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

[hawkman]

Because it wasn't deemed rough conduct, duh.

Just because you wanted him charged for it, doesn't mean it actually was rough conduct.

Fairly simple enough to understand, I'd have thought. I've even given you the explanation a few posts back, as well as telling you the AFL sent a warning to the clubs after the Curtin incident that they'd start cracking down on players doing it.

You got your wish, Mansell has a 3 match ban for intentionally shoving a player into oncoming traffic.

If they'd punished Balta appropriately for it when he broke Will Day's collarbone, then I have no doubt they would've punished both Ginbey and Curtin. Since they deemed Balta's action fine(an intentional shove into a player), they couldn't exactly go an punish Ginbey and Curtin now, could they? Especially when they themselves stated they believed both players had eyes only for the ball, which Mansell and Balta did not.

But since those 2 incidents, there's been enough noise over the action, so they warned the clubs.

Clearly Richmond didn't get the memo.

Hopper not Balta

 

[bzparkes]

Hopper not Balta

Yeah, corrected that in my last post.

 

[Rich01]

Never mind, it was Hopper.

'Good news' for injured Hawk but nervous wait ahead

Will Day will have more scans on Monday to assess his injured shoulder

www.afl.com.au

Yup, you obviously have NFI on our players to confuse those two.

But you are right, that’s a very similar act to what Mansell and Ginbey get.

Yet very different penalties.
Which is not surprising from Kane tbh.

 

[bzparkes]

Yup, you obviously have NFI on our players to confuse those two.

But you are right, that’s a very similar act to what Mansell and Ginbey get.

Yet very different penalties.
Which is not surprising from Kane tbh.

I've already given you lot the explanation from the AFL. Up to you if choose to ignore it because it affects your player, I guess.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Lol, you got your wish and players are now getting punished for it.

Or was it always about the player and not the action?

It is about what is right. We don’t want players getting concussed.

Where a player is concussed there should be a consistent series of considerations for the MRO. The first question should always be: whose action caused the concussion to occur and could they have reasonably chosen a different action?

In Ginbey’s case his actions alone caused the injuries and he had other options.

In Mansell’s case his action seems to have contributed to the injury and he had other options. It is less clear whether the actions of others, including the injured player also contributed.

All of these incidents should be cited then tested at the Tribunal on their merits.

It has nothing to do with club allegiances, all about wanting a consistently applied set of rules that minimises the chance of concussions occurring where possible.

 

[bzparkes]

It is about what is right. We don’t want players getting concussed.

Where a player is concussed there should be a consistent series of considerations for the MRO. The first question should always be: whose action caused the concussion to occur and could they have reasonably chosen a different action?

In Ginbey’s case his actions alone caused the injuries and he had other options.

In Mansell’s case his action seems to have contributed to the injury and he had other options. It is less clear whether the actions of others, including the injured player also contributed.

All of these incidents should be cited then tested at the Tribunal on their merits.

It has nothing to do with club allegiances, all about wanting a consistently applied set of rules that minimises the chance of concussions occurring where possible.

Ok so now that the AFL has confirmed they're cracking down on it(a few weeks ago) you should be happy they're following through.

 

[Rich01]

I've already given you lot the explanation from the AFL. Up to you if choose to ignore it because it affects your player, I guess.

All three were equally as bad.

But yeah if as you say you put your team hat on I spose you’d try to pick your way through why Ginbeys was different to Mansells and Hopper.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Ok so now that the AFL has confirmed they're cracking down on it(a few weeks ago) you should be happy they're following through.

I am happy for all of these cases to be cited.

Perplexed how and why they chose not to cite Ginbey. It was ridiculous. The rules haven’t changed. So why did that one escape a charge and several in the interim, then this one gets charged?

 

[bzparkes]

All three were equally as bad.

But yeah if as you say you put your team hat on I spose you’d try to pick your way through why Ginbeys was different to Mansells and Hopper.

It's not my 'team hat' mate, it's the official explanation from the AFL.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

It's not my 'team hat' mate, it's the official explanation from the AFL.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

lol you must have been wearing your ‘team hat’ when in favour of Ginbey not being charged then.

 

[bzparkes]

lol you must have been wearing your ‘team hat’ when in favour of Ginbey not being charged then.

Do you want the action punished or not?

 

[BF Tiger]

Never mind, it was Hopper.

'Good news' for injured Hawk but nervous wait ahead

Will Day will have more scans on Monday to assess his injured shoulder

www.afl.com.au

Finally you got something right.

 

[bzparkes]

Finally you got something right.

Just like the AFL suspending Mansell

 

[bzparkes]

The only thing confirmed today is that you’re a f-wit.

Have a lie down bud, this conversation is clearly too difficult for you.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Do you want the action punished or not?

I have already stated I would like to see all these cases cited and then argued on their merits at the Tribunal.

This also necessarily means cases where concussions are not caused being graded careless, whatever contact is applicable, and whatever impact is applicable though.

 

[Rich01]

It's not my 'team hat' mate, it's the official explanation from the AFL.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

Well yeah, it’s inconsistent.
But that’s what we expect from Christian and Kane.

 

[bzparkes]

Well yeah, it’s inconsistent.
But that’s what we expect from Christian and Kane.

Well, they've set the standard now. It's on them to ensure they're consistent with it.

I have my doubts.

 

[Rich01]

Well, they've set the standard now. It's on them to ensure they're consistent with it.

I have my doubts.

Yeah if they had have made the call in the pre season I would have had no issue with it. Seems they see three incidents, let them go, then ping this one. I’ve no issue with punishing these acts, but the incompetence in not being consistent is typical of AFLHQ.

 

[bzparkes]

Yeah if they had have made the call in the pre season I would have had no issue with it. Seems they see three incidents, let them go, then ping this one. I’ve no issue with punishing these acts, but the incompetence in not being consistent is typical of AFLHQ.

Well I don't disagree with that. If they wanted to set an example it should've been done in the preseason, yes.

Hate rules being changed a few rounds in.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Well I don't disagree with that. If they wanted to set an example it should've been done in the preseason, yes.

Hate rules being changed a few rounds in.

There is no change of rules.

The MRO has simply chosen not to enforce them in one or more cases, most obvious of which was the Ginbey case. Now the first time he enforces the rules that have been there continuously over at least several seasons is the Mansell case.

 

[hawkman]

You think the Lalor collision was at lesser speed than the one Mansell got reported for?

Yes. Players charging forward for the footy are generally going to be quicker than someone coming back like the WC player going for the mark was

 

[BF Tiger]

Yes. Players charging forward for the footy are generally going to be quicker than someone coming back like the WC player going for the mark was

Both were above whatever threshold there is for a “safe” collision, so it’s a moot point really.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Yes. Players charging forward for the footy are generally going to be quicker than someone coming back like the WC player going for the mark was

You don’t seem to be taking into account the speed Ginbey and Lalor were running in that specific case. It was a very high speed collision.

 

[Bird Man]

Richmond Tax

 

[GhostofJimJess]

One other thing that must now also come out of this ruling, and it applies to all head injury incidents.

If "severity of outcome" of a collision is to take precedence over "intent", then players must also be suspended for recklessly causing head injuries to teammates.

We can no longer then excuse such serious injuries as simply "friendly fire". Players will need to take care of everyone.