Roast The AFL aren't taking concussion and head trauma seriously enough. Lalor/Ginbey incident.

[Brezsa]

It's not hysterics when a young kid has concussion and a broken jaw because of the deliberate actions of a player.

It is hysterics & the players age is irrelevant. If it was a 35 year old in game 425 & season 16 the result of any investigation or suspension should be the same.

But you are being hysterical, been far worst on the footy field (and will be this season), you are also a week early, as no decision has been made.

What outcome do you want here? Gibney 1 week? Gibney taken out to slaughter, banned from the comp & all his children & grand children never allowed to play footy?

 

[bzparkes]

Why was a free kick given then?
I'm sure if Harley Reid had concussion/broken jaw from a deliberate push you'd have an entirely different take.

Didn't think it was a free at the time either, looked in the side but he may have gotten him in the back.

Are you saying you can't jostle with blokes to get to a marking contest anymore, in case someone comes back with the flight and causes a concussion?

 

[zyzzbruh]

This is dumb as shit.

So you're saying Hopper is fine because it was collarbone but if they'd have clashed heads he should've been given weeks, despite the action being exactly the same?

The hysterics from some Richmond supporters have been very amusing, to say the least.

Yes. Ultimately one resulted in head trauma - it's a direct consequence of a poorly timed action. You can choose to make the same action all you want and get away with it, but if one is ill timed and results in trauma then you're cited for it (same as the bump, you can still bump it just has to be legally executed), not that hard to understand.

Now that's not saying other injuries should not be brought into the equation, but that's a different discussion. Personally i think Ginbey should absolutely be rubbed out, and the Hopper scenario should also if it were to arise again.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

It is hysterics & the players age is irrelevant. If it was a 35 year old in game 425 & season 16 the result of any investigation or suspension should be the same.

But you are being hysterical, been far worst on the footy field (and will be this season), you are also a week early, as no decision has been made.

What outcome do you want here? Gibney 1 week? Gibney taken out to slaughter, banned from the comp & all his children & grand children never allowed to play footy?

3 weeks for putting out Lalor injured and causing brain trauma.

 

[Brezsa]

Ginbey knew what he was doing had potential to cause serious injury. He shoved a vulnerable player into oncoming traffic.

If Gibney managed to do the physics and maths to figure out the outcome in the split second he had, then he shouldn’t be playing footy. If he can calculate that mentally in that time frame, he needs to be sorting out electricity. He would create a free sustainable electricity source within a few months

 

[DaicosDisciple35]

Ginbey knew what he was doing had potential to cause serious injury. He shoved a vulnerable player into oncoming traffic.

you are entering nuffy areas comrade

 

[bzparkes]

Yes. Ultimately one resulted in head trauma - it's a direct consequence of a poorly timed action. You can choose to make the same action all you want and get away with it, but if one is ill timed and results in trauma then you're cited for it (same as the bump, you can still bump it just has to be legally executed), not that hard to understand.

Now that's not saying other injuries should not be brought into the equation, but that's a different discussion. Personally i think Ginbey should absolutely be rubbed out, and the Hopper scenario should also if it were to arise again.

If you punish outcomes and not actions, how do you seriously believe 'dangerous' actions will be prevented?

Players will just keep doing it and consider themselves unlucky if they get suspended but there's no deterrent to not do it if the action is allowed.

 

[Lia]

Not sure how Ginbey was meant to fully predict how his teammate would move.

 

[Brezsa]

3 weeks for putting out Lalor for 3 weeks and causing brain trauma.

If he gets 6 weeks for that, going to be some 12+ week suspension this year for some bumps. Melbourne should put Pickett on ice now or he will already be suspend for all of next year before they can even trade him

 

[zyzzbruh]

If Gibney managed to do the physics and maths to figure out the outcome in the split second he had, then he shouldn’t be playing footy. If he can calculate that mentally in that time frame, he needs to be sorting out electricity. He would create a free sustainable electricity source within a few months

I've personally pushed opponents into oncoming traffic just like that and knew exactly what i was doing. You end up in that situation when you know you've lost the contest. It's easier than you think to adjust your action in that circumstance.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

If he gets 6 weeks for that, going to be some 12+ week suspension this year for some bumps. Melbourne should put Pickett on ice now or he will already be suspend for all of next year before they can even trade him

3 weeks total I said

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

Not sure how Ginbey was meant to fully predict how his teammate would move.

That's called duty of care.

 

[zyzzbruh]

If you punish outcomes and not actions, how do you seriously believe 'dangerous' actions will be prevented?

Players will just keep doing it and consider themselves unlucky if they get suspended but there's no deterrent to not do it if the action is allowed.

The game is dynamic so you can't just rub out all the actions - however you absolutely can try to make rulings that force players to be more mindful of those actions (i.e pushing into oncoming traffic is very different to pushing into space). 100% it is a deterrent and over time it will result in less cases. It'll become a part of the players instinct to have that thought at the back of their mind when these scenarios occur. Muscle memory.

Saying it's not a deterrent is surface level thinking.

Illegal bumps numbers have reduced

Number of sling tackles have reduced

You can still do both of the above and not get suspended if the player doesn't get injured, but ultimately players are more mindful and the result is they have reduced.

 

[Quinz]

Trying to move him out of the line of his vulnerable teammate. Not an unreasonable action in the circumstances so doesn't fall under rough conduct. Accidents happen.

Unfortunate for Lalor who looked good to miss some pre season but he should be back for Round 1. Reckon he's a rising star chance if the Tigers can get him enough supply.

 

[kane249]

you are entering nuffy areas comrade

Welcome to the world of Aristotle Pickett

 

[zyzzbruh]

View attachment 2229180

Trying to move him out of the line of his vulnerable teammate. Not an unreasonable action in the circumstances so doesn't fall under rough conduct. Accidents happen.

Unfortunate for Lalor who looked good to miss some pre season but he should be back for Round 1. Reckon he's a rising star chance if the Tigers can get him enough supply.

LOL. I'll rephrase your assessment: 'realised Lalor had a meter on him and a chance of stopping his teammate marking the ball. aka lost the contest. So pushed him to compensate for being well behind his opponent'.

that's better

Pretty clear that's all he could've done to stop his opponent after being caught behind. End result was he put his opponent into a vulnerable position.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Sam Lalor has got concussion and a broken jaw after a cowardly act from Reuben Ginbey and the AFL has not charged Ginbey with anything.

Sam Lalor concussion: AFL great wants Reuben Ginbey actions investigated | Sporting News Australia

An incident that concussed Richmond no.1 draft pick Sam Lalor involving West Coast's Reuben Ginbey should be investigated by the AFL, according to former Essendon superstar Matthew Lloyd.

www.sportingnews.com

The AFL don't take anything seriously if they think it might damage the AFL brand it really is that simple.
IE: The 3 strike drug rule, which is basically covering up player drug abuse.

 

[BF Tiger]

Clearly a lot of WCE supporters don't see anything wrong with the action. Fine. No complaints when it is an Eagle coming off second best from a similar incident in-season, or worse still, has a career ended because of head trauma.

 

[bzparkes]

The game is dynamic so you can't just rub out all the actions - however you absolutely can try to make rulings that force players to be more mindful of those actions (i.e pushing into oncoming traffic is very different to pushing into space). 100% it is a deterrent and over time it will result in less cases. It'll become a part of the players instinct to have that thought at the back of their mind when these scenarios occur. Muscle memory.

Saying it's not a deterrent is surface level thinking.

Illegal bumps numbers have reduced

Number of sling tackles have reduced

You can still do both of the above and not get suspended if the player doesn't get injured, but ultimately players are more mindful and the result is they have reduced.

That's the point though.

How many people run through with raised elbows and miss? The action itself should be punished, because you'd never see it happen again.

 

[Quinz]

LOL. I'll rephrase your assessment: 'realised Lalor had a meter on him and a chance of stopping his teammate marking the ball. aka lost the contest. So pushed him to compensate for being well behind his opponent'.

that's better

Pretty clear that's all he could've done to stop his opponent after being caught behind. End result was he put his opponent into a vulnerable position.

What an odd assessment. Ginbey never lost contact with Lalor at any point. Really brings into question the rest of your judgements in the thread.

Please don't quote me again or I'll be forced to contact higher authorities.

 

[bzparkes]

3 weeks total I said

3 weeks? LMFAO, this is some serious bleeding heart shit.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Yeah it was a weak act and probably deserves a suspension.

But as a Tigers supporter I don't want Ginbey rubbed out, for at least a couple of reasons. Doesn't help us in the slightest, so hopefully nothing comes out of it.

However, what normally happens is that the AFL decide after an incident like this that they need a crackdown, so go full throttle in the opening night of the season, and then ease off by just before lunchtime the very next day.

It used to always be Richmond and Carlton that were the guinea pigs of such silly experimentation each year. Who are the victims this year?

 

[bzparkes]

Clearly a lot of WCE supporters don't see anything wrong with the action. Fine. No complaints when it is an Eagle coming off second best from a similar incident in-season, or worse still, has a career ended because of head trauma.

Well, considering Jack Riewoldt tunneled Barrass, broke his back and nearly ended his career and nothing was made of it, I find it a bit rich for Tigers supporters to now suddenly be up in arms over dangerous actions.

Also, one's outlawed by the tribunal(tunneling), the other isn't.

Did Riewoldt get punished?

 

[Grrr]

What statement?

Hopper deliberately pushed Day square in the back into his teammate, which ended up breaking his collarbone.

Ginbey and Lalor were charging to the drop of the ball, attempting to push off each other when Brock charged back with the flight of the ball.

Unfortunate yes, but there'd be a dozen suspensions a week if this sets a new precedent, unless of course the AFL is only interested in punishing outcomes and not actions, as usual...

And I'm pretty sure I said Hoppers was not good, the result was unlucky as this sort of pushing and shoving happens all the time around packs, so very hard to police. Day was unlucky, but yes Hopper caused it.

Lalor's was much more of a dangerous situation. As you said two players going at speed, the last thing that should happen is giving one of them a push in the back. It could just have easily injured both players as both were vulnerable. Very little difference to tunnelling. What Ginbey did doesn't happen often because of the awareness of the danger. As I said, I think negligence not malicious.

What is the difference between that an a shepherd or hard bump that causes concussion when the player hits the ground. Plenty have been suspended because their action caused the concussion.

And yes the AFL is interested in punishing outcomes, but the action wasn't exactly blameless.

 

[DangerSloane]

This insane practice of banning players on impact on opponent instead of what they actually did is probably the dumbest thing about the entire MRO/Tribunal/Appeals shitshow. What happened there happens 100x a match, if they won't crack down when it DOESNT cause an injury then none of it matters.

For the record, weak as piss contest to shove him in but if that ball goes over the top then the push off puts the WCE player in a good position to get the ball. Small forwards push bigger players into contests and run back hundreds of times a week. Nothing will change soon.

To be fair that is mirrored in life.
Push a bloke in the back who is standing on a cliff edge is clearly different to pushing a bloke in the back walking down the street.

Punch a bloke in the face and he dies and then punch a bloke in the face and he walks off laughing. Same action, very different punishment and rightly so.

In this case it comes down to reasonable actions, and IMO Ginbey contested the player as would happen many times in a game. The whole pushing players into danger needs to be looked at though, its an issue that is occurring way too often.

Would like to see some other angles, and this is why a panel is needed not a single officer.