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

[Obeanie1]

Proves that you don’t have to be a West Australian to be a moron. Regardless, good to see you’ve sobered up, wherever you may be.

If Ginbey’s push on Lalor happened this week he’d be cited as well IMHO.

Lol. Really?

You just keep posting personal attacks and proving you don't have two brain cells to rub together or think of anything meaningful to add.

So are all pushes in football the same?

I've only asked three times now.

Take some time answering. It will help.

 

[BF Tiger]

Lol. Really?

You just keep posting personal attacks and proving you don't have two brain cells to rub together or think of anything meaningful to add.

So are all pushes in football the same?

I've only asked three times now.

Take some time answering. It will help.

No two pushes are the same. A push in the back from a ruckman is different to a push in the back from small forward. Speeds, forces, relative motion, weather conditions, other player involvement, boundary line, etc etc... they're all different. Every. Single. Time.

The point I was making was that given the new decree from AFL House it's my firm belief that Ginbey would be cited like Mansell if the Ginbey push on Lalor happened this weekend. It's not that hard to understand. But you seem to be struggling.

Take some time. It will help. Or maybe you're just not sober enough yet.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

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.

This is the insanity of the way the AFL is covering its ass on head liability - it makes no ****ing sense.

Do something dangerous / clumsy / completely accidental - no injury: Nothing
Do something dangerous / clumsy / completely accidental - head injury to opposition: Major suspension
Do something dangerous / clumsy / completely accidental - head injury to same team: Nothing

Like how does suspending a player impact the AFL's liability, particularly when the same action carries no suspension if the player is not injured or if done to the same team. It makes no ****ing sense and I hope whoever gave that advice to AFL, or whoever at AFL interpreted that advice to be "head injury = suspension" to punch themselves in the face until they make some logical ****ing sense.

 

[Obeanie1]

No two pushes are the same. A push in the back from a ruckman is different to a push in the back from small forward. Speeds, forces, relative motion, weather conditions, other player involvement, boundary line, etc etc... they're all different. Every. Single. Time.

The point I was making was that given the new decree from AFL House it's my firm belief that Ginbey would be cited like Mansell if the Ginbey push on Lalor happened this weekend. It's not that hard to understand. But you seem to be struggling.

Take some time. It will help. Or maybe you're just not sober enough yet.

Ignoring the childish comments.

So no two pushes are the same.

Was Ginbey's the same as Mansell?

Or were they different?

I suggest they are very different set of circumstances. Very different.

Ginbey was attempting to take Lalor off the line of the ball and so protect his teammate backing into the space in front of a leading forward.

Mansell wasn't contesting a mark at all. He was in front of oncoming leading players and pushed an opponent directly into two players contesting a mark.

Totally different set of circumstances.

You don't agree?

PS The amount you continue talking about alcohol maybe it's you who needs a drink.

 

[Aussie in exile]

IF a former player takes the AFL to court over the amount of head injuries he/her sustained why playing and wins the case the AFL will have to get really serious about concussions and head traumas.

 

[Sam_100]

I suggest they are very different set of circumstances. Very different.

They are very different.

1. Lawlor/Gibney. If you look at the vision, Gibney forcefully pushes Lawlor in the back into the competition from less than 2 metres away. The push is of such force that Lawlor uncontrollaby smashes into the other Eagles player. Lawlor is clearly off balance and puts his arms out in front of him to try an protect himself.

2. Mansell/O'Connell. Mansell's pushes O'Connel side on. O'Connel then runs another 4 metres with eyes on the ball and arms out in an attempt to mark it. If he was pushed with such force that he involuntary smashed into the oncoming pack do you really think he would have eyes on the ball and attempt to mark it. He would be stumbling forward with arms out in front of him to protect himself

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Watching AFL Tonight (tonight), the reporter quoted the AFL's stance on the difference between the Ginbey/Mansell cases.

He said, regarding the footage of the Ginbey incident, the AFL claimed "that was a preseason game, and that the vision wasn't as clear", yet from that same footage they also concluded "that Ginbey had eyes for the ball".

Figure that out?

 

[Sam_100]

Watching AFL Tonight (tonight), the reporter quoted the AFL's stance on the difference between the Ginbey/Mansell cases.

He said, regarding the footage of the Ginbey incident, the AFL claimed "that was a preseason game, and that the vision wasn't as clear", yet from that same footage they also concluded "that Ginbey had eyes for the ball".

Figure that out?

They are making shit up as they go. It's the only plausible explanation.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

They are making shit up as they go. It's the only plausible explanation.

There is little doubt that the AFL continue to make all sorts of rules deliberately vague so as to be able to manipulate outcomes to align with their own agendas.

The ARC is the classic example. Some of those adjudications even on this weekend were absolutely baffling. Yet somehow predictable.

 

[Stars align]

They are very different.

1. Lawlor/Gibney. If you look at the vision, Gibney forcefully pushes Lawlor in the back into the competition from less than 2 metres away. The push is of such force that Lawlor uncontrollaby smashes into the other Eagles player. Lawlor is clearly off balance and puts his arms out in front of him to try an protect himself.

2. Mansell/O'Connell. Mansell's pushes O'Connel side on. O'Connel then runs another 4 metres with eyes on the ball and arms out in an attempt to mark it. If he was pushed with such force that he involuntary smashed into the oncoming pack do you really think he would have eyes on the ball and attempt to mark it. He would be stumbling forward with arms out in front of him to protect himself

O’connell brave beyond words but he was ending up with concussion regardless of any involvement from Mansell
He had eyes for the ball and zero awareness of lynch and wilkie charging out on the lead

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

O’connell brave beyond words but he was ending up with concussion regardless of any involvement from Mansell
He had eyes for the ball and zero awareness of lynch and wilkie charging out on the lead

1:22 it is a clear push,

 

[Obeanie1]

They are very different.

1. Lawlor/Gibney. If you look at the vision, Gibney forcefully pushes Lawlor in the back into the competition from less than 2 metres away. The push is of such force that Lawlor uncontrollaby smashes into the other Eagles player. Lawlor is clearly off balance and puts his arms out in front of him to try an protect himself.

2. Mansell/O'Connell. Mansell's pushes O'Connel side on. O'Connel then runs another 4 metres with eyes on the ball and arms out in an attempt to mark it. If he was pushed with such force that he involuntary smashed into the oncoming pack do you really think he would have eyes on the ball and attempt to mark it. He would be stumbling forward with arms out in front of him to protect himself

Well it seems Tigers supporters see things very differenrly from most others and importantly the AFL review panel.

Ginbey ws contesting a lead and attempted to shove his opponent off the line of the ball to protect a teammate. Not push them into his teammate.

What was Mansell doing pushing his opponent into oncoming leading players? It wasnt contesting a mark, they werent leading for it, they were caught in front with the ball goung over the top of them.

Open both eyes. It helps.

 

[Whiskers]

Worst decision ever. I’m with the Tiger fans here but not the conspiracy theories part.
O’Connell is going to that position, he is stupidly brave and it’s not Mansell’s fault he lacks footy intelligence.

 

[PHanevski]

Well it seems Tigers supporters see things very differenrly from most others and importantly the AFL review panel.

Ginbey ws contesting a lead and attempted to shove his opponent off the line of the ball to protect a teammate. Not push them into his teammate.

What was Mansell doing pushing his opponent into oncoming leading players? It wasnt contesting a mark, they werent leading for it, they were caught in front with the ball goung over the top of them.

Open both eyes. It helps.

It is an interesting question "What was Mansell doing pushing his opponent into oncoming leading players?" Was he though, because until Lynch was infringed and twisted, O'Connell's path would have been to the side. If you look at the vision of the contact it was only because Lynch was no longer going straight at the ball, and that was due to the St.Kilda players causing his arms not to be up and in front and at the ball. If that happens, O'Connell runs under and to the side of the oncoming players and no contact is made.

So I guess the question is, did the push cause the contact, or did other infringement cause Lynch to be in the position that caused the contact. Then the next question is, who is responsible, Mansell, the St.Kilda defender (Wilki?), both or nobody?

 

[STPer18]

3 weeks upheld. AFL taking this stuff seriously now thanks to Aristotle Pickett.

 

[Rich01]

Apart from the ridiculous time it took the AFL to act on this after the Ginbey incident (and a couple of others), as well as changing the rules in season (which is such an inept AFL thing to do), it is actually a good long term move.

Ban any dangerous pushes into contests from here on in. Regardless of whether they cause head trauma. The act in itself should be stamped out.

If we were to be consistent with the ruling I’d be expecting at least one suspension a week from here on in for dangerous pushes. But we all know the afl is anything but consistent.

 

[Rich01]

Watching AFL Tonight (tonight), the reporter quoted the AFL's stance on the difference between the Ginbey/Mansell cases.

He said, regarding the footage of the Ginbey incident, the AFL claimed "that was a preseason game, and that the vision wasn't as clear", yet from that same footage they also concluded "that Ginbey had eyes for the ball".

Figure that out?

They also knew what Ginbey and Mansells intent were without asking them. They are hyper intelligent these AFL folk.

 

[fargothegreat]

I'd rather the AFL just be open about getting the Ginbey one wrong than try and bullshit that they're not the same act.

Then make a note of it and change the rule at the end of the season, so teams can train the new rule over Summer.

So sick of the AFL changing the rules from week to week based on media complaints.

 

[PHanevski]

Apart from the ridiculous time it took the AFL to act on this after the Ginbey incident (and a couple of others), as well as changing the rules in season (which is such an inept AFL thing to do), it is actually a good long term move.

Ban any dangerous pushes into contests from here on in. Regardless of whether they cause head trauma. The act in itself should be stamped out.

If we were to be consistent with the ruling I’d be expecting at least one suspension a week from here on in for dangerous pushes. But we all know the afl is anything but consistent.

The act itself is not a reportable offence, just like the bump is fine. It is only reportable if there is a injury/concussion that results from it. Don't expect at least one suspension a week.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

I don't give a stuff about Ginbey. I'm glad he got off, and said it at the time.

What good would it have done my team if Ginbey had copped what Mansell copped, and been out for their Gold Coast, Brissy and Freo matches?

Not sure why so many footy fans get so triggered when someone gets off for smacking one of their own blokes? Often it's to our disadvantage when they get weeks. I want them back out their next week belting our other oppo.

 

[darcytiger]

Lynch pushed into De Koning - Pushee at fault.

O’Connell pushed into Lynch - Pusher at fault.

What would have happened if O’Connell crashed into Lynch and knocked him out instead? He getting suspended?

 

[Whiskers]

Now the AFL are making excuses for Ginbey? No wonder Tiger fans are angry tonight.
I can’t believe the ineptitude of people in charge of this league.
3 weeks for Mansell, how do you let it get to that? Especially since O’Connell’s intention is to go back with the flight for a mark.
Bloody hell.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Watching AFL Tonight (tonight), the reporter quoted the AFL's stance on the difference between the Ginbey/Mansell cases.

He said, regarding the footage of the Ginbey incident, the AFL claimed "that was a preseason game, and that the vision wasn't as clear", yet from that same footage they also concluded "that Ginbey had eyes for the ball".

Figure that out?

Trumpian post-truth

 

[Aussie in exile]

I'd rather the AFL just be open about getting the Ginbey one wrong than try and bullshit that they're not the same act.

Then make a note of it and change the rule at the end of the season, so teams can train the new rule over Summer.

So sick of the AFL changing the rules from week to week based on media complaints.

The AFL will never admit to being wrong.