MFC Fans Only Non-MFC related footy chat 2021

[Bluelegs]

The problem with helmets is they only protect the exterior of the head, preventing skull fractures. Concussion is caused by the movement of the brain within the skull when it moves like jelly after a high impact collision and rapid changes in movement.

To prevent concussion the AFL should look to the humble woodpecker:

The woodpecker is known for it's ability to create cavities in trees for the purposes of nesting and food storage by rapidly pecking at the tree not unlike a jackhammer. But how does this bird manage to do this without enduring severe brain injury?

The reason is that the Woodpecker has an extremely long tongue which extends into the skull, behind and over the brain:

This means that while the woodpecker hammers away, it's brain is only moving against the soft surface of it's tongue as opposed to the hard bone of it's skull.

If the AFL could genetically modify players tongues the same way, it will go a long way to preventing concussions.

Also it will make the players a hit with the ladies.

 

[LeverPuller]

The problem with helmets is they only protect the exterior of the head, preventing skull fractures. Concussion is caused by the movement of the brain within the skull when it moves like jelly after a high impact collision and rapid changes in movement.

To prevent concussion the AFL should look to the humble woodpecker:

The woodpecker is known for it's ability to create crevices in trees for the purposes of nesting and food storage by rapidly pecking at the tree not unlike a jackhammer. But how does this bird manage to do this while without enduring severe brain injury?

The reason is that the Woodpecker has an extremely long tongue which extends into the skull, behind and over the brain:

This means that while the woodpecker hammers away, it's brain is only moving against the soft surface of it's tongue as opposed to the hard bone of it's skull.

If the AFL could genetically modify players tongues the same way, it will go a long way to preventing concussions.

Also it will make the players a hit with the ladies.

This is the high quality content I come here for

 

[dee_mac]

I'm almost certain they have a 10/20/30 year plan to make it as non contact as possible so that mums let their kids play.

It's so noticeable aswell, they penalise some nothing incident, outrage happens and then they reverse it only to clamp down on the next one after the public is conditioned.

Kids are taking up the game in record numbers though. Both boys and girls. To the point there are not enough ovals to facilitate the demand for games. So it's not even like the they're reacting to grassroots numbers drying up. Far more many positives to be had for kids to take up footy compared to the risk long term injury. Life is all about weighing up risk and making choices. AFL needs to stop trying to do it for everyone under the guise of a duty of care.

 

[LeverPuller]

It’s entirely about the legal risk. The AFL is worried about getting sued later.

 

[dee_mac]

It’s entirely about the legal risk. The AFL is worried about getting sued later.

How is that not accounted for in every players contract though? I do high risk work all the time. There are systems in place to minimise the risk. I understand them and the fact that even if they are fully implemented, some risks are never completely eliminated. I still choose to do the work with that knowledge. And my employer knows that if we have everything implemented that we have documented and agreed upon, then they would not be liable. Why is the AFL different to every other workplace and OH&S regs?

 

[Bluelegs]

How is that not accounted for in every players contract though? I do high risk work all the time. There are systems in place to minimise the risk. I understand them and the fact that even if they are fully implemented, some risks are never completely eliminated. I still choose to do the work with that knowledge. And my employer knows that if we have everything implemented that we have documented and agreed upon, then they would not be liable. Why is the AFL different to every other workplace and OH&S regs?

I'm not super knowledgable in this area but I think OH&S regulations still require the employer to be actively working towards mitigating risks wherever they can. If an employer can just dust their hands and say it comes with the territory nothing would ever be done to improve safety standards in any profession.

 

[Topkent]

How is that not accounted for in every players contract though? I do high risk work all the time. There are systems in place to minimise the risk. I understand them and the fact that even if they are fully implemented, some risks are never completely eliminated. I still choose to do the work with that knowledge. And my employer knows that if we have everything implemented that we have documented and agreed upon, then they would not be liable. Why is the AFL different to every other workplace and OH&S regs?

It's ******* dumb. Boxers don't sue for being punched in the head. AFL players shouldn't be allowed to sue for a collision

 

[LeverPuller]

It's ******* dumb. Boxers don't sue for being punched in the head. AFL players shouldn't be allowed to sue for a collision

It’s happening globally. NFL and soccer have the same problems. AFL have already legal cases (Daniel Bell).

 

[Topkent]

It’s happening globally. NFL and soccer have the same problems. AFL have already legal cases (Daniel Bell).

In the NHL you sign waivers that you can sue the league.
I'd ******* happily lose players to bring that into the AFL

 

[dee_mac]

I'm not super knowledgable in this area but I think OH&S regulations still require the employer to be actively working towards mitigating risks wherever they can. If an employer can just dust their hands and say it comes with the territory nothing would ever be done to improve safety standards in any profession.

Yeah but they're using disincentives rather than actually doing anything. I'd like to see an employer say to their workers "we see working at heights as our leading risk. As such, if you engage in working at heights you will paid a lesser rate. We think this will lessen the amount of people engaging in this risky activity". And then expect people to engage them for a service that they no longer provide at the rate they did previously.

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

Wrong thread

 

[ABray10]

Yeah but they're using disincentives rather than actually doing anything. I'd like to see an employer say to their workers "we see working at heights as our leading risk. As such, if you engage in working at heights you will paid a lesser rate. We think this will lessen the amount of people engaging in this risky activity". And then expect people to engage them for a service that they no longer provide at the rate they did previously.

Agree with this, I work in construction and the onus is on you as the employee to follow safety regulations put in place to keep you safe. If you don't it is usually an immediate dismissal. Never seen a player in the AFL deregistered for ducking, or leading at the ball with their head rather than turning the body despite the increased risk it puts them at.

I do agree with trying to make everything safe, but as soon as you start penalising a player for going for the ball because someone else got hurt then you have to wonder what next? If you aren't closest to the ball you aren't allowed to contest it in case the other person gets hurt? What about contributory negligence, Hunter Clark chose to go for the ball as well, he could have pulled out.

 

[Topkent]

I weirdly respect Caro for doubling down on her opinion and not becoming a sorry bot like the blokes, but at the same time sooking about the pile on after being the instigator of that behaviour for decades.

 

[dee_mac]

I weirdly respect Caro for doubling down on her opinion and not becoming a sorry bot like the blokes, but at the same time sooking about the pile on after being the instigator of that behaviour for decades.

She's a fcukwit. Would be right at home if Sky news had a dedicated footy show

 

[TheCount]

It’s entirely about the legal risk. The AFL is worried about getting sued later.

Came to say exactly this ... passing it off as moves "for the children" when they're just trying to protect themselves.

 

[Pickitt]

Wtf are with bigfooty ads

 

[Jamurp]

Wtf are with bigfooty ads

Yeah get the ones about earwax and tonsil stones? Wtf, absolutely grim.

 

[Pickitt]

Yeah get the ones about earwax and tonsil stones? Wtf, absolutely grim.

Scrolling down I see "5 Celebs that are actually gay" Who pays Chief for exposure to this site

 

[Tulip]

Except ice hockey players are men, AFL players are pansies

You're such a nuff and I love it

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

Interesting discussion on why goal kicking is so bad today from Lyon and Lloyd.

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

So glad McKay got off but this ain't dead by any means, dickheads like King will keep crapping on about til their screams are heard.

All we've done is kick the can down the road a bit.

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

Fox Footy and it's "landmark" headline is typical overdramatization from them

 

[Topkent]

So glad McKay got off but this ain't dead by any means, dickheads like King will keep crapping on about til their screams are heard.

All we've done is kick the can down the road a bit.

100%
The fact that Plowman got 2 weeks was a disgrace.
They don't want people to go hard at the ball anymore and someone else is gonna get weeks for something similar either this year or early next year.

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

100%
The fact that Plowman got 2 weeks was a disgrace.
They don't want people to go hard at the ball anymore and someone else is gonna get weeks for something similar either this year or early next year.

Yep, absolutely no consistency on this, AFL wants a foot in both camps , please the fans who dont want the game overcorrected to s**t and throw a bone to the drama queens like David King occasionally by handing out a random suspension.

 

[Topkent]

Yep, absolutely no consistency on this, AFL wants a foot in both camps , please the fans who dont want the game overcorrected to sh*t and throw a bone to the drama queens like David King occasionally by handing out a random suspension.

5 years ago you wouldn't have even looked at these things. 5 years from now they're going to have to start suspending players who knee someone in the head in a marking contest. You'll only be allowed to sje a hanger if you don't make contact.