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

[bzparkes]

You've been around BF long enough, nearly as long as me, to know that club allegiances strongly determine views on incidents such as this.

For instance, I have no doubt at all what the views of Richmond and WCE supporters would be in relation to this incident if the players' roles were reversed.

Nobody's as rabid as Richmond supporters though, as evidenced by them defending(apart from a couple of sensible heads) Hopper's incident, Cotchin concussion on Shiel and Riewoldt tunneling Barrass and breaking his back.

The response has been "We're they cited/suspended/free kick? No? Hurr durr, guess it was fine then!"

You'd get a few WCE who'd react the same as Richmond supporters, no doubt, but most would be circumspect, based off of past incidents.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

And yet there is a mountain of information regarding mild v severe concussion.

Interesting reading. You should try it sometime.

You are carrying on like his jaw is wired and he is eating through a straw and it was a car crash level concussion. It wasnt.

Your melodramatic style and lack of common sense is why the vast majority dont agree and neither did the AFL and MRP.

If the game was changed to the extent you and your fury friends are suggesting we wouldnt have a game to watch or play. It would be like watching a running style net ball on a big field

Then what cloud would you have to shout at?

AFL is a combative collision sport. Players know it and are paid very well to play the game they love.

If you cant handle accidents and collision injuries maybe its not the sport for you.

Out of interest , did you think Gaff got suspended for too long?

 

[Pistol Night]

Nobody's as rabid as Richmond supporters though, as evidenced by them defending(apart from a couple of sensible heads) Hopper's incident, Cotchin concussion on Shiel and Riewoldt tunneling Barrass and breaking his back.

The response has been "We're they cited/suspended/free kick? No? Hurr durr, guess it was fine then!"

You'd get a few WCE who'd react the same as Richmond supporters, no doubt, but most would be circumspect, based off of past incidents.

The flogs are wishing for Daicos to get injured tonight in their game day thread. They’re hypocrites

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The flogs are wishing for Daicos to get injured tonight in their game day thread. They’re hypocrites.

Just to clarify your position on this thread...

If a Richmond player did to Daicos what Ginbey did to Lalor, you would be in favor of a suspension, or you would think it was fair enough?

 

[Pistol Night]

Just to clarify your position on this thread...

If a Richmond player did to Daicos what Ginbey did to Lalor, you would be in favor of a suspension, or you would think it was fair enough?

I don’t give a shit about hypotheticals. Wishing injury on a young player that’s done nothing wrong is piss weak

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I don’t give a shit about hypotheticals. Wishing injury on a young player that’s done nothing wrong is piss weak

Moving out of hypotheticals you hate so much then.... What is your view on what Ginbey did? You think it was fine or should have been suspended?

 

[bzparkes]

Just to clarify your position on this thread...

If a Richmond player did to Daicos what Ginbey did to Lalor, you would be in favor of a suspension, or you would think it was fair enough?

We all know you'd be defending them to high heaven.

 

[flyinghi64]

Ummm why is it Lalor/Ginbey incident?
Shouldn't it be Lalor/Brock incident.
Ginbey didn't concuss him or shatter his jaw, it was the collision with Brock that caused it.

 

[Forward Press]

Out of interest , did you think Gaff got suspended for too long?

No. It was entirely deserved and you'll find most on the WCE board, most fans, the club and Gaff himself agreed with the suspension. So there goes that one.

And because I hope you're not that kind of person like a certain other poster, I wouldn't wish any injury on Lalor or any other young person. I sincerely hope he's fine for Round 1, and if not, then soon enough.

And I would have the same perspective if Harley Reid had his jaw fractured by a push from a Richmond player in a pre-season match, so hopefully that also ruins your stupid hypothetical arguments. These things happen, the fact that two thirds of BigFooty (even including the obvious troll votes for 5 weeks or more) think Ginbey should not get even a single week off is telling. The MRP agreed, it's only you and the media nuffies baying for blood.

Done with this.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

No. It was entirely deserved and you'll find most on the WCE board, most fans, the club and Gaff himself agreed with the suspension. So there goes that one.

And because I hope you're not that kind of person like a certain other poster, I wouldn't wish any injury on Lalor or any other young person. I sincerely hope he's fine for Round 1, and if not, then soon enough.

And I would have the same perspective if Harley Reid had his jaw fractured by a push from a Richmond player in a pre-season match, so hopefully that also ruins your stupid hypothetical arguments. These things happen, the fact that two thirds of BigFooty (even including the obvious troll votes for 5 weeks or more) think Ginbey should not get even a single week off is telling. The MRP agreed, it's only you and the media nuffies baying for blood.

Done with this.

Time will tell but I agree with the ex-AFL players and journos who say that the AFL have dropped the ball on this one.

 

[Forward Press]

Time will tell but I agree with the ex-AFL players and journos who say that the AFL have dropped the ball on this one.

Shit stirrers don't count.

If the AFL acted on everything Kane Cornes posted they'd need a bye round every second week to lay 400 charges.

Once again - for hopefully the last time, at least from me - an action that may warrant a free kick or 50m penalty during a game does not mean it must be referred to the MRP or tribunal.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Shit stirrers don't count.

If the AFL acted on everything Kane Cornes posted they'd need a bye round every second week to lay 400 charges.

Once again - for hopefully the last time, at least from me - an action that may warrant a free kick or 50m penalty during a game does not mean it must be referred to the MRP or tribunal.

It does if it causes head trauma.

 

[Obeanie1]

A deliberate push in the back, so that his head will go in first (because that's what will happen with a push in the back) into a contest. So it raises the likelihood of head contact at speed. Therefore, it is a dangerous action.

Never said anything about malicious intent.

My only point is that pushing players into contests in a way that their head is going to lead will lead to some head injuries. So if the AFL is serious about reducing head injuries then they should try to eliminate deliberate pushes in the back where the player will go head first into another player. They see that as too hard but create vague fuzzy rules to change how the game is played. So I am attacking the AFL if anyone.

If it was proven to be deliberate then he would have got weeks. It wasn't deliberate.

It was a football act with a 3rd player jumping in from in front and side. All in milli seconds.

If he pushed him square in the back and into the fence deliberately sure he gets weeks and the AFL has stamped that out.

If he pushed him sideways in a marking contest and he copped an injury from a 3rd player coming in from the side. Is that a suspension?

You used the word deliberate several times to make your argument.

It wasn't a deliberate push in the back. You think it was. Most don't nor did the AFL and MRP.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

If it was proven to be deliberate then he would have got weeks. It wasn't deliberate.

It was a football act with a 3rd player jumping in from in front and side. All in milli seconds.

If he pushed him square in the back and into the fence deliberately sure he gets weeks and the AFL has stamped that out.

If he pushed him sideways in a marking contest and he copped an injury from a 3rd player coming in from the side. Is that a suspension?

You used the word deliberate several times to make your argument.

It wasn't a deliberate push in the back. You think it was. Most don't nor did the AFL and MRP.

Exactly not sure how hard it is to understand. Fans need to forget about the outcome when discussing these incidents. It has to be a reportable offence in the first place, a lovey tap push to the side that happens lets say 1000 times a game is not a reportable offence, players jostle for position every single marking contest. It's just unlucky the outcome was poor, doesn't make the action itself reportable. it's frankly that simple and that easy but it seems a couple of Richmond fans are complicating it. Whether it be Reid getting hurt or whether it be Gulden from our club I'd be saying the same thing. Purely unlucky and it happens, move on, play footy.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Exactly not sure how hard it is to understand. Fans need to forget about the outcome when discussing these incidents. It has to be a reportable offence in the first place, a lovey tap push to the side that happens lets say 1000 times a game is not a reportable offence, players jostle for position every single marking contest. It's just unlucky the outcome was poor, doesn't make the action itself reportable. it's frankly that simple and that easy but it seems a couple of Richmond fans are complicating it. Whether it be Reid getting hurt or whether it be Gulden from our club I'd be saying the same thing. Purely unlucky and it happens, move on, play footy.

So many modern footy fans live their life i slow motion replays and think these players have all the time in the world to see outcomes of their split second decisions. It's an absolute fantasy world these fans live in.
360 degree contact sport and people get injured in these types of sports. Accidents happen and I am actually happy to see the AFL for once deem an accident as an accident.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So many modern footy fans live their life i slow motion replays and think these players have all the time in the world to see outcomes of their split second decisions. It's an absolute fantasy world these fans live in.
360 degree contact sport and people get injured in these types of sports. Accidents happen and I am actually happy to see the AFL for once deem an accident as an accident.

I mean I fully expected the AFL to be 'dumb' putting it nicely and charge the bloke so it was nice for once they didn't. Contact sports always have injuries whether you like it or not it's la la land fantasy to expect no injuries every year, I recon I saw 30 pushes in the match last night in the first 10 minutes. It's part and parcel of the game. The MRP basically should be asking one thing before anything, 'was the offence reportable' forget the outcome. Nice change after too many outcome based charges because Robbo and co wanted every bloke charged.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I mean I fully expected the AFL to be 'dumb' putting it nicely and charge the bloke so it was nice for once they didn't. Contact sports always have injuries whether you like it or not it's la la land fantasy to expect no injuries every year, I recon I saw 30 pushes in the match last night in the first 10 minutes. It's part and parcel of the game. The MRP basically should be asking one thing before anything, 'was the offence reportable' forget the outcome. Nice change after too many outcome based charges because Robbo and co wanted every bloke charged.

Reckon I saw a load of bumps & tackles last night that weren't reportable as well. So according to you this means no bump or tackle should be reported.

 

[Mr Meow]

The flogs are wishing for Daicos to get injured tonight in their game day thread. They’re hypocrites

Classy as always.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Reckon I saw a load of bumps & tackles last night that weren't reportable as well. So according to you this means no bump or tackle should be reported.

Only if it's deemed reportable, they have gone overboard with those dangerous tackles too (all for the bad ones going especially the sling ones). Lets hope this is across the board. Suspend the action, forget the outcome until the first one is met. Push is not reportable it's that simple and very easy to understand. you blokes would not care if it was some scrub on your list lets be real here, it's only a melt as it's Lalor that's it.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

We all know you'd be defending them to high heaven.

I would be now because the precedent has been set. If a Richmond player did that and got suspended it would mean we are being treated differently to other clubs.

I would rather the AFL just took the opportunity to demonstrate this action will attract a suspension as I believe it is dangerous. But if it ok for everyone else, we are there to try to win.

 

[Dr Tigris]

If it was proven to be deliberate then he would have got weeks. It wasn't deliberate.

It was a football act with a 3rd player jumping in from in front and side. All in milli seconds.

If he pushed him square in the back and into the fence deliberately sure he gets weeks and the AFL has stamped that out.

If he pushed him sideways in a marking contest and he copped an injury from a 3rd player coming in from the side. Is that a suspension?

You used the word deliberate several times to make your argument.

It wasn't a deliberate push in the back. You think it was. Most don't nor did the AFL and MRP.

I wasn't specifically talking about Ginbey. I was talking about how the AFL accepts actions that have a high probability of causing the player to lead with their head into other players at speed and with low control.

Ginbey did something illegal and got a free kick against him. Right now what he did, and what Hopper did last year, are likely free kicks, but nothing more.

The point I am making is simply that given the importance of protecting the head this sort of thing is fairly easy to make rules about. Too hard for the AFL. But they make wholesale changes to the game to force a certain style of play. Just shows what they really care about.


PS. A rule that stated that a forcible push in the back to a play that forces them into a dangerous contact situation is easy to write and fairly easy to adjudicate. Much easier than an actual push in the back free kick.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Only if it's deemed reportable, they have gone overboard with those dangerous tackles too (all for the bad ones going especially the sling ones). Lets hope this is across the board. Suspend the action, forget the outcome until the first one is met. Push is not reportable it's that simple and very easy to understand. you blokes would not care if it was some scrub on your list lets be real here, it's only a melt as it's Lalor that's it.

That is a different argument entirely. The current system that considers conduct, contact location & impact is a perfectly sensible system.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I wasn't specifically talking about Ginbey. I was talking about how the AFL accepts actions that have a high probability of causing the player to lead with their head into other players at speed and with low control.

Ginbey did something illegal and got a free kick against him. Right now what he did, and what Hopper did last year, are likely free kicks, but nothing more.

The point I am making is simply that given the importance of protecting the head this sort of thing is fairly easy to make rules about. Too hard for the AFL. But they make wholesale changes to the game to force a certain style of play. Just shows what they really care about.


PS. A rule that stated that a forcible push in the back to a play that forces them into a dangerous contact situation is easy to write and fairly easy to adjudicate. Much easier than an actual push in the back free kick.

If you can have a rule for kicking in danger you can definitely have one that covers dangerous pushes.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Classy as always.

You call the tune. I will dance to it.

 

[bzparkes]

I would be now because the precedent has been set.

You've defended bad actions from Richmond players in this very thread, have you not?

"Hopper pushed Newcombe in the 'side'", despite clear as day evidence it was a shove in the back, for one.

"Look how many times they said shoulder, lol" in response to Cotchin diving into Shiel's head, which is clear as day on the footage.

If a Richmond player did that and got suspended it would mean we are being treated differently to other clubs.

Richmond get more favourable treatment than most clubs.

You lot are ironically correct about the AFL being corrupt, you're just oblivious to your club being a beneficiary.

I would rather the AFL just took the opportunity to demonstrate this action will attract a suspension as I believe it is dangerous. But if it ok for everyone else, we are there to try to win.

Sure, I don't disagree with the premise but for the umpteenth time, you can't suspend someone for a non-reportable offence.