1 minute ago, Left Foot Snap said:

Didn't Brad Miller (or was it Brent Moloney?) get done for almost bumping someone. Something about he just missed but the action was suspended. That one has always been high on my ridiculous meter.

moloney

he missed, and still got suspended

Just now, Left Foot Snap said:

Didn't Brad Miller (or was it Brent Moloney?) get done for almost bumping someone. Something about he just missed but the action was suspended. That one has always been high on my ridiculous meter.

Was moloney. Missed by a foot. Tbh I think that's actually how suspension should be metered out. If you try and knock someone for 6 but miss you deserve to go.

4 hours ago, biggestred said:

Was moloney. Missed by a foot. Tbh I think that's actually how suspension should be metered out. If you try and knock someone for 6 but miss you deserve to go.

Did Miller also have a weird one?

 

12 hours ago, Left Foot Snap said:

Did Miller also have a weird one?

Hmm, you might be thinking of the Tom Lonergan kidney injury. Miller didn't quite get purchase jumping for a mark and ended up with his knee driving into the fast-backtracking Lonergan's lower back. Looked ugly and the kidney had to be removed, but there was no tribunal side to it.

On 28/02/2024 at 17:34, Left Foot Snap said:

Didn't Brad Miller (or was it Brent Moloney?) get done for almost bumping someone. Something about he just missed but the action was suspended. That one has always been high on my ridiculous meter.

Moloney missed Bartel by quite a margin but was suspended     
Another outrage.  

 

 

 

On 27/02/2024 at 21:10, Dee-monic said:

The Powell-Pepper case provides the perfect chance for the AFL to set the standard for the season. Reckless or deliberate conduct resulting in concussion or a serious head wound should incur a six-week minimum ban.

But the AFL, even with a gigantic class-action claim looming against it, effectively condones thuggery, with culprits  defended successfully by high-priced, nit-picking lawyers while concussion victims usually have to miss two games or more.

The latest clear example: Brayden Maynard escaped unscathed after the reckless charge that has ended the career of Angus Brayshaw.

Advances in medical science have made it clear that repeated concussion injuries are likely to result in deadly long-term  consequences. If the AFL does not clean up its act in this regard, what mother would want her son or daughter playing Aussie rules?

 

 

 

What a great summary of what should be, along with racism, the two priority issues of the year.

19 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Scrutiny is not going to stop the AFL from looking stupid, which is precisely how they look now.

And the fines should not be allowed to corral the offence into a category

30 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Spot on.... i thought i was seeing things

 

On 28/02/2024 at 22:16, Left Foot Snap said:

Did Miller also have a weird one?

Did he get suspended for a jumper punch in an out of the blue kind of way? He may even be the first player pinged for it.

 

In 1961 RDB was suspended for 4 weeks in the last round for missing a yellow and black coward (by a foot) who threw his head back and collapsed to the ground 2 metres from where I was sitting. Cost us a flag

12 hours ago, angrydee said:

In 1961 RDB was suspended for 4 weeks in the last round for missing a yellow and black coward (by a foot) who threw his head back and collapsed to the ground 2 metres from where I was sitting. Cost us a flag

Roger Dean?

13 hours ago, angrydee said:

In 1961 RDB was suspended for 4 weeks in the last round for missing a yellow and black coward (by a foot) who threw his head back and collapsed to the ground 2 metres from where I was sitting. Cost us a flag

1963

It might sound hypocritical by me given my stance on banning the bump, but I'm against giving Webster a massive penalty.

From my perspective it is unfair on Webster and against the principles of natural justice.

Why?

Because retrospective penalties, particularly for incidents that are not novel (eg like judds chick wing tackle), indeed are in fact super common, are antihical to the principle of natural justice. 

As analogy, you cop a speeding fine. There are set penalties, but a magistrate decides they want to make a statement because of a recent spike in road deaths. And triples the fine and takes your licence.

There is a regime of penalties for bumps to the head.

Webster's hit was a bog standard example.

The penalty set in the regime is what he should get, perhaps at the upper range.

Why should Webster be 'made an example of'?

How fair is that to webster?

If the AFL feel that is the way to stamp out bumps to the head, why didn't SPP get 8 weeks?

If using webster as the example implies it will stamp it out, then has simpkin got a legal argument that the AFL didn't take the opportunity to make an example of SPP (because that may have meant him not getting knocked out)?

The time for setting penalties is in the calm of the off season. 

If the argument is increased penalties will be an effective deterrent then bloody introduce them BEFORE the season starts.

If the AFL wanted to make a statement about head trauma they could have announced, to much fanfare, BEFORE the first intra club simulation that penalties for bumps to the head had been dramatically increased.

Knock a player out, minimum 5 weeks. 

Knock a player out when choosing to bump if tackling is an option, minimum 7 weeks.

Run past the ball and bump a player and hit the head, minimum 8 weeks.

Leave the ground and knock a player out, minimum 10 weeks.

Additional weeks for particularly spiteful acts.

Weeks double for repeat offenders.

Put every player on notice and make it clear that this season these penalties WILL apply.

It's so typical of the AFL's approach to this, and other issues, to do nothing, or not enough, and then react to specific events.

And then dodge responsibility and putting it at the feet of the players.

It's a point Gus made powerfully in his retirement letter - to protect the head, the AFL has to be PROACTIVE not REACTIVE.

I've made this point a number of times over the last few seasons, I find it increasingly hard to believe that the AFL addiction to media saturation doesn't drive its decision making. 

All the whoo ha filling up the airwaves about the bump is great content for the media, who pay big bucks to the AFL for access.

Edited March 4, 20241 yr by binman

Clarkson has been 'forced to backtrack after he admitted to an expletive-ridden, quarter-time spray towards Webster at Moorabbin'.

Clarkson has form for this sort of totally inappropriate outburst.

Yes the article references some examples of Clarkson's many such outbursts and loss of control, but the Roos must be happy for such nice balanced article that treats Clarkson with kit gloves and doesn't question the culture of the club.

I mean there is an obvious hook here for giving the Roos, the first AFL club to have a female president and CEO, a sermon about culture - Clarkson using a highly sexualised (and arguably also misogynistic AND homophobic) slur, in ear shot of  'several players, club staff and AFLW footy boss Tess McManus'. 

It's all good though, Clarkson has 'reached out to Ross Lyon and both the St Kilda players to apologise'.

I guess the Roos are not on the AFL sanctioned hit list.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/lyon-concedes-there-is-no-defence-for-webster-s-hit-on-simpkin-20240304-p5f9iv.html

 

I’d give him 6 weeks

17 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Pickett beware

1 hour ago, binman said:

It might sound hypocritical by me given my stance on banning the bump, but I'm against giving Webster a massive penalty.

From my perspective it is unfair on Webster and against the principles of natural justice.

Why?

Because retrospective penalties, particularly for incidents that are not novel (eg like judds chick wing tackle), indeed are in fact super common, are antihical to the principle of natural justice. 

As analogy, you cop a speeding fine. There are set penalties, but a magistrate decides they want to make a statement because of a recent spike in road deaths. And triples the fine and takes your licence.

There is a regime of penalties for bumps to the head.

Webster's hit was a bog standard example.

The penalty set in the regime is what he should get, perhaps at the upper range.

Why should Webster be 'made an example of'?

How fair is that to webster?

If the AFL feel that is the way to stamp out bumps to the head, why didn't SPP get 8 weeks?

If using webster as the example implies it will stamp it out, then has simpkin got a legal argument that the AFL didn't take the opportunity to make an example of SPP (because that may have meant him not getting knocked out)?

The time for setting penalties is in the calm of the off season. 

If the argument is increased penalties will be an effective deterrent then bloody introduce them BEFORE the season starts.

If the AFL wanted to make a statement about head trauma they could have announced, to much fanfare, BEFORE the first intra club simulation that penalties for bumps to the head had been dramatically increased.

Knock a player out, minimum 5 weeks. 

Knock a player out when choosing to bump if tackling is an option, minimum 7 weeks.

Run past the ball and bump a player and hit the head, minimum 8 weeks.

Leave the ground and knock a player out, minimum 10 weeks.

Additional weeks for particularly spiteful acts.

Weeks double for repeat offenders.

Put every player on notice and make it clear that this season these penalties WILL apply.

It's so typical of the AFL's approach to this, and other issues, to do nothing, or not enough, and then react to specific events.

And then dodge responsibility and putting it at the feet of the players.

It's a point Gus made powerfully in his retirement letter - to protect the head, the AFL has to be PROACTIVE not REACTIVE.

I've made this point a number of times over the last few seasons, I find it increasingly hard to believe that the AFL addiction to media saturation doesn't drive its decision making. 

All the whoo ha filling up the airwaves about the bump is great content for the media, who pay big bucks to the AFL for access.

So where does Maynard sit in all this the AFL had the opportunity to set the bar and didn't Webster should not be made an example of Maynard should have been and we wouldn't be having this discussion

I blame the AFL entirely