Roast Time to drop the pointless aggression from games

[Topkent]

I'm making a hyperbolous point that why defend violence, bullying, aggression on the field (and the AFL field is a wokplace) but for most people that behavior is not acceptable off the field in their everyday life and interactions.

Because in real life I cant run and jump into the back of your head with a ******* knee just cause theres a ball around. It's a stupid comparison

 

[CheapCharlie]

Because in real life I cant run and jump into the back of your head with a ******* knee just cause theres a ball around. It's a stupid comparison

You are stuck in the 80s

 

[CheapCharlie]

A common argument seems to be "it's part of the game, always has been".

Verbally abusing other players with racist and homophobic slurs used to be part of the game too.

Thankfully society attitudes , education and enforcement has seen that aspect removed.

The AFL struggled for years to show any leadership on verbal abuse, so it might take a while longer to come to terms with the last remnants of physical bullying, but it will happen

 

[Grrr]

A common argument seems to be "it's part of the game, always has been".

Verbally abusing other players with racist and homophobic slurs used to be part of the game too.

Thankfully society attitudes , education and enforcement has seen that aspect removed.

The AFL struggled for years to show any leadership on verbal abuse, so it might take a while longer to come to terms with the last remnants of physical bullying, but it will happen

They will never police getting in an opponents ear. Some players never stop on the field, as long as that is not against community standards, racist, homophobic, mentioning partners etc, then it will go on, as it does in many workplaces. Banter is the term, and if we stop that what next.

Some players never say a word on the field, some never shut up. I think that is quit different to trying to show force, much of it unnecessary, in my eyes.

 

[RAPPA]

If the niggle - provided it’s not racist or discriminatory - is going to get under your opponent’s skin and throw them off their game, then it’s a mental battle won. Footy doesn’t just have to be a physical game. If you can gain a psychological advantage, why not use it.

 

[Wosh]

A fair bit of abuse and name calling in this thread which is unnecessary, if you can’t discuss reasonably then scroll past or move on. Thanks.

 

[peternorth]

Tim Watson voiced concerns over these types of incidents and also the chris scott

Chris Scott

Age

47

Ht

182cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.6

4star

K

11.2

4star

HB

5.4

4star

M

5.1

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

0.4

3star

No current season stats available

D

13.2

4star

K

10.2

4star

HB

3.0

3star

M

2.2

3star

T

2.8

5star

G

0.4

3star

v lions incident, citing potential for it to seep into grassroots football

 

[Multicoloured Hippo]

Tim Watson voiced concerns over these types of incidents and also the chris scott v lions incident, citing potential for it to seep into grassroots football

Seep into? Coaches get bashed, its already there. What was the last grassroots level game you attended? Oh but Tim Watson said........gimme a break

Anyone that has coached any sport knows idiot aggro and over zealous parents are the worst. What is the solution? A complex personality and psychological assessment of every participant?

 

[RAPPA]

Tim Watson voiced concerns over these types of incidents and also the chris scott v lions incident, citing potential for it to seep into grassroots football

the same bloke who in the one segment continued to refer to Damian Barrett as “the voice of treason”. Granted it’s not the worst thing to say - let alone of purple - but Timmy needs to stop throwing stones in the glass house.

 

[peternorth]

Seep into? Coaches get bashed, its already there. What was the last grassroots level game you attended? Oh but Tim Watson said........gimme a break

Anyone that has coached any sport knows idiot aggro and over zealous parents are the worst. What is the solution? A complex personality and psychological assessment of every participant?

How is that relevant?

 

[peternorth]

the same bloke who in the one segment continued to refer to Damian Barrett as “the voice of treason”. Granted it’s not the worst thing to say - let alone of purple - but Timmy needs to stop throwing stones in the glass house.

Purple should take that as a compliment

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Isn't "The footy gods etc" attitude part of the problem? The attitude that "he will get his later" is usually one that's tied to a violent response.
My point is cut out the cheap stuff first and the need for a response vanishes.

No AFL players aren't responsible for raising my kids, I am and for that reason they don't watch UFC!! But when I want them to watch the greatest sport in the world and there are similar things done that are on the UFC, we have an issue.

We want our great game to grow and the common stated reason that soccer is growing faster than AFL in juniors is the injury issue. But I also think it has a fair bit to do with the role model stuff.
Imagine being a non footy parent, your 10yo likes watching footy and you see your kid watch what Danger did yesterday? From not only the pres of the AFLPA but a designated role model to the Geelong community by the footy club.
Do you think that parent is going to let the kid still watch or play AFL?

I've been hearing that about soccer for 40 years, it's still pretty much a joke domestically.

What sports have you played 2 or 3 times a week for 35 years?

 

[HPKS]

A common argument seems to be "it's part of the game, always has been".

Verbally abusing other players with racist and homophobic slurs used to be part of the game too.

Thankfully society attitudes , education and enforcement has seen that aspect removed.

The AFL struggled for years to show any leadership on verbal abuse, so it might take a while longer to come to terms with the last remnants of physical bullying, but it will happen

The verbal niggle is a modern thing from the younger generation. Spend any time with them in a social setting and the biggest thing you’ll notice is the change from physical violence to verbal altercations. They’ll talk the talk but that’s as far as it goes a lot of the time. I’m not saying it’s good or bad. It’s just changed a lot.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The verbal niggle is a modern thing from the younger generation. Spend any time with them in a social setting and the biggest thing you’ll notice is the change from physical violence to verbal altercations. They’ll talk the talk but that’s as far as it goes a lot of the time. I’m not saying it’s good or bad. It’s just changed a lot.

The verbal niggle has been around forever in footy, of course a few decades ago this led to being physical and fortunately the violence has been removed from the game.
The young people today can do as they want, doesn’t bother me as they are the ones waking up daily dealing with issues in their heads we didn’t deal with.
Very glad I grew up in the era I did, we were not in a cocoon and not protected by our parents from the real world. We knew right from wrong and had to decide what our actions were based on that. We did the wrong thing we were punished.
Totally different world to now with totally different outcomes for the people.

 

[ferball]

the same bloke who in the one segment continued to refer to Damian Barrett as “the voice of treason”. Granted it’s not the worst thing to say - let alone of purple - but Timmy needs to stop throwing stones in the glass house.

Barrett claimed to be a North Melbourne supporter so Timmy is right on with that one.

 

[mezaire]

I've been hearing that about soccer for 40 years, it's still pretty much a joke domestically.

What sports have you played 2 or 3 times a week for 35 years?

I have played heaps of sports over the years. AFL was limited to school and a couple of years afterwards due to a physical disability.
But if you'd like to know...
Indoor soccer on and off for over 15 years
Tennis for over on and off 20 years
Sailing for 35 years
Cricket on and off for 10 years
Hockey on and off for 10 years
Plus at least 2 seasons of...
Gridiron, Netball, Basketball and Indoor Cricket

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I have played heaps of sports over the years. AFL was limited to school and a couple of years afterwards due to a physical disability.
But if you'd like to know...
Indoor soccer on and off for over 15 years
Tennis for over on and off 20 years
Sailing for 35 years
Cricket on and off for 10 years
Hockey on and off for 10 years
Plus at least 2 seasons of...
Gridiron, Netball, Basketball and Indoor Cricket

Good job, way to keep active.

 

[ferball]

Imagine being a non footy parent, your 10yo likes watching footy and you see your kid watch what Danger did yesterday? From not only the pres of the AFLPA but a designated role model to the Geelong community by the footy club.
Do you think that parent is going to let the kid still watch or play AFL?

Are you referring to that head clash?

In no way is that anything like the violence that used to happen. He didn't king hit him from behind and if it wasn't for the risk of CTE that incident would be cited as an example of why this game is considered the greatest in the world. The courage both players showed to risk that sort of outcome while trying to win the ball should be respected despite the unpleasant result.

It was an incidental head clash and the reason the game's admin is trying to remove them from the game is because of the long term health consequences for players. Frankly I have very little time or respect for Dangerfield (and his response afterward was pathetic) but the incident itself wasn't some horrible act of brutality.

 

[ferball]

Incorrect.

Before the 2017 season, Richmond had one of those 'honesty' type sessions, and Brad Ellis fessed up that he feared getting hurt out there, worried about being pushed around, and had shirked contests as a result.

This came out in the doco at the end of the year, and if you look back on Richmond's games, you can see that when he did go hard, his teammates were always there congratulating and encouraging him, and when he did cop it, either a hard blow, or someone pushing him around, they were quickly there to help him up and, if necessary, fly the flag for him.

In one of the finals he had a massive head clash with an opposition player as both went hard for the ball...half the team arrived to pat him on the head.

Point is, he WAS intimidated, and it was something he struggled with. I would be stunned if he was alone in that.

As has often been said, real courage isn't about not being afraid, it's about being afraid and doing it anyway.

Didn't know that. I never had much time for Ellis but that has changed my opinion of him a little.

FWIW Glenn Archer used to say the fear of what he was going to do and what would possibly be the outcome used to make him physically ill before games.

 

[mezaire]

Are you referring to that head clash?

In no way is that anything like the violence that used to happen. He didn't king hit him from behind and if it wasn't for the risk of CTE that incident would be cited as an example of why this game is considered the greatest in the world. The courage both players showed to risk that sort of outcome while trying to win the ball should be respected despite the unpleasant result.

It was an incidental head clash and the reason the game's admin is trying to remove them from the game is because of the long term health consequences for players. Frankly I have very little time or respect for Dangerfield (and his response afterward was pathetic) but the incident itself wasn't some horrible act of brutality.

I was referring to the way Danger acted out as a form of frustration for his mistake that basically cost his team a goal 20 seconds earlier.
IMHO he acted with extra force and anger towards Kelly because of that.

Yes it wasn't a king hit from behind but IMHO it still teaches young players that it is OK to take out your frustration with an act of physical violence.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Are you referring to that head clash?

In no way is that anything like the violence that used to happen. He didn't king hit him from behind and if it wasn't for the risk of CTE that incident would be cited as an example of why this game is considered the greatest in the world. The courage both players showed to risk that sort of outcome while trying to win the ball should be respected despite the unpleasant result.

It was an incidental head clash and the reason the game's admin is trying to remove them from the game is because of the long term health consequences for players. Frankly I have very little time or respect for Dangerfield (and his response afterward was pathetic) but the incident itself wasn't some horrible act of brutality.

I think we will see more and more of this as players will be taught to not expect impact in the game and hence the slightest of impact will cause issues.
I am still a firm believer that as long as a bump, tackle etc is done correctly then accidental outcome should be put down as bad luck.
But they have gone in a different direction thinking that penalising outcome will fix issue when they may of created a bigger issue than what was there. They allow head high contact without penalty the entire match, yet the head is sacrosanct only when player gets hurt.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I was referring to the way Danger acted out as a form of frustration for his mistake that basically cost his team a goal 20 seconds earlier.
IMHO he acted with extra force and anger towards Kelly because of that.

Yes it wasn't a king hit from behind but IMHO it still teaches young players that it is OK to take out your frustration with an act of physical violence.

What is extra force? If he had bumped Taylor Walker they would of both got up and got on with game, in what universe are players supposed to work out how hard they can bump based on size of player etc.
Based on current rules I had no issue with Danger suspension. The rules are clear on outcome.
As a footy purist it was just a bump that Kelly came out worse from.

 

[mezaire]

What is extra force? If he had bumped Taylor Walker they would of both got up and got on with game, in what universe are players supposed to work out how hard they can bump based on size of player etc.
Based on current rules I had no issue with Danger suspension. The rules are clear on outcome.
As a footy purist it was just a bump that Kelly came out worse from.

I saw it as him going hard at a player who was always going to have well and truly have disposed of the ball at the point of contact, as a way to take out his own frustrations.
I wonder if the previous play hadn't happened (or the game wasn't going against Geelong so badly, and also pretty embarrassing loosing to Adelaide) whether Danger would have chosen to bump at all

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I saw it as him going hard at a player who was always going to have well and truly have disposed of the ball at the point of contact, as a way to take out his own frustrations.
I wonder if the previous play hadn't happened (or the game wasn't going against Geelong so badly, and also pretty embarrassing loosing to Adelaide) whether Danger would have chosen to bump at all

Yes maybe he did, but I want that. I wonder now whether players are going in hard enough especially our team because they are worried about accidental outcomes? It was always a fine line aggression in footy but only now the accidental outcome is being penalised. It is what it is I guess but I really worry going forward that players may stop expecting contact and their limp body’s may get hurt more than it Would of previously.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

All previous champions before them were likely going around belting blokes or shirt fronting them.

Quite a few champion defenders have liked to throw Kidney punches when their opponent outpaced them on a lead.