Player Watch Jordan De Goey

[Mollythedolly]

What difference does that make one bloke smacked another 50 mtrs off the ball and the other was a football action both the players were concussed and 1 was a deliberate action,it show,s exactly what the AFL is and how it run,double standards all the way.

I don't have an issue with a player who is retaliating getting a discount. Seems the tribunal don't either. Murphy was just as guilty. Whatever it was that he was doing was just as far off the footy. Not double standards at all but don't let that stop you raging against the system.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

De Goey deserved his whack.

But there is a bigger problem of a baffling disconnect in the AFL world, where negligent or reckless football actions like tackles and bumps that were once legal are now more heavily scrutinised than off-the-ball intentional punches or elbows.

They have never gone harder on the former and never gone softer on the latter (and you are dead wrong if you think the actual penalities were ever this soft in the 70s/80s - it's just that people usually got away with it).

It just feels like bizarro world and the few people pointing out this completely schizophrenic and self-defeating double standard are being constantly gaslighted.

 

[FromTheBoundaryLine]

You can remove bumps from the game. I'd be shocked if 99% of coaches aren't banning it. Why bump now? You risk missing a month of footy and what is the reward?

Yeah but we haven’t removed bumps from the game or turning sideways to protect yourself when contact is inevitable. The kid tucked the ball under his arm with no intention of getting rid of it until the very last moment when contact was unavoidable. If he’d prepared to handball a split second earlier I don’t think Jordy would have reacted the same way and most likely would have attempted to smother the handball rather than turn sideways/bump. There’s so many circumstances where head contact with some part of an opposition player’s body is possible in our game and the consequences may be undesirable. Only way to totally avoid it is choose another sport.

 

[FromTheBoundaryLine]

Just to put some context to my remarks above.
When I had to give up playing the game I loved after a severe concussion the specialist asked me if I’d received any head knocks prior to this major one. I recalled three separate incidents quite close together. All were just incidental, accidental contacts resulting from two players going in hard and fair. I feel we’ve done a good job in getting rid of deliberate and intentionally reckless acts though they still happen from time to time. There are many facets of our game that could be labelled reckless acts such as running back with the flight, flying into a pack, launching for high marks not knowing how you’ll land and just the standard putting your head over the ball. We train so we can act instinctively on the football field and we react sometimes from muscle memory gained from previous situations and we find ourselves in situations that just can’t be predicted and thought through in a split second. The notion that players always have a “choice” is problematic.
I wonder if we have any real data on which types of contact cause more concussions than others. I suspect the bump would account for only a proportion of them. We are on the right track as a sport.
The only completely safe AFL game would be a virtual reality one and we’d probably find out that that caused brain damage too. Sorry for the ramble.

 

[doofdoof]

Didn't Murphy admit he was the instigator? Wasn't that what reduced the penalty?

.... and also why Sheed and the Eagles are sooks who added fuel to the flames.

 

[sr36]

Didn't Murphy admit he was the instigator? Wasn't that what reduced the penalty?

No. That wouldn't have seen a reduction. It still would have been graded as intentional. It was reduced to careless because the defence convinced the tribunal that he was pushing off to create space to lead and thus a careless footy act rather than intentional.

 

[ipswichpies]

I don't have an issue with a player who is retaliating getting a discount. Seems the tribunal don't either. Murphy was just as guilty. Whatever it was that he was doing was just as far off the footy. Not double standards at all but don't let that stop you raging against the system.

So you have no issue with a bloke knocking out another bloke who has pushed him in the chest or said something to him and you do not think there is no double standard.

As for the tribunal they sound as morally bankrupt as you,my friend if you have seen 2 players having a go at each other 50 mtrs off the ball you must not have been watching too closely but you do not see many players snot another bloke so far off the ball and only get 3 weeks.

I also the system sinks and has done since Fat Andy there was far less controversy when Jack Hamilton ran the AFL and though he played for Collingwood he did us no favours in fact we might gone under.

 

[NMBB]

So you have no issue with a bloke knocking out another bloke who has pushed him in the chest or said something to him and you do not think there is no double standard.
As for the tribunal they sound as morally bankrupt as you,my friend if you have seen 2 players having a go at each other 50 mtrs off the ball you must not have been watching too closely but you do not see many players snot another bloke so far off the ball and only get 3 weeks.
I also the system sinks and has done since Fat Andy there was far less controversy when Jack Hamilton ran the AFL and though he played for Collingwood he did us no favours in fact we might gone under.

Ross Oakley was maybe the last decent head honcho at the AFL - a football person and straight forward

 

[ipswichpies]

Ross Oakley was maybe the last decent head honcho at the AFL - a football person and straight forward

I could not remember Ross Oakley,s name but you are spot on he was a straight down the line football administrator no problems with him he was I think the last one who was above playing politics.

It just went downhill rapidly after he left, Fat Andy came and he was as dodgy as.

 

[NMBB]

I could not remember Ross Oakley,s name but you are spot on he was a straight down the line football administrator no problems with him he was I think the last one who was above playing politics.

It just went downhill rapidly after he left, Fat Andy came and he was as dodgy as.

I think Wayne Jackson followed Ross Oakley then AD

 

[sideswipe]

Ross Oakley was maybe the last decent head honcho at the AFL - a football person and straight forward

What's a football person?

 

[NMBB]

What's a football person?

He had played the game - and seemed to have an affinity for the grassroots side - admittedly AD also played the game but seemed to love the corporate machinations. .

 

[Othello]

Sounds like we have Kane Cornes and others in media to thank for a reduced sentence!

 

[Pistol Night]

Sounds like we have Kane Cornes and others in media to thank for a reduced sentence!

A beautiful irony that all those dickheads piling on him together helped our cause. Cheers morons.

 

[cityslick1]

De Goey deserved his whack.

But there is a bigger problem of a baffling disconnect in the AFL world, where negligent or reckless football actions like tackles and bumps that were once legal are now more heavily scrutinised than off-the-ball intentional punches or elbows.

They have never gone harder on the former and never gone softer on the latter (and you are dead wrong if you think the actual penalities were ever this soft in the 70s/80s - it's just that people usually got away with it).

It just feels like bizarro world and the few people pointing out this completely schizophrenic and self-defeating double standard are being constantly gaslighted.

agree. Not long ago that Caminiti got 3 weeks for a behind the play elbow / forearm to Murphy's face, which in my mind is twice as bad as a split second bump in play. One is pre-meditated, the other is a football action, as Bucks quite rightly observed. Jobe obv doesnt get this....

 

[sideswipe]

He had played the game - and seemed to have an affinity for the grassroots side - admittedly AD also played the game but seemed to love the corporate machinations. .

Jackson supported club mergers...

 

[NMBB]

Jackson supported club mergers...

Club mergers were started by Oakley before Jackson

 

[sideswipe]

Club mergers were started by Oakley before Jackson

Sorry I meant to type Oakley! Your football person.

 

[Mollythedolly]

So you have no issue with a bloke knocking out another bloke who has pushed him in the chest or said something to him and you do not think there is no double standard.

As for the tribunal they sound as morally bankrupt as you,my friend if you have seen 2 players having a go at each other 50 mtrs off the ball you must not have been watching too closely but you do not see many players snot another bloke so far off the ball and only get 3 weeks.

I also the system sinks and has done since Fat Andy there was far less controversy when Jack Hamilton ran the AFL and though he played for Collingwood he did us no favours in fact we might gone under.

That’s your interpretation of what you think I’m saying. And some crazy ranting.

To be clear, I have no issue with a player getting a discounted suspension if there are mitigating circumstances. There were mitigating circumstances in the Caminiti v Murphy case which saw the grading of the charge downgraded. Caminiti got a reduction down to 3 weeks. That’s nothing to sneeze at. It’s not like he went all Barry Hall on Murphy. Caminiti also had a clean record which DeGoey didn’t have and that also mitigates his penalty.

 

[sr36]

That’s your interpretation of what you think I’m saying. And some crazy ranting.

To be clear, I have no issue with a player getting a discounted suspension if there are mitigating circumstances. There were mitigating circumstances in the Caminiti v Murphy case which saw the grading of the charge downgraded. Caminiti got a reduction down to 3 weeks. That’s nothing to sneeze at. It’s not like he went all Barry Hall on Murphy. Caminiti also had a clean record which DeGoey didn’t have and that also mitigates his penalty.

His penalty wasn't suggesting for the reasons you're suggesting - not retaliation or a clean sentence - neither would have seen it drop from 4. It was reduced because they convinced the tribunal that it was careless and not intentional.

 

[Jafo]

Looks like I found out what Jordan will be doing for next few weeks

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Jackson supported club mergers...

The TV rights deals back then probably didn’t provide as much of a disincentive to merge clubs.

 

[Mollythedolly]

His penalty wasn't suggesting for the reasons you're suggesting - not retaliation or a clean sentence - neither would have seen it drop from 4. It was reduced because they convinced the tribunal that it was careless and not intentional.

Got that the first time you said it which is why I said the grading of the charge was downgraded.

 

[sideswipe]

That’s your interpretation of what you think I’m saying. And some crazy ranting.

To be clear, I have no issue with a player getting a discounted suspension if there are mitigating circumstances. There were mitigating circumstances in the Caminiti v Murphy case which saw the grading of the charge downgraded. Caminiti got a reduction down to 3 weeks. That’s nothing to sneeze at. It’s not like he went all Barry Hall on Murphy. Caminiti also had a clean record which DeGoey didn’t have and that also mitigates his penalty.

Having a "clean record" doesn't come into consideration. Especially when the bloke had barely played. It's only an argument to mitigate if the player has an "exemplary record" which makes for exceptional circumstances.

 

[sr36]

Got that the first time you said it which is why I said the grading of the charge was downgraded.

But you keep talking about mitigating factors. There weren't any. The tribunal simply judged it as careless rather than intended.