BoBo

I agree with everything you’re saying, I would just distill my disagreement on the wording/logic of this decision based upon the fact that the reasoning Gleeson has used to arrive at his decision, is post-hoc justification. It’s very transparent and frankly pretty insulting that the method he has used is: Concussion is the end point, so work back from there to justify why the outcome is wrong. I know I’m banging on about this but man, people need to fully understand that the words ‘could’, ‘should’, ‘reasonable’ are carrying the inherent justifications he has used, can literally be used to suspend any player, ever, in which an injury had occurred. Players ‘should’ and ‘could’ make 100 different decisions and the allocation of ‘reasonable’ can be applied and justified, again post-hoc, to literally every single contested ball or injury outcome. It’s a contact sport, so all players ‘should’ know that an injury ‘could’ potentially happen by any play that involves physicality, therefore, they ‘could’ have made different decisions to mitigate the potential for injury. This logic can be applied to anything!!! If it was applied in this way equally, players would be suspended every single game. I know the vast majority of people are against this decision but it is painfully absurd in its logic.

Just think about the logic of the should and could for a second. If a player was to purposefully kick another player in the knee and cause damage then it’s a suspension. Now just say a player tackles another player, and the tackled players leg gets twisted and they have a season ending knee injury as a result. The tackling player SHOULD have known that those kinda of knee injuries are possible and thus knowing this, COULD have not tackled the player with the ball, so therefore, that’s weeks right there. That is a completely analogous situation to the May one. There’s zero difference in terms of the logic. It’s ludicrous.

‘Should have been thinking about what would happen if he didn’t get their first’ This applies to every contest of the footy and every resulting injury. By that logic, every single injury caused by an opposition player, regardless of context, could and should be able to be mitigated against.

This line is so ludicrously stupid that it doesn’t make sense. Could have reacted before the moment of the last bounce of the ball: It was a contest to get to the ball, these are professional athletes playing a professional sport and any player at anytime ‘COULD’ do anything to mitigate injury, but then that’s compromising what sport is about… COMPETING. And ‘should’ have reacted before the last bounce… why should he? How does he make a determination on what a bounce is going to do before he gets there???? They’re saying that May ‘should’ have known before the last bounce of the ball, which way the ball was as going to bounce. WTAF? Think about the logic of those two sentiments!!! May didn’t do anything that wasn’t a part of the game. There is no point of the footage where you can point to and say ‘that isn’t allowed in AFL’. You could also apply this level of ‘could’ and ‘should’ to any injury ever? Players could do a million things to stop injury, just don’t tackle, don’t run as hard, don’t pack mark etc. etc. etc. and if it results in an injury then you can just say ‘oh the player ‘should’ have foreseen an injury coming up’… like no [censored] chit, it’s a 360 degree contact (apparently semi now) sport.

I think this is what I meant but I didn’t say it correctly! So we lose the most games that we should’ve won on expected scores?

Just on this… Surely we’d have to be expected scores ladder leaders???

Xerri just did a coat hanger, pretty clear and simple. If you’re going for the ball, you’ll turn your head or body, toward the ball. Xerri keeps his head dead straight and just swings the arm out.

Can we get Leek Aleer?? He’s available apparently

Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t, for a kicking game I think it has some explanatory value of our entry woes, but that could just be me

I don’t think Spargo is considered in the ‘mid-forwards’ bracket no.

Kicking Efficiency out of the 183 midfielders or mid-forwards listed on Wheelo Ratings. Ed Langdon 13th Xavier Lindsay 20th Harvey Langford 27th Chandler 59th Pickett 110th Oliver 142nd Viney 169th Tracc 176th

Yeah maybe, I guess from an investment perspective I’d rather see Kolt stay in for the rest of the year because he’s still so young.

I’d rather see the opposite and give them a run at AFL for the rest of the year, I doubt we are going to find any magic bullets with the players on our list by years end, so may as well give them a series of games.

I’d love to see a graph alongside this for prevalence of injuries to see if there’s a correlation. If I’m not mistaken (I very well could be), forwards are given a set amount of practice shots to avoid fatigue/injury?

There’s moments like this every week. Very simple option to kick too and we make it as difficult as possible.