7 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Have you ever played tiddlywinks? It can get quite heated. ?

VEHEMENT NO CASE TO ANSWER and if the soft C*^ks at AFL want to see it otherwise then may as well play Netball or Basketball I

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Physics isn't my strong suit, but isn't force measured as a combination of speed and mass? If so, because players are professional and fitter, bigger, stronger and faster than ever before, I would have thought the collision forces today have the potential to be greater than they have ever been before.

The very problem rugby union is grappling with, more so than league. Their players are monstrous and the game is starting to realise it's got a massive problem around duty of care ... specifically life after rugby for players who are getting continually pounded in the head by giants.

Its not the intent, in this case  going for the ball,   he is not DeGoey !  its the outcome.   He got him in the head    full stop.

10 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

I see this as one more skirmish in the AFL's war against the NRL. A new front has been opened regarding head trauma. The NRL don't quite know what to do about it, but they know it's affecting junior uptake of the sport.

The AFL want the mums of the land to say "you're not playing rugby" and they further want them to say "but that AFL is okay ... they try to protect the head".

As in all things, the AFL is inconsistent and erratic on this. That's why they can let certain pieces of thuggery go as "part of the game" and other things, clearly "in play" (eg the Geelong guy who got tackled fairly but landed on his head) get cited.

All part of their big picture war on other codes.

Don't forget soccer. It's probably an even bigger threat to afl

49 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

So, you’re better than a lawyer. ?

Who isn’t?

Mackay has been cleared 

Good outcome this. Jason Dunstall excellent again on 360 tonight about it.

Great outcome  ! INTEGRITY of game is preserved?

2 hours ago, Hell Bent said:

The footballer in me who played in the 70s and 80s who once copped a king hit behind play and had to live with it says great contest,  play on and unlucky to Hunter 

The father of 2 young boys In me says we need to protect the head at all times and despite zero malice from Mackay, he chose to bump and broke Hunters jaw in 3 places with the potential of ongoing health issues as a result.

I love tough footy as much as anyone but concussion / brain injury are changing people's lives and in some cases ending them.

I won't be upset if a precedent is set here.  

As a child of the 70's and 80's I am super happy that off (and on) the ball thuggery (such as you describe) is being rubbed out of the game and culture.

As the father of girls and boys, I would literally (but as a last resort, 'in extremis') kill villages before I allowed harm to come to my children. That said I really think there is something to letting them play sport where there is some risk of injury, even a concussion (and I would only tolerate one or two, before change would be enforced). However I strongly feel learning about risk and consequence in a contested sport, makes better humans. I am super torn that one of my daughters has decided Muay Thai is the go, and has had a couple of bouts (carefully supervised), at the same time I have never seen her more confidant and more fit. Likewise my sons, with my heart in my mouth, I watch them do things that have the potential to hurt them.

I think Hunter's jaw is super unlucky, these injuries are still pretty rare, so on balance think this is not where you set the precedent. I really think AFL is the best game on earth to learn about controlling aggression and testing yourself, I don't want that to be lost. 

De Goey on the other hand should have gone for two, deliberately targeted the head, and deliberate actions must be fully sanctioned.

All that said, if it was my son holding his broken jaw, I'd probably make a complete hypocrite of myself.

 

Fanatique Demon  659

Posted 39 minutes ago

•   1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

So, you’re better than a lawyer. ?

Who isn’t?

___________________________________________________

Hey .... I resemble that remark !!!     

 

 

7 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i thought it was dangerous and reckless

he came in at speed and elected to bump and hit the head.....he had choices

the afl have said repeatedly that if you elect to bump and head contact is made (deliberate or not) then you are in trouble

so.....reckless, high contact, high impact.....apply the formula

That is where we differ - your opinion is that he elected to bump; mine is that he turned to go for the ball.

Of course if he elected to bump he deserved 4-6. 

4 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Will it ruin AFL? I'm not so sure. Legal action against the AFL or the clubs for allowing avoidable concussions might ruin it, though. And therein lies the problem - was it avoidable?

Physics isn't my strong suit, but isn't force measured as a combination of speed and mass? If so, because players are professional and fitter, bigger, stronger and faster than ever before, I would have thought the collision forces today have the potential to be greater than they have ever been before. We're not going to be able to make players smaller or weaker, but we might be able to slow them down. Perhaps abolishing interchange altogether might provide the paradigm shift needed to make the game slower and therefore safer.

By the way, an excellent article by Jake Niall in The Age today on this very topic.    

If the AFL want to put an end to head knocks, then have a look at how many deliberate head high hits Max gets every week, and Clarrie did especially last week.

And don’t start me on that protected thug Mummy, and Nankervis. They get away with sniping week after week, including elbows to the head in ruck contests. 
 

Utter hypocrisy. 

Edited June 17, 20213 yr by monoccular

This was one of the toughest to wrap your head around. He is touching the footy. The ‘ball player’ is moot IMO, but one player is better positioned to pick up the ball and protect themselves. The other is open and has an opponent behaving them making it harder to turn the body and brace if he even saw the impact coming. 

The game is less brutal than it was but these things will occur and if we can just minimise them the we are progressing.

Many years ago, I played school footy along with most kids. There were few other options other than hockey or cross country. Footy could be tough but generally  fair. If kids transgressed with punches or other physical action off the ball, they were sent off the ground. 

When I left school I played with an old school side and university side. After 2 years, I realised that my idea of footy was not shared by others. Attacks on the player, resulted in broken jaws and other injuries that could be life changing. Like many others, after a few years, I stopped playing. I loved footy but was not prepared to take the risk. And my love for playing withered on the vine. 

Years later I was delighted when my boys took to footy. My pleasure in seeing them line up for their school was soon mitigated when I watched young kids being belted around by bigger aggressive kids who took on the behaviours of AFL players. Aggression towards their opponent, both physical and verbal. Their disrespect for the umpire was palpable. 

At some point, probably the day when I saw one of my boys pulverised by his opponent and then subsequently watched as his opponent attacked his injured shoulder, my attitude changed. 

My concern was shared by many others. As a result the school could not attract enough kids to play footy. However, the soccer teams were full. In fact they were oversubscribed.  

 I like watching tough footy but  I did not like watching my boys get smashed. 

So my disappointment in their decision not to play footy when they left school was matched  by my relief that they would not risk further injury. 

So if footy is to survive and remain recognisable to all of us, the governing bodies need to have zero tolerance for attacks on the player on or off the ball. 

Otherwise, the number of kids playing the game will continue to decline. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

Good outcome this. Jason Dunstall excellent again on 360 tonight about it.

He was, I much prefer him when he is serious about footy, a much better alternative to Robbo. David Mackay was very well spoken, pretty articulate young man. Thoughts with Clark as well, not hopes and prayers, just genuine good wishes.  

17 minutes ago, hemingway said:

Many years ago, I played school footy along with most kids. There were few other options other than hockey or cross country. Footy could be tough but generally  fair. If kids transgressed with punches or other physical action off the ball, they were sent off the ground. 

When I left school I played with an old school side and university side. After 2 years, I realised that my idea of footy was not shared by others. Attacks on the player, resulted in broken jaws and other injuries that could be life changing. Like many others, after a few years, I stopped playing. I loved footy but was not prepared to take the risk. And my love for playing withered on the vine. 

Years later I was delighted when my boys took to footy. My pleasure in seeing them line up for their school was soon mitigated when I watched young kids being belted around by bigger aggressive kids who took on the behaviours of AFL players. Aggression towards their opponent, both physical and verbal. Their disrespect for the umpire was palpable. 

At some point, probably the day when I saw one of my boys pulverised by his opponent and then subsequently watched as his opponent attacked his injured shoulder, my attitude changed. 

My concern was shared by many others. As a result the school could not attract enough kids to play footy. However, the soccer teams were full. In fact they were oversubscribed.  

 I like watching tough footy but  I did not like watching my boys get smashed. 

So my disappointment in their decision not to play footy when they left school was matched  by my relief that they would not risk further injury. 

So if footy is to survive and remain recognisable to all of us, the governing bodies need to have zero tolerance for attacks on the player on or off the ball. 

Otherwise, the number of kids playing the game will continue to decline. 

interesting read Hemingway, I completely agree. 

do you think Mackay should have been suspended though? 

21 minutes ago, DubDee said:

interesting read Hemingway, I completely agree. 

do you think Mackay should have been suspended though? 

I have only seen the collision once on TV news. My first reaction was that the bump was fair. That Mackay made a full on  attack on the ball, and turned his shoulder into Clark at the last moment to protect himself at time of impact. My second thought was that it could be regarded as reckless and that MacKay could have avoided such a brutal collision. Of course this was with the benefit of hindsight knowing that Clark had his jaw broken and may be drinking from a straw.  So I’m not sure. They are professional sportsmen and not playing in the amateurs or minor league. It is their job and they are well paid. There is risk but also reward. They also have physical strength, agility and know how. Again only having seen the footage on TV, I thought the attack on Oliver was worse with potential for serious injury. .  

There are always differing opinions about whether any  incident is within the rules and spirit of the game. 

And there is also the broader question as to whether it is good for the game or not ?  .

Hard core footy fans love it and  see it as part of the game. It is good for TV ratings and for media news. However, as times change, there will be increasing litigation over incidents and injuries on the footy field. And for all those footy fans who love the aggression and physical contact, there are many more who regard the game as brutal and who abhor it.

More importantly, there are increasing number of parents who will not allow their kids to play footy. This impacts on participation rates and also continued interest and support for the game at all levels particularly school and junior levels and non professional senior levels.  

10 hours ago, bingers said:

 

Fanatique Demon  659

Posted 39 minutes ago

•   1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

So, you’re better than a lawyer. ?

Who isn’t?

___________________________________________________

Hey .... I resemble that remark !!!     

 

 

Are you a lawyer, Bingers? 
Gee, you seemed like such a nice person, too. What a shame. ?

7 hours ago, hemingway said:

I have only seen the collision once on TV news. My first reaction was that the bump was fair. That Mackay made a full on  attack on the ball, and turned his shoulder into Clark at the last moment to protect himself at time of impact. My second thought was that it could be regarded as reckless and that MacKay could have avoided such a brutal collision. Of course this was with the benefit of hindsight knowing that Clark had his jaw broken and may be drinking from a straw.  So I’m not sure. They are professional sportsmen and not playing in the amateurs or minor league. It is their job and they are well paid. There is risk but also reward. They also have physical strength, agility and know how. Again only having seen the footage on TV, I thought the attack on Oliver was worse with potential for serious injury. .  

There are always differing opinions about whether any  incident is within the rules and spirit of the game. 

And there is also the broader question as to whether it is good for the game or not ?  .

Hard core footy fans love it and  see it as part of the game. It is good for TV ratings and for media news. However, as times change, there will be increasing litigation over incidents and injuries on the footy field. And for all those footy fans who love the aggression and physical contact, there are many more who regard the game as brutal and who abhor it.

More importantly, there are increasing number of parents who will not allow their kids to play footy. This impacts on participation rates and also continued interest and support for the game at all levels particularly school and junior levels and non professional senior levels.  

Play on!!

I'm glad the Tribunal reached that decision.

Taking concussion and head knocks important, but it cannot mean that every concussion or head knock must result in a player being suspended.

This was, writ large, the AFL once again prioritising the outcome of an action over the action itself. I am quite confident that if Clark had suffered no injury at all, not a single person would have batted their eyelids at Mackay's actions.

The test cannot be "could Mackay have done something differently". The test should only be "were his actions unreasonable given all of the circumstances". The former question starts asking about hypotheticals that bear no reality: sure, Mackay could have decided to let Clark pick the ball up, but in the heat of an actual match on an actual field, is that really what we are saying AFL players should decide?

11 hours ago, hemingway said:

Many years ago, I played school footy along with most kids. There were few other options other than hockey or cross country. Footy could be tough but generally  fair. If kids transgressed with punches or other physical action off the ball, they were sent off the ground. 

When I left school I played with an old school side and university side. After 2 years, I realised that my idea of footy was not shared by others. Attacks on the player, resulted in broken jaws and other injuries that could be life changing. Like many others, after a few years, I stopped playing. I loved footy but was not prepared to take the risk. And my love for playing withered on the vine. 

Years later I was delighted when my boys took to footy. My pleasure in seeing them line up for their school was soon mitigated when I watched young kids being belted around by bigger aggressive kids who took on the behaviours of AFL players. Aggression towards their opponent, both physical and verbal. Their disrespect for the umpire was palpable. 

At some point, probably the day when I saw one of my boys pulverised by his opponent and then subsequently watched as his opponent attacked his injured shoulder, my attitude changed. 

My concern was shared by many others. As a result the school could not attract enough kids to play footy. However, the soccer teams were full. In fact they were oversubscribed.  

 I like watching tough footy but  I did not like watching my boys get smashed. 

So my disappointment in their decision not to play footy when they left school was matched  by my relief that they would not risk further injury. 

So if footy is to survive and remain recognisable to all of us, the governing bodies need to have zero tolerance for attacks on the player on or off the ball. 

Otherwise, the number of kids playing the game will continue to decline. 

 

 

 

Well said H.  But what about the influence on youngsters of the [censored] commentators on TV who get excited about thuggery and make jokes about it and use various wink-wink euphemisms about thug players.  They are a high profile part of the problem and make it clear they think we should all enjoy it.  

55 minutes ago, sue said:

Well said H.  But what about the influence on youngsters of the [censored] commentators on TV who get excited about thuggery and make jokes about it and use various wink-wink euphemisms about thug players.  They are a high profile part of the problem and make it clear they think we should all enjoy it.  

Most of the commentators retired from football at least 10 years ago. The game has changed since then in so many ways much of their commentary is superfluous anyway. But on this question of avoidable concussion, they are simply from such a different era their comments show how out of their depth they are. The sooner most (but not necessarily all) of those dinosaur commentators are retired and replaced with more recent retirees, the better. 

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Most of the commentators retired from football at least 10 years ago. The game has changed since then in so many ways much of their commentary is superfluous anyway. But on this question of avoidable concussion, they are simply from such a different era their comments show how out of their depth they are. The sooner most (but not necessarily all) of those dinosaur commentators are retired and replaced with more recent retirees, the better. 

When belted over the back of the head, so many of the commentators laugh and say "haha made him earn it". 

10 minutes earlier the same commentators were extolling the virtues of the league's concerns about concussions. 

1 hour ago, bingers said:

When belted over the back of the head, so many of the commentators laugh and say "haha made him earn it". 

10 minutes earlier the same commentators were extolling the virtues of the league's concerns about concussions. 

And how many of these ‘tough guy’ types end up as commentators. Lynch, Hall, Brereton, Mooney, Hunt, Dyer, Whitten, Taylor, Dipper, Campbell Brown to name a few. There’s media currency in thug behaviour.

Edited June 18, 20213 yr by John Crow Batty

7 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I'm glad the Tribunal reached that decision.

.....

The test cannot be "could Mackay have done something differently". The test should only be "were his actions unreasonable given all of the circumstances". The former question starts asking about hypotheticals that bear no reality: sure, Mackay could have decided to let Clark pick the ball up, but in the heat of an actual match on an actual field, is that really what we are saying AFL players should decide?

Of course is he hadn't turned up for work that day it wouldn't have happened.

5 hours ago, sue said:

Well said H.  But what about the influence on youngsters of the [censored] commentators on TV who get excited about thuggery and make jokes about it and use various wink-wink euphemisms about thug players.  They are a high profile part of the problem and make it clear they think we should all enjoy it.  

Exactly.   I rarely listen to any of the TV commentary these days .. so boring and frankly idiotic.  And yes I remember I think in the Norf game one of our guys got belted on the head after a mark and they loved it.

Not sure if they have enough brain power to be able to be hypocrites - probably just brain dead themselves.

11 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Of course is he hadn't turned up for work that day it wouldn't have happened.

Exactly.   I rarely listen to any of the TV commentary these days .. so boring and frankly idiotic.  And yes I remember I think in the Norf game one of our guys got belted on the head after a mark and they loved it.

Not sure if they have enough brain power to be able to be hypocrites - probably just brain dead themselves.

Yep I am with you Mono, last couple of games watched, I turned off the sound. Could not bear to listen to the commentary. It’s hard to believe that it has got worse, but I think it has or my tolerance level has waned. 

Whatever, it does not matter, I just can’t take it any more!