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

[bzparkes]

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.

???

Ginbey was trying to push him off the line, as happens in every single marking contest. Unfortunately, Lalor crashed into Brock's back.

Hopper pushed Day square in the back deliberately so he'd smash into his teammate.

They aren't even remotely similar.

 

[zyzzbruh]

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.

If there's means to punish an action without it affecting the game then yes. Elbowing is probably a good example of an action that is no benefit to the game and could effectively be banned. Pushing isn't a spiteful action in itself and is apart of jostling in a contest etc, but pushing into oncoming traffic can be considered that.

At the end of the day the outcome of an action is substantial if an injury occurs, in that situation you can say a players misjudgement caused an injury, whether intentionally or not it doesn't matter, he misadjudicated his execution. Whereas a push into oncoming traffic that does not result in injury brings into consideration the player possibly making an effective execution based off his judgement, even if his actual intention was to have him cleaned up, the possibility of him making a well executed push into traffic that didn't cause an injury is there whether you think it's ludicrous or not. The two can be isolated if you really want it to be.

 

[bzparkes]

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.

Both those things are likely to incur charges/convictions for the perpetrator, so they're punishing both the action and giving a heavier sentence based on the outcome.

The AFL only seems to punish outcomes instead of actions, which is the completely wrong way of looking at it.

There's no deterrent against doing something if you only get punished if there's significant injury. You'll just keep doing it until it happens.

That was the whole reason they brought in the below the knees/tunneling changes in the first place, for example, even though they still stuff that up.

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.

Don't mind it being looked at but you can't crucify a bloke for an action that isn't illegal, just because some bloke got hurt.

 

[smasha]

#boysclub

 

[DangerSloane]

Both those things are likely to incur charges/convictions for the perpetrator, so they're punishing both the action and giving a heavier sentence based on the outcome.

The AFL only seems to punish outcomes instead of actions, which is the completely wrong way of looking at it.

There's no deterrent against doing something if you only get punished if there's significant injury. You'll just keep doing it until it happens.

That was the whole reason they brought in the below the knees/tunneling changes in the first place, for example, even though they still stuff that up.



Don't mind it being looked at but you can't crucify a bloke for an action that isn't illegal, just because some bloke got hurt.

They incur charges/convictions depending purely on the result.
You push someone on the street on a Saturday night because they're slow AF, there is very likely no penalty.
You push a bloke to his death who is standing on a cliff trying to get a photo, then you're going to jail.

Life is almost always down to the consequences not the action.

Driving incidents are the same. You hit someone off their bike and they die, you're going down. They get up and ride off then you might not have any punishment.

I'm not crucifying anyone. Id like to see the other angles but to me its a push in the back free kick and nothing more.

 

[Cam Payne]

West Coast must be deregistered.

 

[Coach_Required]

AFL need to:

 

[bzparkes]

AFL need to:

Under what rule?

 

[Coach_Required]

Under what rule?

Under the AFL hate WA rule

 

[Robroy22]

It was a gutless act as all these pushes to unbalanced players are. Body on body or take the consequences. This stuff has gone on too long.

Make the ball your objective, not the man.

 

[bzparkes]

Under the AFL hate WA rule

 

[bzparkes]

It was a gutless act as all these pushes to unbalanced players are. Body on body or take the consequences. This stuff has gone on too long.

Make the ball your objective, not the man.

What was Lalor's objective running full steam at Brock whilst he was in mid-air marking the ball, just out of curiosity?

 

[captain bloodsport]

What was Lalor's objective running full steam at Brock whilst he was in mid-air marking the ball, just out of curiosity?

Lol are you serious?
He was running towards the ball that got kicked to him. Brock was running back bravely with the flight of the ball.

His not allowed to do that?

Or was he going to commit a future crime

 

[DaicosDisciple35]

They incur charges/convictions depending purely on the result.
You push someone on the street on a Saturday night because they're slow AF, there is very likely no penalty.
You push a bloke to his death who is standing on a cliff trying to get a photo, then you're going to jail.

Life is almost always down to the consequences not the action.

Driving incidents are the same. You hit someone off their bike and they die, you're going down. They get up and ride off then you might not have any punishment.

I'm not crucifying anyone. Id like to see the other angles but to me its a push in the back free kick and nothing more.

Yeah but the difference is that there ain’t any cliffs in Aussie rules footy or any cyclists

 

[zyzzbruh]

What was Lalor's objective running full steam at Brock whilst he was in mid-air marking the ball, just out of curiosity?

You're reaching so hard.

Which is expected. We did the same with Heeney. People will argue when it's against their team till they're blue in the face.

Ginbey realized he was never going to get to the drop of the ball whilst his opponent was a chance, so he compensated with a last ditched push that resulted in a broken jaw. It really isn't that hard to unpack.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Yeah but the difference is that there ain’t any cliffs in Aussie rules footy or any cyclists

There are jaws though

 

[bzparkes]

Lol are you serious?
He was running towards the ball that got kicked to him. Brock was running back bravely with the flight of the ball.

His not allowed to do that?

Or was he going to commit a future crime

So what was he going to do, canon into Brock's back? He wouldn't have slowed in time.

Not blaming him for it but if he's running to a ball drop, Ginbey's entitled to also and to push him off his line.

 

[captain bloodsport]

So what was he going to do, canon into Brock's back? He wouldn't have slowed in time.

Not blaming him for it but if he's running to a ball drop, Ginbey's entitled to also and to push him off his line.

Lol I don't know what he was going to do, all I know is what actually happened.

Players are allowed to run towards the ball if I'm not mistaken

 

[catters_28]

Anyone would think Lalor died the way Aristotle is carrying on. I've been pushed harder into the goal post during a netball match and the ump didn't even call contact.

 

[bzparkes]

Lol I don't know what he was going to do, all I know is what actually happened.

Players are allowed to run towards the ball if I'm not mistaken

Ok but the likely outcome would've been Lalor probably crashing into Brock's back whilst he was vulnerable anyway.

Unless he didn't see him, in which case it's unfair to think Ginbey would have.

 

[zyzzbruh]

So what was he going to do, canon into Brock's back? He wouldn't have slowed in time.

Not blaming him for it but if he's running to a ball drop, Ginbey's entitled to also and to push him off his line.

No he's not entitled to push him off his line. That's a borderline spiteful act. One of the most precarious positions you could be put into on the footy field, equivalent to being tunneled.

All well and good if you disagree, but if it results in a broken jaw then you simply can't defend it.

 

[bzparkes]

No he's not entitled to push him off his line. That's a borderline spiteful act. One of the most precarious positions you could be put into on the footy field, equivalent to being tunneled.

All well and good if you disagree, but if it results in a broken jaw then you simply can't defend it.

What? You're not allowed to shove blokes in a marking contest?

What on earth are you talking about?

Have you ever watched footy before? It literally happens in every contest.

 

[captain bloodsport]

Ok but the likely outcome would've been Lalor probably crashing into Brock's back whilst he was vulnerable anyway.

Unless he didn't see him, in which case it's unfair to think Ginbey would have.

How is that the likely outcome? Lalor never left the ground.

This is a completely idiotic and biased argument. There was no indication at all that Lalor was going to "cannon" into Brock

 

[Coach_Required]

Anyone would think Lalor died the way Aristotle is carrying on. I've been pushed harder into the goal post during a netball match and the ump didn't even call contact.

You didn't play netball you sat on the sidelines and watched someone else get pushed.

 

[bzparkes]

How is that the likely outcome? Lalor never left the ground.

This is a completely idiotic and biased argument. There was no indication at all that Lalor was going to "cannon" into Brock

They were both just charging straight at the ball drop, which Brock ran backwards to get to.

What else do you think would happen?