MRP / Trib. Newcombe hit on Howe

[Fadge]

What Howe did was reckless and dangerous to HIMSELF, and Newcombe.
What Newcombe did was reckless and dangerous to HIMSELF.


What the Carlton guy did was reckless and dangerous to HIMSELF, and May.

What May did was brace and protect himself.


Only bone arse luck prevented Newcombe from being another CTE statistic.

Newcombe should have been allowed to brace and protect himself. He should be encouraged by the AFL to protect himself. Like May did.

But instead the AFL go the other way and are formally instructing players to risk their own head by NOT protecting themselves like May did, and to cop the hit in the face like Newcombe did.

It's just complete madness.

Spoken like someone who understands the game.

 

[Fadge]

May wasn’t vulnerable.

Players are regularly put in vulnerable situations by committing a myriad of football acts, you can’t prevent that. What you can stop is blokes putting there shoulder into someone’s face.

May wasn't vulnerable, because he braced so that he wasn't....

 

[Jim Prideaux]

May wasn't vulnerable, because he braced so that he wasn't....

Would you have preferred Jai braced and but his shoulder into Howes face?

 

[Fadge]

Would you have preferred Jai braced and but his shoulder into Howes face?

If he had have braced, there wouldn't have been a head clash, which is what caused the issue in the first place.

It's just a ridiculous concept.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

If he had have braced, there wouldn't have been a head clash, which is what caused the issue in the first place.

It's just a ridiculous concept.

May put is shoulder into the face of the opposing player, breaking his nose, knocking a tooth out and concussing him. This was in the process of bracing/bumping.

You’ll have to present me the research paper that says bumping/bracing completely negates the chance of a head clash.

 

[RCAB]

He would have been if he stood front and tackled!

No

 

[RCAB]

Spoken like someone who understands the game.

None of your Collingwood players understand the game???

 

[ReturningHawk]

If he had have braced, there wouldn't have been a head clash, which is what caused the issue in the first place.

It's just a ridiculous concept.

You believe that Howe would be better off if Jai bumped him? You go on believing that then.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Howe's actions were really intersting here. He defeintely wanted to assert himself against Newcombe and take on the contact.

A lot of players in this situation now will tap the ball, deliberately absorb the tackle or take evasive action. Howe did none of these things. He wanted to run THROUGH the anticipated Newcombe tackle/contact.

Newcombe's actions were also a little unconventional as well as LB has pointed out. He went the tackle but in a really open-fronted way. He didn't go low and tackle the hips. And he may have been expecting Howe to take one of the usual courses of actions.

Don't get me wrong - Howe attacked the ball in an awesome way but you can really only take that approach when the tackler is someone you can completely monster and push through.

It was a bit of an unconventional situation. I can see why players in both roles would take a different, more self-protective approach usually.

 

[ReturningHawk]

Howe's actions were really intersting here. He defeintely wanted to assert himself against Newcombe and take on the contact.

A lot of players in this situation now will tap the ball, deliberately absorb the tackle or take evasive action. Howe did none of these things. He wanted to run THROUGH the anticipated Newcombe tackle/contact.

Newcombe's actions were also a little unconventional as well as LB has pointed out. He went the tackle but in a really open-fronted way. He didn't go low and tackle the hips. And he may have been expecting Howe to take one of the usual courses of actions.

Don't get me wrong - Howe attacked the ball in an awesome way but you can really only take that approach when the tackler is someone you can completely monster and push through.

It was a bit of an unconventional situation. I can see why players in both roles would take a different, more self-protective approach usually.

Ultimately, the nature of the action is revealed by the nature of the collision. No player would endeavour to hit another player with their head. Unfortunately Howe was left far worse off, hope he’s back playing asap.

 

[THECHIEFTON]

HAHAHAH.

AFL has reached peak idiocy.

Fair dinkum. The stupidity here is simply beyond comprehension.


So the official position from the AFL is - don't protect yourself. Take the hit to the face like Newcombe did, and just cross your fingers that you don't murder anyone in your 60s due to CTE.

But whatever you do, DON'T brace and protect yourself when a human cannonball is coming at you at full speed. Tackle. Put your head on the line and take the clash of heads like a man...but whatever you do....DO NOT protect yourself.


Honestly. This is just utterly extraordinary.

You are correct. Similar issues with years of rewarding ducking and leading with the head. They want to "protect" players by incentivising them to milk head high frees by ducking or going in head first... Same with the over reaction to contact below the knees. Now players just run over someone on the ground to get the free kick.

Wouldn't be surprised if concussion rates have or will go up under these new rules.

 

[Stratton_Gun]

They have made it clear that it's not about intent. Newcombe opted to tackle at full speed, with poor technique, and he knocked a player unconscious.

Archer ran towards the ball and when Cleary went to ground he slowed and tried to avoid the contact. He got 3 weeks because they said that even if Cleary stayed up he couldn't safely tackle while running like that.

The AFL has made it clear throughout this year... If you're on a finals side and you knock someone out, you get 0 weeks. If you're on a bad side then you get 3 weeks.

If it's not about intent then what should it be about?

It sounds like you're saying every time someone gets injured, someone needs to get punished for its whether it's correct or not.

If a player with the ball turns suddenly to avoid a collision and does his knee, does the player corralling him need to get done for weeks?

 

[JGreezy]

If it's not about intent then what should it be about?

It sounds like you're saying every time someone gets injured, someone needs to get punished for its whether it's correct or not.

If a player with the ball turns suddenly to avoid a collision and does his knee, does the player corralling him need to get done for weeks?

Have you followed footy this year?

They've been suspending players for 3 weeks for accidental concussions. Well, if they're not in a finals side they have been.

 

[Fadge]

If it's not about intent then what should it be about?

You haven't been following AFL and the MRO decisions long?

 

[QuietB]

The one thing we have learnt out of this - if you want to put your physical stamp on a game - choose someone other than Jai Newcombe.

I have not seen a hit that big for a long time. I have no idea how Newcombe went on to be BOG.

 

[QuietB]

I didn't want 3 weeks.

I assumed, based on the idiotic precedent we've seen, that that is what would happen.

But my melt has nothing to do with the decision. It's the logic that the AFL ha E given.

They're literally saying that if a May/Carlton Guy or Howe/Duke incident occurs - the players must cop it in the face and hope for the best.

Whatever happens, they must not brace and protect themselves. Leaving yourself wide open and copping it front on is what the AFL expects you to do.

It's simply unfathomable that they're telling players that they they must do what Newcombe did, and take the hit head on, rather than brace and protect yourself.


Honestly. I can't believe it.

Newcombe is lucky he's alive. Yet that is what the AFL is telling players they must do in that scenario?? Simply extraordinary.

Personally I think May was unlucky, but at the end of the day he arranged an opponents face with the point of his shoulder. May could have missed him. I have no idea how Newcombe could have missed Howe.

 

[Stratton_Gun]

Have you followed footy this year?

They've been suspending players for 3 weeks for accidental concussions. Well, if they're not in a finals side they have been.

Quite a lot actually

MRP not so much.

Which players have been suspended for accidental concussion?
I truly find it amazing for anyone thinks incident like Thursdays should result in anyone suspended

 

[Jim Cricket]

Would you have preferred Jai braced and but his shoulder into Howes face?

Would it have made any difference to the outcome? Well maybe Howe wouldn't have been knocked out and I guess Newcombe wouldn't have had to go off with a sore head but the AFL obviously don't care about that...

Do the AFL want to prevent injuries or not? Bracing should be encouraged but it's being discouraged. Maybe the AFL want players suspended or charged so that when it goes to court they can tell everyone 'See, we were charging and suspending players so we took action to prevent these injuries'.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Would it have made any difference to the outcome? Well maybe Howe wouldn't have been knocked out and I guess Newcombe wouldn't have had to go off with a sore head but the AFL obviously don't care about that...

Do the AFL want to prevent injuries or not? Bracing should be encouraged but it's being discouraged. Maybe the AFL want players suspended charged so that when it goes to court they can tell everyone 'See, we were charging and suspending players so we took action to prevent these injuries'.

Were you ok when Maynard braced?

 

[Jim Cricket]

Were you ok when Maynard braced?

Yes I was sitting at home, maybe with a beer in hand so all was well.

BTW you forgot to address the point.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Yes I was sitting at home, maybe with a beer in hand so all was well.

BTW you forgot to address the point.

Ok, to the other point in your post. Yes, they want to prevent injuries - where possible. Short of banning most of the game, they won’t be able to stop all concussions. Similar to other sports they are trying to stop the things that are obvious or unnecessary - dangerous tackles and bumps to the head.

Whilst I understand the bracing argument, the problem is that a brace and a bump are essentially the same thing. Does that mean we’ll have players rubbed out who really didn’t do much wrong - well, yeah, definitely.