AFL Discussion #12 - Carlton Posters ONLY!

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.


Jee wizz .. i wonder what the knee stats are atm .... I know after looking at GCS list it was 8 out of nine ... but damn ... is 21 the season for acl/pcl/mcl's??
 

Log in to remove this ad.

And it's all happened since the new rule change, opening up the game and making it quicker.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Be interesting when they happen as well, fatigued? Last quarter where the core strength isn't there, but desperate efforts are required?
 
And it's all happened since the new rule change, opening up the game and making it quicker.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


Has there actually been an increase over previous years? We seem to say this sort of thing early in every season. I'd be curious as to how the numbers stack up.
 
And it's all happened since the new rule change, opening up the game and making it quicker.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Wonder how much of it's got to do with a) going from the shortened quarters to the full length with the decreased interchange, and/or b) the trend towards big bodies and power in a stoppage being abruptly reversed and players unused to changing direction at new weights while tired.
 
It is a very unique situation going from 16 to 20 min quarters after an off season focused on bulking up. There could well be some merit in that.

Learning as we go I guess.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 
And it's all happened since the new rule change, opening up the game and making it quicker.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
It is the best start to a season we have seen in 20 years. The game is again exciting. Let's not overreact and start changing the rules to appease a few malcontent coaches who want to see flooding come back and 7 goals to 6 matches. If we have to increase the interchange bench, then do it, as long as the free-flowing footy continues.
 
I guess we didn’t have to wait long for the concussion protocol to rule a player out of a major final or GF with Adelaide Crows captain Chelsea Randall ruled out of the AFLW GF this Saturday. So heartbreaking for her to miss out but in the long run it will be possibly beneficial.
 
I guess we didn’t have to wait long for the concussion protocol to rule a player out of a major final or GF with Adelaide Crows captain Chelsea Randall ruled out of the AFLW GF this Saturday. So heartbreaking for her to miss out but in the long run it will be possibly beneficial.
True, but let's what happens when it is a Dusty or a Cripps. Watch the protocols go out the window. It is only one match and they have all of the off-season to recover. They should let her play.
 
True, but let's what happens when it is a Dusty or a Cripps. Watch the protocols go out the window. It is only one match and they have all of the off-season to recover. They should let her play.

I definitely know what you mean mate. It’s a tough spot to be in for all involved.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

True, but let's what happens when it is a Dusty or a Cripps. Watch the protocols go out the window. It is only one match and they have all of the off-season to recover. They should let her play.
I have no idea what you mean, mate.
 
True, but let's what happens when it is a Dusty or a Cripps. Watch the protocols go out the window. It is only one match and they have all of the off-season to recover. They should let her play.
Unless they want to get their arses sued off, those protocals will stay right where they are.
 
Unless they want to get their arses sued off, those protocals will stay right where they are.

Could a player not sue the AFL for restricting them from playing? Playing devils advocate here, could a player not sign away the possibility of any future lawsuits?

If a players doctor gave a player the all clear and a player was hell bent on playing, could they have a case?
 
Could a player not sue the AFL for restricting them from playing? Playing devils advocate here, could a player not sign away the possibility of any future lawsuits?

If a players doctor gave a player the all clear and a player was hell bent on playing, could they have a case?
You can sign away some of your rights, but I don't think medical wellbeing is one of them.

This is outside my legal knowledge, though.

The thing would be, if a club doctor gave the all clear, proving medical malpractice in subsequent years would be hard as balls. You'd have to have documentation from the time period in question demonstrating that the doctor behaved against the patient's interests, or the doctor themselves would have to come forward.

Any lawyers in the house who want to come along and correct my basic musings?
 
You can sign away some of your rights, but I don't think medical wellbeing is one of them.

This is outside my legal knowledge, though.

The thing would be, if a club doctor gave the all clear, proving medical malpractice in subsequent years would be hard as balls. You'd have to have documentation from the time period in question demonstrating that the doctor behaved against the patient's interests, or the doctor themselves would have to come forward.

Any lawyers in the house who want to come along and correct my basic musings?

in regards to the first line, people sign away their well being rights all the time in medical studies, especially Australians overseas and tourist for that matter, I see it as being similar.

I was more talking along the lines if a doctor or multiple doctors gave an all clear for a player (genuinely) to play and they were restricted by an AFL blanket rule that (One that I like) is designed to protect a large group, but could hinder some small individual cases.

I generally like rules like this, 12 day breaks, mandatory sentencing for certain acts, but what I like is the idea, there then seems to be cases that have unique circumstances that change or challenge my view.
 
in regards to the first line, people sign away their well being rights all the time in medical studies, especially Australians overseas and tourist for that matter, I see it as being similar.

I was more talking along the lines if a doctor or multiple doctors gave an all clear for a player (genuinely) to play and they were restricted by an AFL blanket rule that (One that I like) is designed to protect a large group, but could hinder some small individual cases.

I generally like rules like this, 12 day breaks, mandatory sentencing for certain acts, but what I like is the idea, there then seems to be cases that have unique circumstances that change or challenge my view.

Mandatory sentencing is a repugnant example of regressive social engineering.
 
Had the chance to get Oliver and we didn’t pull the trigger...

Sometimes you have to give up what you ‘think’ will be good for what you ‘know’ to be good...

We need another mid, not a HBF. Pay overs or we will lose players because of lack of success...
 
Had the chance to get Oliver and we didn’t pull the trigger...

Sometimes you have to give up what you ‘think’ will be good for what you ‘know’ to be good...

We need another mid, not a HBF. Pay overs or we will lose players because of lack of success...

Weren’t Melbourne asking for two firsts plus someone like Harry?
Or at least that was the ambit claim.
I think we did the right thing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top