Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVII

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

feel the same way about isaac quaynor, he was instrumental to the pies success last season, and he's been basically irrelevant to most of their games so far this season
Teams are playing bigger players on him. Struggles in the air.

Looks like he might have bulked up a bit too much also. Doesn't seem to have the run.
 
He'd be importantly cheering from the sideline with an 8 week quad
Granted, with the proviso that he got himself in some sort of physical health 😂

I just think that players who come from nowhere early in their career (ie mid-low draft picks) to be competent players, often get there because they thrive in the environment that brought that out in them originally. Going to another club might be an ill-fit and the sense of belonging might be too hard to accomplish depending on the personality.
 
Carlton have a tough run here. Melbourne, Sydney (a), GC (h), Port (a). Must beat GC really
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

In seriousness, Carlton's run:

Melbourne
Sydney at the SCG
Gold Coast (home)
Port at AO
Essendon
Geelong
Richmond
GWS in Sydney
Bulldogs
North
Port (home)
Collingwood

That's a seriously tough run.
200w.gif
 
Personally think Carlton are good team but * me do people overate them.
Meh, only really impressed me in one game against GWS, who had no Taylor and Cogs. Their other convincing win was against North (lol). They've literally fallen over the line in every other game. The Brisbane game in OR was Brisbane's inaccuracy that cost them. Could've really put them away early. Lucky to beat the Tigers by 5 points who are average, and you could argue umps got them over the line against Freo. Shut Curnow down who's their only real threat and they can be beaten more often than not. They have a pretty good list, but they're far from the premiers they think they are.
 
I couldnt give a toss about Luke Parker not being selected.
Braeden Campbell being omitted though. That's interesting. Anyone know why?

Incidentally, he's out of contract at the end of next year...
 
Well the current system has been good for punishing players.

How that constitutes doing all reasonable things to eliminate a risk of head knocks so far as reasonably practicable, is unclear. I struggle to see how the AFL is protecting its liability position. To start discharging its duty it needs to issue clear directives setting out expextations for incidents (including demanding players protect themselves - add a free kick against for leading with your head), creating a right of way to prevent players recklessly going back with the flight.

Almost all of these scenarios we've been talking about for at least 7 years now are 100% incidental to legitimate football actions.

Commentators love to point out that 'there is no football actions box to be checked in the MRO's matrix', and that's great. But that's not the point. We're supposed to be protecting the head not punishing players for its sake. The reason a football action is relevant, and it's a position that a club should have taken to the Tribunal and to appeal by now, is because its the football action which causes the contact. If you don't stop that action you don't stop the collision because even though Peter Wright is suspended he's going to try to take a chest mark of a ball kicked to him, and dips**t is going to charge into his path and not protect himself, and its going to result in the same thing. Wright needs to be told exactly what was expected of him so that it is a useful precedent for the next time a player is faced with that scenario.

How does any player factor a suspension into Wright's decision about whether to take a chest mark?

The only way to actually stop these incidents, and not undermine the game, is not to put it on the suspended player. It's almost always the guy hurt who is at fault. He's the only one who can protect himself.

No amount of virtue signalling changes the reality that we are no closer to stamping out these big head knocks and it's been how many years now?
Sorry if this is a dumb question.. Why can’t the AFL manage liability by establishing an insurance scheme and asking players to sign that they waive any additional rights to damages?
 
Sorry if this is a dumb question.. Why can’t the AFL manage liability by establishing an insurance scheme and asking players to sign that they waive any additional rights to damages?
I don't see soldiers suing when they get wounded.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top