Game Day Hawks v Pies official practice game - Thursday March 2 @ 5:10pm - UTAS

[Buckley is my hero]

Not many mentions of Frampton in this thread since the game. Could it be that he’s improved slightly already?
This is my hope. That with time and better instruction he will become slightly better each week.

I think of all our new recruits, he’s the one who’s the most worry. His spilled mark and subsequent Hawthorn goal is not where you want him to be on the eve of the season proper. He’s there to stop his opponent. If he can’t do that he doesn’t belong in the team. Murphy offers better value.

 

[Scodog10]

enigma

ĭ-nĭg′mə

noun​

One that is puzzling, ambiguous, or inexplicable.

We are having an argument over the use of a word that doesn't even apply.

You don’t find his off-field behaviour puzzling and inexplicable

 

[manicpie]

enigma

ĭ-nĭg′mə

noun​

One that is puzzling, ambiguous, or inexplicable.

We are having an argument over the use of a word that doesn't even apply.

The Joker and Penguin are enigmas

 

[ant22]

I think of all our new recruits, he’s the one who’s the most worry. His spilled mark and subsequent Hawthorn goal is not where you want him to be on the eve of the season proper. He’s there to stop his opponent. If he can’t do that he doesn’t belong in the team. Murphy offers better value.

Agreed. Id have Murph in the team every day of the week at the moment. I hope I am wrong and he becomes a good player for us but he just doesn't like a very good 1 on 1 player. He reminds be of the bloke who turns up to the local footy club in the pre-season and everyone says have a look at this bloke, what a great pick up he will be. Then you get to the game proper and they struggle.

 

[sideswipe]

With dangerous tackles, they're also meant to factor potential into impact as well, so the impact is a question as well. I think it'll be graded as careless, but medium impact and he'll cop a week.

It's Chrisso playing with jigsaw pieces (made for 6-8 year olds) so anything could happen. On watching it a few more times, reckon his best chance is that it doesn't reach the threshold of being a classifiable offence.

 

[sideswipe]

High court needs to get involved and lock in frame work that protects our sports.

This is a special statement. Well done. Super stuff.

 

[sideswipe]

It’s actually remarkably simple. You said you were informed and still don’t get the seriousness of this topic. That to me says you either aren’t actually informed or you’re thick for taking this POV. Legislating actions such as JDG’s is the AFL’s way of protecting the game from individuals who make poor choices.

This might be better placed in another thread, but sideswipe what impact would there be on the league if a class action of say 500 ex players seeking $2m each in damages were successful? I assume the league would be protected from the full whack by insurance or Andrew Dillon cooking up some legal protection so this is purely out of curiosity. I mean a $1b class action against a national sports league that’s exposed to the full payout kills the sport.

No idea - don't think your scenario is likely or even possible. Personal injury law is for losers. Kirby can probably help.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Directs traffic well.
Kicks goals.
Sets goals up.
Keeps defenders honest and nervous which in itself creates goal opportunities and space.
Clean and smart ball user both at goals and inside 50 kick when he pushes up.
Occasional Wing option and F50 creativity.

Yeah but apart from the traffic direction, the goals, setting up the goals, keeping defenders nervous, clean use of the ball as well as his versatility, what is there to really miss about him when he's out?!

 

[Roverjg]

Our attacking play looked great, our defensive play looked horrible. How many times do you wanna allow the easy hit up pass around 35-45m out from goal? That was a huge issue that I hope they are working on.

Also, hoping Frampton can improve because the size is good in defence, but he was not good in this one. Can someone confirm that we gave him a 3 year contract?

Our defensive structure looked good for the 1st 15 minutes because our wingers and midfielders were pushing back and zoning and plugging gaps. It turned to crap when our wingers and midfielders started getting ahead of the ball after several Cox taps found Mitchell who fed it out to JDG and we were away. Suddenly our defence were trying to cover too many Hawks I thought Sidey was quite poor in his role last night. Our problem remains our inability to stop the run on of goals. Hawks kicked 5 and then 4 unanswered goals by hitting extra targets forward, whilst we bombed long (instead of lowering our eyes as the Hawks did). When our defence relies on our mids/wingers getting back and they don't, it results in our defence making mistakes such as Frampton being caught out of position or dropping a mark or Moore being 10m behind an opponent. Yes... Frampton has signed for 3 years, reportedly for peanuts

On SM-N975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Scodog10]

No idea - don't think your scenario is likely or even possible. Personal injury law is for losers. Kirby can probably help.

My understanding is Peter Jess is involved and I think it’s progressed further since this article was published:

AFL 2022: Concussion debate: WorkSafe urged to prosecute AFL

amp.theage.com.au

FWIW as someone with no idea on these things I erred towards it being unlikely as an outcome (if it were even possible) and it’s very much at the doomsday Optus/ Medibank data breach end of outcomes.

 

[sideswipe]

My understanding is Peter Jess is involved and I think it’s progressed further since this article was published:

AFL 2022: Concussion debate: WorkSafe urged to prosecute AFL

amp.theage.com.au

FWIW as someone with no idea on these things I erred towards it being unlikely as an outcome (if it were even possible) and it’s very much at the doomsday Optus/ Medibank data breach end of outcomes.

Peter Jess. Odious individual.

The AFL is certainly taking it seriously. As a person with no experience in the area, I can only guess, but a big part of duty of care is whether the entity took adequate steps based on medical/technical knowledge at the time. That alone would make it tough for past players to be successful in an action for matters that happened way back when. It's also the key behind protecting the head now. Add to that the difficulty in "proving" CTE, etc., all makes it pretty tough.

We aren't in the US where plaintiffs seem to have a lot more success in similar matters.

 

[JB1975]

I don't get how Boxing for example is not liable but another sport which involves a ball that has done many rule changes to minimise incidents to head contact is.

Boxing also has a duty of care, and has been subject to lawsuits for brain injury.

Even in a sport where contestants voluntarily submit to getting struck in the head, there are steps which can and should be taken to prevent catastrophic injury. When trainers, sport commissions, promotors or sanctioning bodies don't adhere to minimum standards, they become liable.

For example, cornermen and referees need to intervene (stop) contests earlier than in previous times, a doctor needs to be on hand, and fighters should be prevented from fighting/sparring too soon after they've been concussed.

 

[No SPIN]

Yes and we passed and he was training with Carlton - until Dean got injured.

we took a ruckman because its was a NEED. So Markov was clearly the next choice.

 

[loki04]

This is a special statement. Well done. Super stuff.

Go on? Your glibness king.

You think high courts don't look out for Australian sporting bodies and the interests? Or they don't get involved?
They have laws or rules in sporting bodies protecting the individuals but also the sport.

iii Enforceability​

Decisions made by Australian courts are directly enforceable within Australia. However, decisions made by sporting organisation tribunals are not directly legally enforceable. In practice, parties must either accept a decision if they wish to continue participating in the sport or appeal the decision to a court on the grounds that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to make the decision.

See that last section "wish to continue to participate in the sport" based off the games rules and laws.


Further.

ii Liability of the organiser, athletes and spectators
Under both common law and statute, as the occupiers of the sporting venue, organisers owe a duty of care to avoid causing harm to spectators and athletes that is 'reasonably foreseeable'. Under the civil liability legislation of each state and territory, organisers owe a duty of care to take reasonable precautions against risks of harm that are foreseeable and not insignificant.30

For example, in a well-known case before the High Court of Australia, an indoor cricketer sued the organiser after serious injury during a game, alleging that the organiser breached its duty of care by failing to provide protective eyewear, and by failing to erect a sign warning of possible hazards (although in this case, the High Court of Australia held that the organiser's duty of care did not extend to require these precautions be taken).31

Additionally, if a professional athlete causes injury to a third party, such as an opponent, both the athlete and his or her sporting club (as his or her employer) may be liable for damages. In another well-known case, a professional rugby league player for the Wests Tigers in the NRL brought proceedings against Melbourne Storm and two of its players after being seriously injured in a tackle that ended his career. The two players and Melbourne Storm (as their employer) were held to be liable for damages for the injury.32

In Australia, like many other jurisdictions, consent to minor assaults will often absolve the accused from criminal liability.33 This means that although minor assaults technically occur in contact sports, there is usually no liability as it is implicit in the participation of the athletes that they have consented. However, consent is not a defence for athletes where the assault is outside the rules of the sport. For example, rugby league players have previously been convicted of assault for punching an opponent and causing a fractured jaw in one case, and biting an ear after a tackle in another case.34 However, in other cases, on-field actions by athletes that could lead to a criminal conviction for assault have been met with only sanctions from the sport's governing body, rather than police prosecution. For example, there have been several high-profile instances of footballers violently punching opponents on the field and not being prosecuted, in both the AFL and NRL and also at lower levels of the sport.35 The fact that these athletes have not been charged with criminal offences is a consequence of the police's discretion in enforcing criminal law.

Oh look the high court was involved...special super stuff...
You go outside the rules and show blatant disregard for player safety you open up DOC.
But you aren't liable for that which is not foreseeable.

Sports Law: Australia

Sports Law: Australia

thelawreviews.co.uk

 

[domus]

No 5 draft pick. Played 21 games in his 1st season and never played less than 21 in the next 7 seasons. He had one down season at NM with 9 games then played 23, 19, 23 in 3 seasons at the Pies. He was essentially the same player at Collingwood the he was in the first 8 seasons but got team success at a big club. 246 games. He never failed was never a star

Markov is backup. 51 games in 6 years. He is fringe AFL level. Handy if we get injuries.

Never said he will be a star but could be a handy player who may get a chance to shine if we have an injury or two. I repeat- when we recruited Leigh Brown the derision and mockery on this board was intense. You can present his stats but he was branded a spud and there was a lot of anger over his arrival at our club.

Markov was at a club which won 3 flags in four years. It's hardly shameful for a player to be on the fringes of one of the best teams of any era.
I think the fact Fly wanted him says he may be of more value in his eyes than many on this thread.

 

[domus]

Kidding right? There's was *ing nothing in it

There shouldn't be but his head bounced off the turf.

 

[sideswipe]

Go on? Your glibness king.

You think high courts don't look out for Australian sporting bodies and the interests? Or they don't get involved?
They have laws or rules in sporting bodies protecting the individuals but also the sport.




See that last section "wish to continue to participate in the sport" based off the games rules and laws.


Further.


Oh look the high court was involved...special super stuff...
You go outside the rules and show blatant disregard for player safety you open up DOC.
But you aren't liable for that which is not foreseeable.

Sports Law: Australia

Sports Law: Australia

thelawreviews.co.uk

It was the "get involved" that made me laugh. The only way the High Court can "get involved" is if a case gets all they way to them. They don't have a choice to "get involved" before then.

As for the rest, you really shouldn't have bothered.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Boxing also has a duty of care, and has been subject to lawsuits for brain injury.

Even in a sport where contestants voluntarily submit to getting struck in the head, there are steps which can and should be taken to prevent catastrophic injury. When trainers, sport commissions, promotors or sanctioning bodies don't adhere to minimum standards, they become liable.

For example, cornermen and referees need to intervene (stop) contests earlier than in previous times, a doctor needs to be on hand, and fighters should be prevented from fighting/sparring too soon after they've been concussed.

But surely even assuming all these precautions are taken and measures to limit damage to the brain implemented, people are still going to get concussed and sue their sporting club or body. There is only so much that can be done outside the contest to limit the impact of head high hits.

 

[domus]

Yes a 246 game AFL failure. Probably puts him in the top 10% of players to ever play the game.

Hindsight is a lovely thing. Where were all these posts lauding his recruitment when we first brought him into our club? He was dubbed a spud.

 

[loki04]

Boxing also has a duty of care, and has been subject to lawsuits for brain injury.

Even in a sport where contestants voluntarily submit to getting struck in the head, there are steps which can and should be taken to prevent catastrophic injury. When trainers, sport commissions, promotors or sanctioning bodies don't adhere to minimum standards, they become liable.

For example, cornermen and referees need to intervene (stop) contests earlier than in previous times, a doctor needs to be on hand, and fighters should be prevented from fighting/sparring too soon after they've been concussed.

Yes but they aren't blanket banning all and any contact to the head.

They still allow head strikes. Which is the point you missed. AFL is on a war path against even incidental head contact through action of tackle or bump.

We are changing fundamentals of the game.

Your statement is akin to saying afl has stopped behind the play king hits or on field violence and have laws in place to prevent it.
Just like boxing has changed laws to prevent deaths and out lawed behind the head punches or going too many rounds or trainers/referees stopping a one sided fight.

Boxing has not changed it fundamental principles of basing scoring off damage rather then negligible hits and hits to the head face.
To do what AFL is doing boxing would need to ban head contact and only allow body blows.
AFL has even gone a step further and punishes based off potential for harm rather then actual harm.

 

[JB1975]

But surely even assuming all these precautions are taken and measures to limit damage to the brain implemented, people are still going to get concussed and sue their sporting club or body. There is only so much that can be done outside the contest to limit the impact of head high hits.

They sue for negligence, and so they argue that someone/somewhere failed to meet a requisite standard of care.

Damage/injury is one element, but there's no case to answer if all reasonable steps have been taken to mitigate the possibility of damage.

 

[loki04]

It was the "get involved" that made me laugh. The only way the High Court can "get involved" is if a case gets all they way to them. They don't have a choice to "get involved" before then.

As for the rest, you really shouldn't have bothered.

By get involved I mean the AFL and its lawyers sit down with a judge and put in frame work that is legally protecting both sport and the players with DOC.
Finding the balance between the individual choice to play a sport that can cause permanent injury impairment or death at one's on own risk so long as the sport has done enough due diligence to protect them with the frames of that sports rules.

The AFL has done more then enough especially when compared to many other co tact sports.

 

[sideswipe]

They sue for negligence, and so they argue that someone/somewhere failed to meet a requisite standard of care.

Damage/injury is one element, but there's no case to answer if all reasonable steps have been taken to mitigate the possibility of damage.

Whenever I see mitigate, I can only think, Mitigators, mount up!

 

[JB1975]

They still allow head strikes. Which is the point you missed. AFL is on a war path against even incidental head contact through action of tackle or bump.

I'm aware that boxing still allows blows to the head.

I was responding to your post which suggested that boxing isn't 'liable', that it doesn't suffer lawsuits for a failure to adequately protect the head.

It is, and it does, but it tries to satisfy a duty of care in different ways.

In AFL, where blows to the head are incidental to the game, it seems reasonable that the standard of care will be higher.

 

[sideswipe]

By get involved I mean the AFL and its lawyers sit down with a judge and put in frame work that is legally protecting both sport and the players with DOC.
Finding the balance between the individual choice to play a sport that can cause permanent injury impairment or death at one's on own risk so long as the sport has done enough due diligence to protect them with the frames of that sports rules.

The AFL has done more then enough especially when compared to many other co tact sports.

"Putting in a framework" isn't the role of the judiciary. In fact, it is nonsensical to suggest it. When my kids were young, I didn't let them play with sharp objects. I kinda feel like taking similar steps here.