14 hours ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

Make no mistake, Norf are stacked with at least six up and coming A graders of which a couple will be superstars. I watch them most weeks with my Norf mate and barrack along with him. I'd be shocked if they do not play finals consistently from 2027 onward.

And the good news is this . . .

They'll win a premiership before Essenscum, Pork Barrel Park, Sh&^mond and Meth Coke do.

100% spot on, give them a few years and they will be unstoppable.

 

15 hours ago, Demonland said:

Almost full strength bombers

 

Im not getting to excited about a practice match, but i did enjoy that result.

 

That does not look good for Pal Peppa. I think he has ample time to stay put rather than go in. 

23 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Perfect example of the Footscray Flick. Open hand handball is cheating

2 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

That does not look good for Pal Peppa. I think he has ample time to stay put rather than go in. 

Palpepper is one word

2 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Surely it's a football act and of course the Crows player moved thus running into the innocent Port player.

Apology, wine and roses then move on.

 

2 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Ban the bump.

Player knocked out cold because SPP elected to bump not tackle. Who's to say that head knock wont end Keane's career. 

As i noted in the gus thread it is inevitable the AFL will have to ban the bump. This is the exact reason why.

It is a completely predicable event, so the AFL can't argue they have taken appropriate steps to protect the head of Keane.

it is also a good example of what i was saying about why nann ng the bump won't change footy.

What did SPP achieve by electing to bump not tackle?

Even if he head not hit hit him in the end, ie a totally legal hit, how would his team have benefited?

Maybe the ball jars loose and Port win the ground ball?

He legally hurts an opponent impacting his performance? 

But a tackle could achieve the same results AND possibly also win a free for Port for holding the ball.

And a tackle would also mean SPP, a key player for Port, not risking missing the critical 2-3 opening games of the season.

 

9 minutes ago, binman said:

Ban the bump.

Player knocked out cold because SPP elected to bump not tackle. Who's to say that head knock wont end Keane's career. 

As i noted in the gus thread it is inevitable the AFL will have to ban the bump. This is the exact reason why.

It is a completely predicable event, so the AFL can't argue they have taken appropriate steps to protect the head of Keane.

it is also a good example of what i was saying about why nann ng the bump won't change footy.

What did SPP achieve by electing to bump not tackle?

Even if he head not hit hit him in the end, ie a totally legal hit, how would his team have benefited?

Maybe the ball jars loose and Port win the ground ball?

He legally hurts an opponent impacting his performance? 

But a tackle could achieve the same results AND possibly also win a free for Port for holding the ball.

And a tackle would also mean SPP, a key player for Port, not risking missing the critical 2-3 opening games of the season.

 

a bump that hits the head is already banned and incurs suspension

10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

a bump that hits the head is already banned and incurs suspension

Yes, of course.

I'm talking about outlawing the bump all together.  

The bump will ultimately be banned, if for no other reason than the legally ramifications of not dong so.

Take that hit. 

If the bump was illegal (particularly in that scenario where tackling is an option and self protection is not a factor), like for instance the chicken wing tackle became after Judd was suspended for it, then sure SPP might have still chosen to bump to take out  keane.

But really that is pretty unlikely becuase he would have known he coukd get reported. 

And if the bump was illegal and he did bump him in the head he would get 7-8 week not 3 weeks (he might get 3 for a bump thta didn't hit him in the head).

From an OH&S perspective, of being PROACTIVE not REACTIVE in terms of protecting players from unnecessary head trauma, a case could be made the AFL is legally exposed. 

Of course head knocks will always be a part of the game, accidents will always happen.

But every person and their dog has identified the risks when a player chooses to bump not tackle, yet the employer (the AFL) has failed to implement the obvious risk mitigation strategy - ban the bump in such scenarios (ie player has option to tackle, but chooses to bump - because the rules allow him to do so).

Every time a player is hit bumped to the head this season when tickling is an option, and gets head trauma (concussion) the AFL is legally exposed civilly (ie being sued by said player)

Adn i would have thought also exposed to action by Workcover for not doing all it can to maximise the safety of working environment.

30 minutes ago, binman said:

Yes, of course.

I'm talking about outlawing the bump all together.  

The bump will ultimately be banned, if for no other reason than the legally ramifications of not dong so.

Take that hit. 

If the bump was illegal (particularly in that scenario where tackling is an option and self protection is not a factor), like for instance the chicken wing tackle became after Judd was suspended for it, then sure SPP might have still chosen to bump to take out  keane.

But really that is pretty unlikely becuase he would have known he coukd get reported. 

And if the bump was illegal and he did bump him in the head he would get 7-8 week not 3 weeks (he might get 3 for a bump thta didn't hit him in the head).

From an OH&S perspective, of being PROACTIVE not REACTIVE in terms of protecting players from unnecessary head trauma, a case could be made the AFL is legally exposed. 

Of course head knocks will always be a part of the game, accidents will always happen.

But every person and their dog has identified the risks when a player chooses to bump not tackle, yet the employer (the AFL) has failed to implement the obvious risk mitigation strategy - ban the bump in such scenarios (ie player has option to tackle, but chooses to bump - because the rules allow him to do so).

Every time a player is hit bumped to the head this season when tickling is an option, and gets head trauma (concussion) the AFL is legally exposed civilly (ie being sued by said player)

Adn i would have thought also exposed to action by Workcover for not doing all it can to maximise the safety of working environment.

Before banning the bump, try handing out seriously big suspensions for bumps which hit the head.

Give SPP 6-8 weeks for this and see if he ever does it again.

Keep doing it. Bump, hit the head, 6+ weeks. See how that goes before we decide to remove the bump altogether.

21 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Before banning the bump, try handing out seriously big suspensions for bumps which hit the head.

Give SPP 6-8 weeks for this and see if he ever does it again.

Keep doing it. Bump, hit the head, 6+ weeks. See how that goes before we decide to remove the bump altogether.

Yeah, they might well do that. They certainly wont ban the bump any time soon.

Still creates a grey zone of an AFL sanctioned action (the bump) being a causal factor in accidental head knocks when a player chooses to bump. I mean the alternative is 100% of the duty of care fall on the player electing to bump. Which won't fly in court.

Leaving aside the legal stuff, i really don't think on bumping (except for those scenarios where a player braces for contact to protect themselves) would change the game that much. 

What would actually change? 

I know fans love a good hip and shoulder 'down the centre'  that rattles the cages of players but its not as if the game would look much different without them - there's already relatively few anyway.

The game is more ballistic and dangerous than in my supporting lifetime, so its not as if it suddenly wont be a tough, physicals game that test the courage of participants.  

What about bumps that are for shepherding rather than attaching the bloke with or going for the ball? 

There would be a grey area between just standing in the way of an opponent trying to get to your teammate with the ball and bumping the opponent to prevent him reaching your teammate.  Who would have initiated the bump -  the player shepherding or the opponent trying to get past him?  I guess when you have 100 grey areas, a 101st is no big deal....

I do not support banning the bump but as long as the hit is on body and not the head. Also if the player could have tackled but elects to bump the body and the player is knocked out when his head hit the ground that should be a report.

Pepper Powel will be suspended for sure. His arms were tucked in in the bump/hit position when he charged in so there was no intention to tackle at all. He elected to bump. That is obvious. Should get 4 to 6 weeks.

It reminded me of the days when Brereton used to line players up and whammo - it was legal in those days and i believe its also not an historic offence.

7 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

If the AFL still believes that the head is sacrosanct (and after the Maynard hit on Angus Brayshaw, I have my doubts) then they should go for a 4 week suspension in this case. The precedent must be set once and for all that you don’t hit the head. 

30 minutes ago, manny100 said:

I do not support banning the bump but as long as the hit is on body and not the head. 

But that's the problem manny.

I doubt Powell-Pepper meant to hit Keane in the head. It was no doubt a an accident. But an accident that would not have occurred if the bump was a reportable offence. 

On 23/02/2024 at 16:28, Demonland said:

Almost full strength bombers

 

Robbo’s been pumping up their tyres for months and the Hun has given the Bombers rock star treatment over the entire summer. Looks like their dynasty’s over before it started.

6 minutes ago, alpha33 said:

Robbo’s been pumping up their tyres for months and the Hun has given the Bombers rock star treatment over the entire summer. Looks like their dynasty’s over before it started.

Trouble is the rock star is Taylor Swift and not Travis Kelce.

4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

a bump that hits the head is already banned and incurs suspension

Really ? So Maynard didn't bump

20 minutes ago, Kent said:

Really ? So Maynard didn't bump

"Attempted spoil" apparently.

5 hours ago, binman said:

Ban the bump.

Player knocked out cold because SPP elected to bump not tackle. Who's to say that head knock wont end Keane's career. 

As i noted in the gus thread it is inevitable the AFL will have to ban the bump. This is the exact reason why.

It is a completely predicable event, so the AFL can't argue they have taken appropriate steps to protect the head of Keane.

it is also a good example of what i was saying about why nann ng the bump won't change footy.

What did SPP achieve by electing to bump not tackle?

Even if he head not hit hit him in the end, ie a totally legal hit, how would his team have benefited?

Maybe the ball jars loose and Port win the ground ball?

He legally hurts an opponent impacting his performance? 

But a tackle could achieve the same results AND possibly also win a free for Port for holding the ball.

And a tackle would also mean SPP, a key player for Port, not risking missing the critical 2-3 opening games of the season.

 

100% Agreement....which is rare for us. We could hold hands walking down the street now

47 minutes ago, Kent said:

Really ? So Maynard didn't bump

of course he bumped, and illegally

corrupt adjudication system

but, you already know that

EAGLES SQUAD

2 Jake Waterman, 3 Andrew Gaff, 5 Jayden Hunt, 6 Elliot Yeo, 7 Reuben Ginbey, 9 Harley Reid, 11 Tim Kelly, 12 Oscar Allen, 13 Noah Long, 14 Liam Duggan, 15 Jamie Cripps, 16 Luke Edwards, 18 Campbell Chesser, 19 Brady Hough, 21 Jack Petruccelle, 23 Alex Witherden, 25 Matt Flynn (late withdrawal), 28 Tom Cole, 31 Jamaine Jones, 32 Bailey Williams, 34 Jack Williams, 36 Loch Rawlinson, 37 Tom Barrass, 39 Coen Livingstone, 40 Callum Jamieson, 41 Ryan Maric, 43 Tyrell Dewar

Notable absentees: Jeremy McGovern, Tyler Brockman, Matt Flynn

DOCKERS SQUAD

1 - Sturt, 2 - O’Meara, 3 - Serong, 4 - Darcy, 6 - Clark, 7 - Fyfe, 8 - Brayshaw, 9 - Jackson, 10 - Walters, 11 - Aish, 12 - Davies, 13 - Ryan, 14 - Sharp, 15 - Hughes, 17 - Brodie, 18 - Emmett, 20 - Taberner, 21 - McDonald, 22 - Knobel, 23 - Worner, 24 - Amiss, 25 - Pearce, 26 - Young, 27 - Jones, 28 - Erasmus, 29 - Simpson, 30 - O’Driscoll, 31 - Walker, 32 - Frederick, 34 - Wagner, 35 - Treacy, 37 - Draper, 38 - Voss, 39 - Switkowski, 40 - Delean, 41 - Banfield, 42 - Reidy, 44 - Johnson, 45 - Williams, 46 - Stanley

Notable absentees: Heath Chapman, Brennan Cox, Josh Corbett, Ollie Murphy, Sebit Kuek

MATCH FORMAT

Six segments of match simulation

9 minutes ago, Demonland said:

EAGLES SQUAD

2 Jake Waterman, 3 Andrew Gaff, 5 Jayden Hunt, 6 Elliot Yeo, 7 Reuben Ginbey, 9 Harley Reid, 11 Tim Kelly, 12 Oscar Allen, 13 Noah Long, 14 Liam Duggan, 15 Jamie Cripps, 16 Luke Edwards, 18 Campbell Chesser, 19 Brady Hough, 21 Jack Petruccelle, 23 Alex Witherden, 25 Matt Flynn (late withdrawal), 28 Tom Cole, 31 Jamaine Jones, 32 Bailey Williams, 34 Jack Williams, 36 Loch Rawlinson, 37 Tom Barrass, 39 Coen Livingstone, 40 Callum Jamieson, 41 Ryan Maric, 43 Tyrell Dewar

Notable absentees: Jeremy McGovern, Tyler Brockman, Matt Flynn

DOCKERS SQUAD

1 - Sturt, 2 - O’Meara, 3 - Serong, 4 - Darcy, 6 - Clark, 7 - Fyfe, 8 - Brayshaw, 9 - Jackson, 10 - Walters, 11 - Aish, 12 - Davies, 13 - Ryan, 14 - Sharp, 15 - Hughes, 17 - Brodie, 18 - Emmett, 20 - Taberner, 21 - McDonald, 22 - Knobel, 23 - Worner, 24 - Amiss, 25 - Pearce, 26 - Young, 27 - Jones, 28 - Erasmus, 29 - Simpson, 30 - O’Driscoll, 31 - Walker, 32 - Frederick, 34 - Wagner, 35 - Treacy, 37 - Draper, 38 - Voss, 39 - Switkowski, 40 - Delean, 41 - Banfield, 42 - Reidy, 44 - Johnson, 45 - Williams, 46 - Stanley

Notable absentees: Heath Chapman, Brennan Cox, Josh Corbett, Ollie Murphy, Sebit Kuek

MATCH FORMAT

Six segments of match simulation

Mineral Resources Park... there are not enough face palms for how unhelpful these ridiculous sponsor-named venues are.