Outcome based Suspensions.

[demondavey]

Yep, just remove scoring, ladders and finals and then they all winners.

I received the ‘most improved’ one year in seniors. The girl I took with me said ‘is that because you used to be shit’?

 

[Topkent]

This Kappa bloke is a fair dinkum pin head.
Trying to argue that a shephard isn't a shephard is some of the dumbest shit you could read on this forum

 

[demondavey]

This Kappa bloke is a fair dinkum pin head.
Trying to argue that a shephard isn't a shephard is some of the dumbest **** you could read on this forum

Can you say that on BF and not get rubbed out?

 

[Farang83150]

This Kappa bloke is a fair dinkum pin head.
Trying to argue that a shephard isn't a shephard is some of the dumbest **** you could read on this forum

He has quite a bit of previous form in that area.

 

[Topkent]

Can you say that on BF and not get rubbed out?

He will probably report me and I'll cop a week but I really don't care. You say dumb shit you deserve to have it called out as dumb shit. If he had of said yeah it's a shephard but I agree with a tough stance well that would be one thing. But to try and say that's not a shephard is pin head behaviour

 

[masai]

An accident is an accident and all over the ground in all circumstances accidental injury should be treated simply as it is. Bad luck it’s an accident.

I fully agree, just wish the MRP would get on the same page as us.

I think they should prosecute the intent, rather than outcome.

I can line you up, try to run through you and knock you block off, but I glance off you and no injury occurs. Thus there is no injury, so no case to answer.

But then we could both be contesting the ball, collide and I clip your shoulder into your jaw. You get a broken jaw and I get 2 weeks. There was zero intent to injure you, but the accident occurred.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I fully agree, just wish the MRP would get on the same page as us.

I think they should prosecute the intent, rather than outcome.

I can line you up, try to run through you and knock you block off, but I glance off you and no injury occurs. Thus there is no injury, so no case to answer.

But then we could both be contesting the ball, collide and I clip your shoulder into your jaw. You get a broken jaw and I get 2 weeks. There was zero intent to injure you, but the accident occurred.

Could not agree more mate

 

[Scotland]

What about Matthew Lloyd on Henry Slattery? Vicious.

 

[Topkent]

What about Matthew Lloyd on Henry Slattery? Vicious.

Alex Keath should get weeks for his hit on Hartigan. Dog act

 

[demondavey]

Could not agree more mate

Spot on

 

[demondavey]

What about Matthew Lloyd on Henry Slattery? Vicious.

Serious one; how many weeks did Lloyd get for his hit on Sewell?

 

[Topkent]

Serious one; how many weeks did Lloyd get for his hit on Sewell?

6

 

[asanque]

I fully agree, just wish the MRP would get on the same page as us.

I think they should prosecute the intent, rather than outcome.

I can line you up, try to run through you and knock you block off, but I glance off you and no injury occurs. Thus there is no injury, so no case to answer.

But then we could both be contesting the ball, collide and I clip your shoulder into your jaw. You get a broken jaw and I get 2 weeks. There was zero intent to injure you, but the accident occurred.

It first should be 'no harm, no foul'.

Second, if there is harm, then assess intent.

Edit: let's ensure the AFL is a tough sport where split second accidents are not punished. However, punish intentional acts that cause harm, more seriously.

 

[Monkey King]

Can someone please explain ...

No one can explain that with anything other than nonsense and bullshit. Look at Setterfield’s tackle a few weeks ago. Completely legal, no second action, no two arms pinned. Got 2 weeks because the idiot he tackled held on to the ball instead of protecting himself; and half the fools who support the game have been indoctrinated to believe this is how it should be.

The changes in our game reflect the changes in our society ... when something goes wrong, look for someone to blame.

 

[OnceWeWereKings]

No one can explain that with anything other than nonsense and ********. Look at Setterfield’s tackle a few weeks ago. Completely legal, no second action, no two arms pinned. Got 2 weeks because the idiot he tackled held on to the ball instead of protecting himself; and half the fools who support the game have been indoctrinated to believe this is how it should be.

The changes in our game reflect the changes in our society ... when something goes wrong, look for someone to blame.

The Setterfield suspension was a farce. Worst MRO decision of the year. And there have been some absolute howlers.

 

[Tugga27]

Can you say that on BF and not get rubbed out?

TopKent is the same guy who cried to everyone in the cricket forum when he felt he had been abused by someone.
Kept banging on about people posting abusive posts.

Oh the hypocrisy

 

[John Who]

I’ve been responding to such topics for yonks now. I don’t like the way the game is heading with all the ridiculous suspensions for accidental knocks.

I think the problem is that the AFL have made a simple blanket rule when a “concussion” occurs. But this doesn’t allow for justice because there are different level of intents to injure as well as many grades of concussion.

If a player has ZERO intent to cause concussion, and the concussed passes the concussion test the next day, then it should just be play on for next week for both parties.

Why penalise accidents when the game is ripe for accidents (and concussions) to happen?

 

[demondavey]

I’ve been responding to such topics for yonks now. I don’t like the way the game is heading with all the ridiculous suspensions for accidental knocks.

I think the problem is that the AFL have made a simple blanket rule when a “concussion” occurs. But this doesn’t allow for justice because there are different level of intents to injure as well as many grades of concussion.

If a player has ZERO intent to cause concussion, and the concussed passes the concussion test the next day, then it should just be play on for next week for both parties.

Why penalise accidents when the game is ripe for accidents (and concussions) to happen?

I agree. If you look at the footage of the bump on Rohan there was nothing malicious about it that showed serious intent to hurt. It was a shepherd. Now the fact that Rohan was concussed was a result of the fact this is a physical game played by very advanced athletes that move at a good velocity. These lads are 80-85kg but the power they generate is huge. That’s just modern science of sport.

The issue is that there is a connection between intent and outcome, with the latter influencing the other when there is a concussion. Your intent may not be there to concuss, but unfortunately you can’t predict how things will roll out. Let’s look at the May hit on Martin.



Now that is what I’d argue an intent to seriously hurt and it wasn’t required. That was negligent and just uncalled for. As was Brodie Holland on Montgomery.



The AFL has created a monster in that they are punishing by outcome and forcing the player to accept responsibility. A responsible shepherd or tackle can still cause a concussion BUT if the technique is good then you can’t say there was intent to cause injury.

Now this is a photo of the Rohan bump. Note that where Durdin collects him is NOT above the shoulders, it’s flush on the mid shoulder or chest. It’s a pretty perfect bump. The shoulder is nowhere near Rohan’s head, yet Rohan suffered a knock because the after effect was forceful. Has anyone also noticed Rohan not looking or being aware of Durdin? Yet Durdin was coming at him side on?

I don’t know how they grade these hits, but I’d look at it and say;

1. Intention was to shepherd not to cause unnecessary harm
2. Contact was not high
3. It was within a reasonable distance of play and was instituted to protect the ball carrier

 

[demondavey]

What this is doing is degrading the very fabric of the sport. Football is a pretty rough game. I am fully aware that ‘back in the day’ we have seen the outcomes of repeated concussions and the adverse cerebral affects on people; Barnes, Platten, Williams.

Now I’ve got no issues with a fully resourced concussion management program. Spend as much as you need to investigate these issues and ensure we can look after players during their careers. Players also need to be aware they are at risk of concussions and the adverse affects of such when playing a game like this.

Medicine has come a long way since 1989, I say we embrace it fully and ensure we are aware of the issues re it, but let’s not look at the Durdin bump and punish a player for executing a very reasonable act of the game. I’d also say this was made a lot worse by Rohan NOT LOOKING or missing peripheral vision of Durdin.

As I said, the AFL has created a monster and it’s very messy. For a lot of highly paid ‘executives’ and I use that term very loosely, they are turning the game into a laughing stock.

 

[John Who]

I made a thread discussion some while ago. I recommend it for those who's interested in concussion as much as I am:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/why-penalties-relating-to-concussions-can-be-unfair.1201807/
Main point that was made is that concussions can result from various sources/reasons other than the opponent bumping into you. It should never be as simple as "you bumped him, he's concussed so now you're ****ed with 1-3 or more weeks suspension". Believing so is not really understanding the fabric of our game, or any contact sports for that matter.