binman

Good thing for him the round zero game against us is in Sydney - he won't have to fly.

To misquote Paul Kelly once more: 'The hysteria on the back pages is still blooming' @3183 Dee

Agree. Only against VFL players, but i was surprised how natural he looked as a mid. Low centre of gravity, nuggety, and good hands are positives for a mid. Tough too. But there's one thing I really like. Of course we will benefit from him kicking it inside 50 more as a mid than defender. But his ability to hit 15-20 metre targets under pressure would be even more important for us as a mid than defender. Less turnovers, and crucially a mark allows us to control the ball, and hold it up and reset if required. Even some players with good technique struggle with that kick. Clarry, tracc and viney - our starting midfield players - don't have that skill, and almost always handball, or dump kick, under pressure. Which most of time is fine, but can lead to some chaotic ball movement and turnovers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As long as i've followed the dees we have been an easy target for the media. And the fact that for most of that time we have been a basket case on and off the field has meant that we haven't been able to use that derision as fuel to respond on field and shove it up 'em (because if you ain't got the cattle it, righteous anger is not going to help over a season in terms of results). And that of course perpetuates the cycle. It's different now. We have the cattle, systems and experience of being a top team for multiple years to take advantage of the justified anger at the bollocks the media has served up and channel that into our footy.

He'll kick 12 against us! Take it to the bank.

Disgusted with how our preseason has gone? Disgusted? For pete's sake we've had one player get pinged last season (the news came out post season). And with clarry, the club has handled a tricky situation super well and he has gone off and worked his backside off to get into AFL level shape. The club has reintegrated him super well and a player many feared might take months to get back, IF AT ALL, is in the frame for round one selection. Huge tick to clarry and the club. Gus has had to retire through no fault of his own - or the clubs. And we've had a handful of bog standard injuries, none from mismanagement as far as I'm aware. All that after was generally accepted to be a successful trade and drafting period. And that disgusts you? Seriously, get a grip. And perhaps turn of SEN, get off twitter, put down the hun and stop slavishly buying into the media's hysteria theatre.

Too bloody right - well said Two things particularly annoy me about rubbish like claiming the dees will have failed if we don't get another flag from this group. One, it is widely accepted as fact (repeated ad nausea by the media, coaches and ex players) that it IS INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO WIN A FLAG. It is also accepted as fact that this is even more so the case with equalization than say 20 years ago (bombers say hi). Two, many of those same pundits (and lets be honest, some DL posters) think our list is over rated. Yet somehow us winning only one flag is some sort of failure? Please. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. Where is the narrative about the Cats taking 11 years to win flag after 2011 despite being in the top 4 or 8 the entire time? And having the most ridiculous home ground advantage in the competition? And the discussion also provides the haters a convenient out of we do win the flag this year - well they should have snagged another with their list. People are quick to knock Pies, Blues and Tigers fans for being so one eyed and 'feral'. Well, i wish we had more fans willing to fly the flag and push back against the nonsense constantly directed at our club. We are an easy target in part because some of our fans be like: 'oh, yeah, you're right one flag would be a waste given how talented our list is, which by the way isn't actually that good, over rated in fact by rose coloured glasses nuffy set, and nowhere near as good as that of the pies - by the way don't you just love Macrae, at least he knows how to talk to the media, unlike straight sets Simon'

Damn those stand alone flags!

Hopefully in the media department. Two birds with one stone. by the by it did occur to me yesterday that perhaps there is a reason the dees comms team seems to be staffed by kids on work experience, ie to leave space and funding for Gus to come in and play a key role. In all seriousness he would be a brilliant fit. Already doing club comms, smart as a whip, has an interest in media and who wouldn't want to hear Gus interview his ex teammates?

Good point about not being locked into 3-4 year players (i picked that range becuase it would take that long for hose qualities to be fully evident). But if they did make the number 10 a symbol of a hear and soul player imagine the power and honor of awarding it to an older player at the bluey? For example, i see Nibbla as a heart and soul player, who like Gus bleeds red and blue. Imagine ahead of his last season he was given the number 10 (perhaps by Gus) at the bluey to honor his contribution. I suspect in the their heart of hearts very few oppo and actually despised Selwood, or say Hodge for that matter. Who wouldn't want such heart and soul players running around for their club?

Too bloody right. I get the anger at Maynard, but personally i only have so much emotional capital and i want to spend mine on my love for Gus and the dees and being positive about our 2024 season. Feeding the trolls just encourages a cycle of angst, and without getting all hippy, bad vibes and negative energy. It just becomes a self fulfilling, unvirtuous cycle of negativity. Demonland has had enough bad vibes and negative energy this preseason. I don't think we need more.

Perhaps the club could consider awarding, in perpetuity, the number 10 jumper to say third or fourth year players that display Gus' qualities of selflessness, leadership, ability to connect people, sense of humor and team first philosophy. Needn't be the best player - often isn't. When i was young fella playing footy and cricket, such a player might win the best club man award, which back in th day was often seen as bit of good bloke award given to plodders. But every team, whether that be in sport, or work, needs such 'glue' people. And I think now we have a much better sense of the importance of people with these qualities in any team environment.

Personally I'm not going to waste any energy on Maynard. My focus is on the AFL handling of this. They have basically acknowledged the rules were inadequate in terms of protecting a player in the position Gus found himself in by changing them as soon as they could. For me that is explicit evidence of Gus' implied criticism of the AFL being reactive not proactive. And evidence of the AFL, stewards of the game not just the financial bottom line, of failing in their duty to protect players. Why? Because the risks involved of a player leaving the ground and jumping towards an opponent were clear prior to the Gus hit. It's why koz copped 2 weeks for his bump on Bailey Smith despite not hurting him. Yes, that was a bump but so what? The logic remains the same - leave the ground and the risks, and potential level of head trauma, increases. The Gus hit wasn't a novel event that couldn't be predicted- for example like Judd's chicken wing tackle was. Hell, Maynard's accepted defence, promoted by most of the footy media and ex players, was it was a 'football act'. Can't be an event the AFL couldn't reasonably be expected to have had the rules in place to prevent AND be a football act. A less significant example of this complete lack of ability to get ahead of the curve and proactively prevent predictable issues, at least in terms of protecting the health of its employees, is the joke that the score review system is. It is predictable a player will receive significant head trauma from a bump. I would argue if that happens it's on the AFL. The AFL can be proactive when they want to. One player having their leg broken led the AFL to introduce the slide rule. That rule change didn't change football. But somehow the bump is sacrosanct, which is deeply ironic. They have been inching towards banning it. Rip the band aid off before another young player has to leave the game because of head trauma so bad they have to remain in a darkened room and can't shake migraines. That would green light all the levels below the AFL, including junior footy to ban the bump. I can only imagine how many unnecessary hits to the head there are at local club level and how many thousands of people have some form of head trauma from such hits.

Knocking? Quick hip and shoulder and he'd be inside your house in a flash!

Zero short term (say next 10 -15 years). In large part because there's little evidence they work (they don't stop the brain whiplashing around inside the skull, which as I understand it is where the real damage is done). But at some point for sure. I have heard there are some helmets designs pretty well advanced that look promising. They have some sort of compression material that absorbs some of the impact and reduces the whiplash effect. And apparently there are smart mouth guards already available that measure impact to track the frequency and severity of head knocks. But what I can see soon is the bump being banned. And even leaving the ground to smother such is the risk (as we have just seen) Goody has said the bump being banned is inevitable and that they train the players not to bump. This is where the AFL is allowing itself to be exposed legally - and morally. They should ban the bump NOW. Or at least phase it in by immediately banning the shepperd/bump where players run past the player with the ball and hit a trailing player. Proactive The hit de Goey put on that freo rookie last year is what I'm thinking of there. He flushed his jaw with his shoulder. Broke his jaw and knocked him into next week. From memory only got two weeks. Football act. If he had not got him in the head he wouldn't have been reported. But it was a totally unnecessary act. Whichbbroke the jaw of a 20 year old kid in his first or second game. Shepperd with your arms out if you want to shepherd. But they won't because they are gutless and don't want all the talk back, its not netball whoo ha and bone head ex footballers on their back about changing the game (massive credit to David King on this front - one of the few ex footballers serious about this issue. He has too many friends with cte). And inevitably someone will get hip and shouldered and have to immediately retire because of the severity of the hit. Get brain damage, just like gus did. And then they will have to scramble to ban the bump. Too late for a young bloke who's footy career is over in the blink of an eye. Reactive. The other factor is a serious legal tsunami is heading the AFL's way. Its surely going to force the AFL to make significant changes to the game. The NFL has already faced it/is facing it. The big, big difference is the NFL is a trillion dollar industry. The AFL is small change in comparison. Of course the NFL want to reduce risk (eg helmet technology, in game testing, some rule changes etc) but its hard to see them radically reducing the number of helmet to helmet clashes that characterise the game But the NFL can absorb the payouts, insurance and super schemes and factor it into their business model. The AFL can't.

The other interesting bit from Gus's letter from a legal perspective is: 'I hope the AFL will be proactive in the future when it comes to the safety of its players as opposed to reactive' The AFL, like any org, is responsible for creating as safe as possible work place. OH&S 101 is identification of risks and mitigation of those risks. Identify the stairs are a slip hazard and put slip protection on - before someone falls down them. That's to say, proactive, not reactive.

We have to wait 18 years?

"There's two teams out there today and only one of them's playing footy"

A lot of talk about culture of late. The culture of any organisation is not tested when you're flying. It's tested when under pressure and there are internal and external shocks. Let's see how ours stands up this season.

And threads - and posts - on demonland.