10 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

The Carlton doctor has struck again with Kruezer named to play.

Seriously their reports have almost caused players to be suspended. I reckon a number would have gotten off - certainly re the severity - if not for the Carlton doctor reports.

The other clubs must be seriously shitty with them. I cant wait for a Carlton player to be up at the tribunal and watch other clubs skewer them

they alluded to this on 360 the other night, and chris scott's eyes nearly exploded out of his head

fair to say carlton are still caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarlton, when all is said and done

8 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Strangely I reckon this actually might have been the case.

Watch Geelong get a favouring  finals venue or two 

Might as well kick this along a bit. Something stinks about this years Brownlow. The money gets refunded from Danger back to

punters incorporated, so they can have another plonk on Dusty at $1.20 or worse, on TAB. Give us a break.

I don't reckon Dusty is the man...odds on, look on....

I can't see any players from Carlton being reported, except maybe Gibbs for slapping someone in the face. 

It's not Melbourne but Collingwood need to desperately appeal the Brody Grundy suspension for the sake of the game as we know it.

obviously yes protecting the head is important and we all know about the importance of the concussion issue but... 

Grundys tackle was exactly how players have been taught to tackle forever. Pin the arms bring him to ground win the free.

suspending grundy because browns head hit the dirt is a joke.  We're at the point now where players won't be able to tackle out of fear of the tackled player getting hurt and the tackler getting rubbed out.

suspensions should only be handed out for deliberate aggressive acts outside the rules of the game. Not for accidental football incident injuries. It's a contact sport and players will get hurt. They all know and accept the risks.

the afl need to decide if the sport is going to remain a contact sport and sort out the mrp to acknowledge and accept injuries can happen in fair football incidents.

by all means rub out the blokes who punch, deliberately bump, trip, chicken wing, headlock, slander and just downright ignore the rules of the game but don't go after players who play fair and within the rules just because someone got hurt.

Seems that the Milkshake got off?  Must be the first time we've had some luck with the MRP all year.

 

3 minutes ago, Gipsy Danger said:

It's not Melbourne but Collingwood need to desperately appeal the Brody Grundy suspension for the sake of the game as we know it.

obviously yes protecting the head is important and we all know about the importance of the concussion issue but... 

Grundys tackle was exactly how players have been taught to tackle forever. Pin the arms bring him to ground win the free.

suspending grundy because browns head hit the dirt is a joke.  We're at the point now where players won't be able to tackle out of fear of the tackled player getting hurt and the tackler getting rubbed out.

suspensions should only be handed out for deliberate aggressive acts outside the rules of the game. Not for accidental football incident injuries. It's a contact sport and players will get hurt. They all know and accept the risks.

the afl need to decide if the sport is going to remain a contact sport and sort out the mrp to acknowledge and accept injuries can happen in fair football incidents.

by all means rub out the blokes who punch, deliberately bump, trip, chicken wing, headlock, slander and just downright ignore the rules of the game but don't go after players who play fair and within the rules just because someone got hurt.

The game has changed and the tackler is now held responsible if their tackle causes a head injury/concussion. Numerous examples this year for Grundy to have known better.

Needs to be suspended 1-2 weeks at least.

Head is, and has to be protected.

7 minutes ago, Gipsy Danger said:

It's not Melbourne but Collingwood need to desperately appeal the Brody Grundy suspension for the sake of the game as we know it.

obviously yes protecting the head is important and we all know about the importance of the concussion issue but... 

Grundys tackle was exactly how players have been taught to tackle forever. Pin the arms bring him to ground win the free.

Not according to Paul Roos:

Roos said when he was coaching Melbourne, he “hated” when his played tackled their opponents to the ground as it “takes you out of contest...“I taught the players to keep their feet, drive through the tackle and don’t take them to ground,” Roos said.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/paul-roos-criticises-nathan-buckleys-suggestion-that-brodie-grundy-executed-a-perfect-tackle/news-story/82d67719165cc49997cf87999d9ce4ac

Players know the rules. They were set when Trengove got 3 weeks for his tackle on Danger.  Between then and now the MRP were selective about enforcing it.  But the rule about pinning arms, head hitting the ground hasn't changed. 

Edited August 7, 20177 yr by Lucifer's Hero

2 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Not according to Paul Roos:

“There’s no wiggle room whatsoever. Arms were pinned, vulnerable position, knocked out — it’s a week.

Roos said when he was coaching Melbourne, he “hated” when his played tackled their opponents to the ground as it “takes you out of contest...“I taught the players to keep their feet, drive through the tackle and don’t take them to ground,” Roos said.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/paul-roos-criticises-nathan-buckleys-suggestion-that-brodie-grundy-executed-a-perfect-tackle/news-story/82d67719165cc49997cf87999d9ce4ac

Players know the rules. They were set when Trengove got 3 weeks for his tackle on Danger.  Between then and now the MRP were selective about enforcing it.  But the rule about pinning arms, head hitting the ground hasn't changed. 

Danger miraculously played the next week as well 

3 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Not according to Paul Roos:

Roos said when he was coaching Melbourne, he “hated” when his played tackled their opponents to the ground as it “takes you out of contest...“I taught the players to keep their feet, drive through the tackle and don’t take them to ground,” Roos said.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/paul-roos-criticises-nathan-buckleys-suggestion-that-brodie-grundy-executed-a-perfect-tackle/news-story/82d67719165cc49997cf87999d9ce4ac

Players know the rules. They were set when Trengove got 3 weeks for his tackle on Danger.  Between then and now the MRP were selective about enforcing it.  But the rule about pinning arms, head hitting the ground hasn't changed. 

Is this the reason we can't lay a tackle?

It's good the be Cotchin.

Whether Dangerfield or Grundy should be suspended is one thing, but what was the difference that got Danger 1 week and Grundy 2 weeks? Does Grundy have a previous record?

3 minutes ago, Ash35 said:

It's good the be Cotchin.

Whether Dangerfield or Grundy should be suspended is one thing, but what was the difference that got Danger 1 week and Grundy 2 weeks? Does Grundy have a previous record?

Danger was deemed careless and medium impact to the head.

Grundy was deemed careless and high impact to the head.

Grundy stiff to get two weeks.  I reckon one is the correct call

23 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Danger was deemed careless and medium impact to the head.

Grundy was deemed careless and high impact to the head.

Classified as high impact due to Brown spending a night in Hospital whereas Kreuzer did not.

Measured on outcome once again as opposed to intent.

Edited August 7, 20177 yr by McQueen

Really thought Mumford would get cited for that Gawn shoulder to the head.....even if it was just wreckless.

1 minute ago, Wadda We Sing said:

Really thought Mumford would get cited for that Gawn shoulder to the head.....even if it was just wreckless.

How did the umpire miss the free kick? He was only two metres away.

Hope GWS appeal the one week, sole reason we need him to play against the Dogs.

2 minutes ago, Demon77 said:

How did the umpire miss the free kick? He was only two metres away.

Hope GWS appeal the one week, sole reason we need him to play against the Dogs.

Yeah I was happy he copped a week for his hit on Gawn until I realised who GWS's opponent is next week.

Edited August 7, 20177 yr by Bring-Back-Powell

God i was so happy that McClure (Age) reckons that Dangerfield is higher, VC like, than the Brownlow, because of the sacrifice he made of one week for the Team so he could play and single handedly beat the Toigs. 

Hope the Pies appeal the Grundy.  If he gets off or reduced to 1 it helps my dreamteam, if he doesn't he misses R23.

51 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Measured on outcome once again as opposed to intent.

So let's say someone is punched in the street where they suffer some bleeding and bruising, as opposed to exactly the same punch where they fall backward, hit their head on the concrete, suffer brain damage and die?

Would you argue the assailant should only be punished on the intent? Outcome is critical to what they're charged with and ultimately sentenced.

I dont like this talk of what you can do on the street and compare it to the footy field.

You couldnt kick a footy at a person on the street, it would be assault unless you were Dom Tyson, of course. You could hit someone.

12 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

So let's say someone is punched in the street where they suffer some bleeding and bruising, as opposed to exactly the same punch where they fall backward, hit their head on the concrete, suffer brain damage and die?

Would you argue the assailant should only be punished on the intent? Outcome is critical to what they're charged with and ultimately sentenced.

These days one must speak softly and carry a small taser.

 

4 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

So let's say someone is punched in the street where they suffer some bleeding and bruising, as opposed to exactly the same punch where they fall backward, hit their head on the concrete, suffer brain damage and die?

Would you argue the assailant should only be punished on the intent? Outcome is critical to what they're charged with and ultimately sentenced.

This was a tackle - a crucial part of our game so I can't really appreciate the analogy you've presented.

Grundy's intent was to win a free kick from a HTB decision or at the very least to get the ball to spill from Brown' possession back into contest.

I think it's unfortunate that any player gets concussed from a great tackle but it's an occupational hazard that they know is very real.

A far as a punch goes, the Fahour case is a classic example where players should be charged and ultimately convicted for acts of malicious intent.

As an aside, the grounds are rock hard nowadays due to the improved turf and drainage. We're not getting the wet winters like we used to, the game is played under a roof etc etc. All adds up to more severe outcomes rather than just focusing on the poor bloke just playing the game.

 

Players need to be taught to tackle differently

We now know the outcome of concussion

17 minutes ago, Franky_31 said:

I dont like this talk of what you can do on the street and compare it to the footy field.

You couldnt kick a footy at a person on the street, it would be assault unless you were Dom Tyson, of course. You could hit someone.

Harsh... but fair hahaha 

 

1 hour ago, Demon77 said:

How did the umpire miss the free kick? He was only two metres away.

Hope GWS appeal the one week, sole reason we need him to play against the Dogs.

Oh he did get a week then?

...my mistake.