MRP / Trib. Newcombe hit on Howe

[Jim Cricket]

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.

Only mistake in there is that you used 'logic' and 'AFL' in the same sentence.

 

[Stratton_Gun]

There was absolutely no intent there. He was as likely to get injured as Howe.

If Newcombe got concussed too from the exact same incident then suddenly no one is calling for his head.

 

[HairyO]

Magpies fans embarrassing themselves here. Wish Howe a speedy recovery.

Most have been sensible. The others should take another look at Maynard ending someone's career while shutting the **** up.

 

[Erakor]

Howe should get 4 weeks for head butting

 

[Maddo11]

Looking simply at action and outcome, I'm not entirely sure that accidentally clashing heads while tackling, and accidentally clashing heads while bumping, both otherwise legal actions should have such different outcomes.

Of course you're far more likely to cause a head clash while bumping rather than tackling, but both actions are legal options. I wonder if we'll see this difference tightened up over the next few years as shifting the game to reduce concussions continues.

Newcomb clearly thought he was a chance to get the ball first and attacked it in such a way that he could no longer safely tackle, should he not be liable for that in the same way that May was found to be liable?

 

[JGreezy]

There was absolutely no intent there. He was as likely to get injured as Howe.

If Newcombe got concussed too from the exact same incident then suddenly no one is calling for his head.

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.

 

[JGreezy]

It doesn’t at all, unless you think a player tackling someone is the same as someone dropping the shoulder and bumping…

They’re two completely different things, which is what the MRO have said.

Archer and Curtis didn't drop the shoulder and bump.

Just because it's a Hawks player you don't have to pretend that the MRO are fair and consistent.

 

[HeHateMe]

Looking simply at action and outcome, I'm not entirely sure that accidentally clashing heads while tackling, and accidentally clashing heads while bumping, both otherwise legal actions should have such different outcomes.

Of course you're far more likely to cause a head clash while bumping rather than tackling, but both actions are legal options. I wonder if we'll see this difference tightened up over the next few years as shifting the game to reduce concussions continues.

Newcomb clearly thought he was a chance to get the ball first and attacked it in such a way that he could no longer safely tackle, should he not be liable for that in the same way that May was found to be liable?

AFL and all there wisdom have deemed lowering your arms and tackling is the safer of the two.

That's why Newcombe was never getting suspended probably wouldn't have been even mentioned if not for the confusion and narrative by some fans afterwards.

Whether it is safer who knows, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. I do think the AFL is asking too much of players but don't know enough about concussion to have any real strong opinions on it.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

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.

So you didn’t want 3 weeks but you’re angry he didn’t get 3 weeks.

Players are going to collide, if you try and bump a player and your shoulder gets them in the head, then you get rubbed out, if you try and tackle or win the ball and have a head clash, you don’t, not that complicated.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So you didn’t want 3 weeks but you’re angry he didn’t get 3 weeks.

Players are going to collide, if you try and bump a player and your shoulder gets them in the head, then you get rubbed out, if you try and tackle or win the ball and have a head clash, you don’t, not that complicated.

I'm not angry he didn't get 3 weeks.

You clearly haven't read a word that I wrote.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

I'm not angry he didn't get 3 weeks.

You clearly haven't read a word that I wrote.

Oh I read it, and it’s honestly a classic you post - catastrophizing.

You said he should get 3 weeks, and he didn’t. That’s good then.

If you want to down the bizarre path you’re ranting about, ban tackling, bumping, contested marks, putting your head over the ball, running to the contest, speccies, going back with flight.

 

[HeHateMe]

I'm not angry he didn't get 3 weeks.

You clearly haven't read a word that I wrote.

I was about to pipe up and say it, your opinion clearly is you don't see much in it between the May and Newk incident and you personally don't believe the slight variation of lowering arms and tackle as any better than a late brace before impact.

With that logic if may somehow got 3 than newk unfortunately is getting the same. Or if one got 0 than both should have. Correct me if/where I'm wrong not having a go.

AFL don't see it that way though that's why I've mentioned it a few times before the ruling.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Oh I read it, and it’s honestly a classic you post - catastrophizing.

You said he should get 3 weeks, and he didn’t. That’s good then.

If you want to down the bizarre path you’re ranting about, ban tackling, bumping, contested marks, putting your head over the ball, running to the contest, speccies, going back with flight.

I didn't say he should - I said I thought he would.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I was about to pipe up and say it, your opinion clearly is you don't see much in it between the May and Newk incident and you personally don't believe the slight variation of lowering arms and tackle as any better than a late brace before impact.

With that logic if may somehow got 3 than newk unfortunately is getting the same. Or if one got 0 than both should have. Correct me if/where I'm wrong not having a go.

AFL don't see it that way though that's why I've mentioned it a few times before the ruling.

Did you even read what I wrote??

 

[Jim Prideaux]

I didn't say he should - I said I thought he would.

I know you didn’t, but if you didn’t think he should, why are you complaining that he didn’t?

 

[HeHateMe]

Did you even read what I wrote??

Yeah where am I misunderstanding, I'm trying to interpret all your comments in this thread.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I know you didn’t, but if you didn’t think he should, why are you complaining that he didn’t?

I'm not complaining that he didn't.

Did you even read what I wrote?

 

[Jim Prideaux]

I'm not complaining that he didn't.

Did you even read what I wrote?

I did and you are. I’ll make it easy, if you bump and your shoulder goes into a players face and concusses him, you’ll get weeks, if you lay a tackle and there is an accidental head clash, you won’t.

we want people tackling (fairly, no slings, highs, guillotines or driving into the turf), we don’t want people putting there shoulder/hip into a players head. Simple.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Yeah where am I misunderstanding, I'm trying to interpret all your comments in this thread.

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.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

we want people tackling (fairly, no slings, highs, guillotines or driving into the turf), we don’t want people putting there shoulder/hip into a players head. Simple.

No we don't. Or at least we shouldn't.

We should not want guys tackling, when it's seriously dangerous for them to do so.

We're trying to protect players' heads remember.

Neither May nor Newcombe should have been suspended.

That's not the issue I've been posting about. The issue is that the AFL are outlawing vulnerable players like Newcombe and May from protecting themselves.

It's idiotic.

 

[HeHateMe]

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.

Okay cool I tend to agree with you personally when or if I'm ever in that situation I'm bracing and protecting myself, but I don't play at the same level pace velocity as AFL so not sure if that makes any difference.

One thing where is the context for Newk to get 3 weeks like May. Because that was your first opinion you shared.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

No we don't. Or at least we shouldn't.

We should not want guys tackling, when it's seriously dangerous for them to do so.

We're trying to protect players' heads remember.

Neither May nor Newcombe should have been suspended.

That's not the issue I've been posting about. The issue is that the AFL are outlawing vulnerable players like Newcombe and May from protecting themselves.

It's idiotic.

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.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Okay cool I tend to agree with you personally when or if I'm ever in that situation I'm bracing and protecting myself, but I don't play at the same level pace velocity as AFL so not sure if that makes any difference.

One thing where is the context for Newk to get 3 weeks like May. Because that was your first opinion you shared.

I'd brace myself too - and I'd sue the shit out of the AFL if I was forced to stand there front on and cop a human cannon ball to the head.

My first opinion that he would get 3 weeks was based on the ridiculous precedent the AFL have set on this recently.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

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.

He would have been if he stood front and tackled!

 

[Jim Prideaux]

He would have been if he stood front and tackled!

No, he wouldn’t, as he wouldn’t have hit him front on. Listen, May was unlucky, but it wasn’t unfair.