No Oppo Supporters Non Bulldog Footy Talk - Bulldogs only - Part 2

[jdz101]

Katie Brennan goes back and slots a set shot that the vast majority of our men's AFL team would struggle with or over-complicate.

Sigh.

 

[BRWB]

Cotch was going for the ball IMO. Play on.

Ellis is in trouble.

 

[Hard Ball Get]

Tigers look to have the VEL sewn up. So many similarities.

 

[Pugz89]

This has been some sort of VFL grand final. Boroughs are full of heart!

 

[Chicago1]

Tigers look to have the VEL sewn up. So many similarities.

Really? LOL

Suffer in yer jocks, Tigers!

 

[Bemoreboyddog]

#richmondy

 

[Pugz89]

I wouldn't know graham, Broad, astbury, grimes, mcintosh, lambert, Townsend, castagna and butler if I fell over them. And they're into a GF.

It's how you play, not who ya got. We showed that last year as well.

Career best year for Dave Astbury. Local from up here. Great guy and comes from a ripper family! Really happy for the Tiges not just for beating GWS but them and Crows playing off means every team outside of expansion pair will have played in a grand final since 1999.

 

[jdz101]

Castagna genuinely sucks. I struggle to see how a guy that cant hit a basic target with either kick or handball is going to be a contributor in a grand final.

Good foot speed =/= good footballer.

 

[Johnny_Dogg4]

Tigers look to have the VEL sewn up. So many similarities.

Lol What what
They blew a lead

 

[Chicago1]

And next week we'll see that beautiful yellow jumper lose once again.

 

[Bemoreboyddog]

Why does Gary Ayres remind me of Gary Busey?

 

[Draft Pick]

And next week we'll see that beautiful yellow jumper lose once again.

It's pathological with you. What happend ?

Was it something in the late 70s early 80s ?

 

[Hard Ball Get]

Really? LOL

Suffer in yer jocks, Tigers!

Amazing that they lost that.

 

[dogwatch]

So the AFL is keen to minimise concussions and the long term effects of cumulative head hits?

Let's see how serious they are.

From the footage I've seen this was an avoidable concussion (unlike Ward's in last year's PF).

If it was a fringe player I think it would be a lay-down misere - two weeks - but because it's Cotchin and there's so much romance attached to the Tigers finally making a GF I expect he will get off.

Good luck to him and Richmond. I wouldn't normally begrudge either of them their opportunity.

I just think an exoneration in this instance would send a bad message as to what's acceptable on the field and how spineless the AFL is in not adjudicating consistently on it.

And because clubs would know the AFL is wishy-washy on it, it could also encourage sneaky pre-emptive hits on star players in future finals. How sympathetic would we be if Bontempelli was forced to sit out 3/4 of a PF after a hit like that?

 

[The Original Swooper]

no dramas Swoop - I just see some similar comments on here from time to time - and sometimes you Melbourne folk need to look outside of your bubble

It is slowing changing up here - when I first arrived up here in '93 AFL was a dirty word, 10 years on from there people were starting to tell me about AFL and now it is accepted. I know quite a few Swans members now but struggled to find one when I first got here - I even know a couple of GWS members.

Yes it will take time for GWS to build a solid supporter base as it did for the Swans. It will probably take another 10-15 years - a semi generational change out west. Auskick will infiltrate and give the kids another option.
I'm pretty sure the AFL would have had a 20 year plan (or something similar)

And yes Sydney sporting crowds are - well - poor/fickle at any event be it NRL, ARU, or whatever, so I cant disagree on the "theatre goers".

Also agree the Gold Coast is not the place for a team - even NRL has struggled there. While the Gold Coast is one of the largest growth areas - it is not a sporting culture up there. IMO it should have been Tassie (and don't give me this bullshit sponsorship argument)

all that said I'm pretty confident GWS are here for the long term.

All fair points mate. Time will be the judge. I just love telling those self entitled GWS tossers that they are headed to Canberra. Lol. Norf will end up in Tassie. GCS should become the NT Crocs.

Hope no offence was taken re the theatre goers comment. After years of visiting Sydney regularly for both business and footy, it's just not the same sporting culture. And I was mates with a few high profile League boys years ago, and it was the same back then.

Cheers.

 

[TempletonTheRat]

All fair points mate. Time will be the judge. I just love telling those self entitled GWS tossers that they are headed to Canberra. Lol. Norf will end up in Tassie. GCS should become the NT Crocs.

Hope no offence was taken re the theatre goers comment. After years of visiting Sydney regularly for both business and footy, it's just not the same sporting culture. And I was mates with a few high profile League boys years ago, and it was the same back then.

Cheers.

No offence taken - I'm an expat, born and bred in country Vic .

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

So the AFL is keen to minimise concussions and the long term effects of cumulative head hits?

Let's see how serious they are.

From the footage I've seen this was an avoidable concussion (unlike Ward's in last year's PF).

If it was a fringe player I think it would be a lay-down misere - two weeks - but because it's Cotchin and there's so much romance attached to the Tigers finally making a GF I expect he will get off.

Good luck to him and Richmond. I wouldn't normally begrudge either of them their opportunity.

I just think an exoneration in this instance would send a bad message as to what's acceptable on the field and how spineless the AFL is in not adjudicating consistently on it.

And because clubs would know the AFL is wishy-washy on it, it could also encourage sneaky pre-emptive hits on star players in future finals. How sympathetic would we be if Bontempelli was forced to sit out 3/4 of a PF after a hit like that?

I'll preface my response with this: you won't find a more passionate advocate of the importance of ensuring the safety of the head in professional sport, nor will you find a more outspoken opponent of the AFL's current approach(es). I plan on dedicating my life to helping individuals with acquired brain injuries and also to further researching and advocating strongly for the need for greater education in professional sporting contexts, and the need for better, less opaque procedures when players are suspected to have suffered any degree of damage to the nervous system. As you would imagine, this is a topic that is very close to my heart and one that I am always very conservative with.

Our role as consumers of professional sporting entertainment is to understand the need to limit unnecessary risk of brain damage. The role of the professional sporting body is to ensure that the rules around endangering the head (and spine for that matter) are crystal clear and minimise risk to the players; that players that do unnecessarily risk the safety of their opponent be punished harshly; and that the protocol followed when brain damage is suffered or even suspected is thorough and not open to manipulation or even interpretation. It is of vital importance that we continue to grow in this area as we begin to understand more and more the complexities of traumatic brain injury and concussion.

With all of that said, sport is always going to be sport and with that comes an acknowledgment of the dangers - and that will always constitute some level of risk to the head.

What we do not want to start doing is punishing players for playing the ball and making incidental contact to the head. Cotchin has an obligation to his club, his teammates, the sport and its fans to contest the ball and not slow up and wait for his opponent to pick the ball up. As a follow on from this, he has a responsibility to go as low as possible and to play the ball rather than the man, as well as a right to turn his body when approaching a contest for personal safety. In this instance he has done all of these things, made an outstanding play to take himself from position B to position A (in terms of being the player better placed to win the ball), and made contact to Shiel's chin as part of the process. The force of the impact has clearly resulted in some secondary motion to the head and thus the manipulation of the brain, causing some degree of concussion, and while we do need to protect players from this, we really cannot go further than ensuring that players fulfil their "duty of care" requirements. In this instance, I sincerely believe Cotchin has.

If we begin to punish acts that are desperate, yet clearly intended only to play the ball without crossing the obscure "line" of acceptable recklessness, we endanger the physical and emotional nature of football and approach an area of grey.

I do sympathise with and understand your perspective - was it avoidable? Yes, it was. However we can't afford to lose desperation from our game. I acknowledge that there is a fine line between being desperate and reckless - and Cotchin probably did err very slightly towards the latter category - but in this instance I don't think the act itself was dangerous enough to justify a suspension. As previously mentioned Cotchin went as low as possible, directed his force solely towards the ball, and most importantly, made a reasonable attempt to contest the ball - i.e. this wasn't a hail Mary with absolutely no chance of succeeding. He was justified in approaching it the way he did as it was a successful attempt. Without doing so he comes off second best in a footballing sense, of that I am certain, and the act could easily have been completed without causing an injury.

Now, what I can't argue with is that based on precedent, he should be suspended. I don't believe in justifying current decisions with past incorrect ones, however, so independent of any other incident, I would not fine or suspend Cotchin for this.

 

[TempletonTheRat]

I'll preface my response with this: you won't find a more passionate advocate of the importance of ensuring the safety of the head in professional sport, nor will you find a more outspoken opponent of the AFL's current approach(es). I plan on dedicating my life to helping individuals with acquired brain injuries and also to further researching and advocating strongly for the need for greater education in professional sporting contexts, and the need for better, less opaque procedures when players are suspected to have suffered any degree of damage to the nervous system. As you would imagine, this is a topic that is very close to my heart and one that I am always very conservative with.

Our role as consumers of professional sporting entertainment is to understand the need to limit unnecessary risk of brain damage. The role of the professional sporting body is to ensure that the rules around endangering the head (and spine for that matter) are crystal clear and minimise risk to the players; that players that do unnecessarily risk the safety of their opponent be punished harshly; and that the protocol followed when brain damage is suffered or even suspected is thorough and not open to manipulation or even interpretation. It is of vital importance that we continue to grow in this area as we begin to understand more and more the complexities of traumatic brain injury and concussion.

With all of that said, sport is always going to be sport and with that comes an acknowledgment of the dangers - and that will always constitute some level of risk to the head.

What we do not want to start doing is punishing players for playing the ball and making incidental contact to the head. Cotchin has an obligation to his club, his teammates, the sport and its fans to contest the ball and not slow up and wait for his opponent to pick the ball up. As a follow on from this, he has a responsibility to go as low as possible and to play the ball rather than the man, as well as a right to turn his body when approaching a contest for personal safety. In this instance he has done all of these things, made an outstanding play to take himself from position B to position A (in terms of being the player better placed to win the ball), and made contact to Shiel's chin as part of the process. The force of the impact has clearly resulted in some secondary motion to the head and thus the manipulation of the brain, causing some degree of concussion, and while we do need to protect players from this, we really cannot go further than ensuring that players fulfil their "duty of care" requirements. In this instance, I sincerely believe Cotchin has.

If we begin to punish acts that are desperate, yet clearly intended only to play the ball without crossing the obscure "line" of acceptable recklessness, we endanger the physical and emotional nature of football and approach an area of grey.

I do sympathise with and understand your perspective - was it avoidable? Yes, it was. However we can't afford to lose desperation from our game. I acknowledge that there is a fine line between being desperate and reckless - and Cotchin probably did err very slightly towards the latter category - but in this instance I don't think the act itself was dangerous enough to justify a suspension. As previously mentioned Cotchin went as low as possible, directed his force solely towards the ball, and most importantly, made a reasonable attempt to contest the ball - i.e. this wasn't a hail Mary with absolutely no chance of succeeding. He was justified in approaching it the way he did as it was a successful attempt. Without doing so he comes off second best in a footballing sense, of that I am certain, and the act could easily have been completed without causing an injury.

Now, what I can't argue with is that based on precedent, he should be suspended. I don't believe in justifying current decisions with past incorrect ones, however, so independent of any other incident, I would not fine or suspend Cotchin for this.

Thanks for this Dannnn.... makes great sense.

I watched Offsiders this morning and they highlighted that Sheil played on after the incident with Cotchin. He then received a further knock some 10 minutes later (I don't recall who the other party in this second incidence was); it was after this that he was taken from the ground.
Perhaps delayed concussion from the first hit or perhaps because of the first hit the second hit brought on the concussion.

would love to hear your thoughts on that.

Edit: It was David Astbury with 8 seconds left in the 1st quarter.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Thanks for this Dannnn.... makes great sense.

I watched Offsiders this morning and they highlighted that Sheil played on after the incident with Cotchin. He then received a further knock some 10 minutes later (I don't recall who the other party in this second incidence was); it was after this that he was taken from the ground.
Perhaps delayed concussion from the first hit or perhaps because of the first hit the second hit brought on the concussion.

would love to hear your thoughts on that.

This is one of the primary issues that we face moving forward.

The onset of concussion symptoms can be delayed by days or even weeks in some cases. Where this becomes complicated is that any concussion - whether you have experienced the related symptoms or not - both increases your risk for subsequent concussions considerably, and increases the severity of any further damage. Further complicating this is that our return-to-field assessments (or CogStat as you may have heard it referred to as) are based around these visible symptoms: we diagnose the incidence of concussion based on the symptoms that may not be present yet. We conduct this assessment approximately 20 minutes after the suspected injury.

As such we're left with clear evidence that players should not return to field following concussion (and even that they should be forced to take a week off) but no way to diagnose concussion in the moment.

Clearly, professional neuropsychologists need more effective and efficient methods of diagnosing concussion/brain injury "in the moment." Until then, though, there is a very fair argument to be made that the league needs to be more conservative in keeping players off the ground after head knocks. There are obvious complications with that - number one being that the player feels fine and wants to return to the ground, his/her teammates want them back on the field, their coaches do, the fans do, the wider club does, and the medical professionals face considerable pressure to allow them back on the field when there is no sign of concussion in spite of the prevalence of false negatives.

Overall, as an industry we need to open up dialogue of incidents like this and work out a solution: one that minimises the risk to the player and does not pressure medical professionals to make unethical decisions, but also acknowledges the player's desire to provide informed consent to return to field when symptoms have not arisen. At the very least, in my view we need to be far stricter on the 20 minute CogStat requirement: if a player has suffered a knock to the head, they need to pass a return to field assessment before returning to play.

 

[dogwatch]

Thanks Dannnnnnnnnn . Good to read some informed and considered opinion on the matter. Congrats also on your chosen vocation.

Twenty years ago this was play on. No report, no review, etc. My position (i.e. scepticism, even cynicism) arises from the fact that the AFL have claimed they are trying to address this area of the game. I simply don't think they are consistent and as a result everyone is left confused and I think there are many like me who question how committed they really are.

Furthermore it often appears that the inconsistency is in the context of media pressure, big names and/or awkward circumstances for the AFL or the club. This leads one to the suspicion that the letter and spirit of the law are negotiable depending on who's involved and what the implications for the club or player are and how much pressure is brought to bear by the media. That's a worse sin in my view because they are selling themselves out.

It's interesting that you say this incident should be excused because Cotchin was doing his darnedest to get the ball (and I agree that was his primary aim, BTW) and that some incidental contact, even to the head, is sometimes inevitable. And that we don't want to lose some of the desperation of the game. I have exactly that difficulty with the "sliding in" rule where the penalised player can be more desperate and can be first to the ball but still concedes a free kick to a player who may not have even had his head over the ball. To me that rule is at least as problematical because there have been very few serious leg injuries as a result of players sliding in (mainly the one to Rohan IIRC) but the rule penalises players who in all or most cases are clearly playing the ball not the man.

These two - there may be more examples - are areas where the fundamental physical contact nature of the sport is being changed as a result of certain high profile injuries and medical opinions. It's going to be a difficult balance. On the one hand we have people who say we don't want it to become like netball and on the other we have read disturbing stories of people struggling for the rest of their lives with the consequences of head and other injuries. We don't want that either.

I don't know what the answer is, other than that we need more leadership and consistency from the AFL on it. If they are going to introduce laws that change the game they need to be resolute and they need to provide better education, not just to players but to fans and the media, and perhaps even to their own MRP and tribunal. It troubles me that these rules affect the basic instinct that players have always had just to go in hard. I'm not saying they shouldn't change the rules but it risks altering something that has always been fundamental to the game.

We have certainly seen some troubling inconsistency in judicial outcomes and interpretations in the last year or two and I can see this being just another.

 

[Hard Ball Get]

I'm all for cracking down on head high hits that are intentional or reckless. This was neither.

 

[BRWB]

I'm all for cracking down on head high hits that are intentional or reckless. This was neither.

Cotch went for the ball and turned his body to protect himself. Any head contact was incidental. Any question on sliding only arises on taking a blokes legs out and IMO isn't relevant.

If Sheil had done the same as Cotch he'd have been ok.

 

[Hard Ball Get]

To be honest, I think it's sad that there's even debate surrounding it. It was fantastic finals desperation, the kind we loved from blokes like Clay and Dahl last year.

It would be horrible for football if he got a week, and it's horrible for football that it's even an issue, possibly overshadowing part of what is a great week.

Punish thugs and recklessness, not desperation and tough contested footy.

 

[W W Biscuit]

To be honest, I think it's sad that there's even debate surrounding it. It was fantastic finals desperation, the kind we loved from blokes like Clay and Dahl last year.

It would be horrible for football if he got a week, and it's horrible for football that it's even an issue, possibly overshadowing part of what is a great week.

Punish thugs and recklessness, not desperation and tough contested footy.

Would be interesting to see Cotchin suspended for going hard at the ball in a contest, when Toby Greene walked away scot-free for booting Dahl in the head!

 

[grassman75]

Would be interesting to see Cotchin suspended for going hard at the ball in a contest, when Toby Greene walked away scot-free for booting Dahl in the head!

Except he didn't. He got a fine. And in this case, that is all Cotchin's is worth at best (based solely on precedence and the "rules" the MRP / AFL have set for the year) where the problem lies, as I said earlier, is that Cotchin should have been suspended earlier in the season for his hit on Neale, and failure by the MRP has left him walking a tightrope. I don't want to see him suspended, that would be the cruellest of cruel' however the AFL can't have it both ways. Remember the outrage on here when Woody got a week for a "love tap" that didn't even injure anyone? That's cos he had two fines and that was his third, alabeit soft fine, which equals 1 week on the pine. Whether or not Cotchin intended to bump or not, whether or not what he did was soft / hard at the ball is irrelevant. Shiel ended up concussed and missed most of the game.

Over to you AFL and your ****ed up rules and interpretations