binman

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.

The media should stop using words and phrases like concussion and head knocks. They only serve to minimise what we are really talking about: Brain damage and brain trauma.

And the media took their sycophancy a step further with puff pieces painting Maynard as a top bloke with a heart of gold who was dead unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The second victim of an unfortunate accident. Distraught. Kick to kick with a kid in the park. What a bloke. Flowers for the missus and wine for Gus. Sweetheart. Supposed to be on the downlow, but surprise, suprise, somehow the media get wind of it and dutifully report it. A soft ball interview with an emotional Maynard. Poor fella. The AFL wasn't going to allow the product to affected. A pies flag is gold. And the remora media, who also have their snouts in the pies trough, are more than happy to help out.

I respect your opinions HT, and see what you you are saying, but i strongly disagree with these points (with the exception of the bolded bit). Leaving aside the culpability of Maynard, and any anger i might feel towards him (which for me has dissipated and todays news hasn't really changed that) there is no doubt it was that incident that directly caused Gus to have to retire, not a cumulative effect of multiple head knocks. For one thing he hadn't a concussion in 5 years, as i understand it was regularly tested and was in good brain health. That hit, legal, or not, was akin to a car crash such was its severity. The only thing close i have seen on the footy field watching live is Matthews laying out Steve Smith at Princess Park. In the opening para of his letter to fans Gus makes it crystal clear the reason he has to retire is because of the Maynard hit (my bolded bit): 'Scans taken 2 weeks after the qualifying final against Collingwood compared to scans taken last week revealed further deterioration of my brain as a direct result of the incident I was involved in that September evening. This means that medically, I can no longer continue to play contact sports of any kind to protect my long-term health. Note: the context of the further deterioration he references is a comparison of a recent scan to one taken after the Maynard hit, not historical, cumulative damage levels. Today's not the day to debate the AFL's responsibility and role in this awful situation, suffice to say i absolutely think the AFL's inaction is a causal factor in the incident, as i have little doubt will soon be fully ventilated on court. Happy to come back to this discussion when emotions have cooled, because i think it is an important one and i couldn't agree more with Gus that a lot more needs to be done to address the scourge of concussion (and also with what i read as his implied criticism that not enough has been done, again my bolding): 'The issue of concussion is incredibly important for our game and industry to address over the coming years. We have made great strides in this space, but there is more that needs to be done to safeguard the brains of players not only in the AFL ranks, but from grassroots all the way up. I believe the future of our game will be strongly impacted by how we deal with this element of player safety as more information comes to light. I hope the AFL will be proactive in the future when it comes to the safety of its players as opposed to reactive, so we can continue to enjoy this amazing game and protect the brains of the players. They must be sacrosanct.'

Performative. The AFL put on a woeful case and then didn't appeal a ridiculously flawed decision.

Heart break for Gus. His teammates too. Super brave decision - but obviously the right thing for him though. CTE is a nightmare. Hard not think it will ultimately change the sport. Fir one thing, I'd go with goody's take, and flat out ban the bump. People will say it would change footy too much - but would it really? I mean how often does a bump actually achieve something other than rattling someone's cage? Tackling is almost always the better option than a bump in terms of say winning the ball back and/or preventing an opponent disposing of the ball. Thanks Gus for all you've given the club and fans.

Oh, yeah sure, I go out of my way to troll the dolts who think AFL footy hasnt moved on since 1994 and get triggered by something as non controversial as the impact of training loads on performance. By the way dazzler, you must be gagging for STMJ to start posting again. I mean, i have to say your face palm posse that trails me around the forum looks pretty sad (the company you keep and all that) and Steve would at least add some credibility.

100%. The impact of losing melk was underrated I reckon. On addition to his forward craft he would have negated the intercept marking of say Moore and weitering (or whichever defender he went to).

Jags with my feeling they were playing fatigued coming of a heavy training phase.

I mentioned that. My thinking was two fold. One, even if he has been working his backside off he still missed a chunk of preseason and the sort of match conditioning training might give him. That said he did look in good nick. But my concern more about taking the pressure off him and allowing him to ease into the season. But with all the press about us atm perhaps clarry wont get the attention he might have, so perhaps that's not such a worry. We'll get a good sense of where their thinking is at next week in terms of whether they pick him, and if they do if he starts and/r how many minutes he gets.

Spot on. Any dees supporter who was a fan in the late 70s to the late 80s knows what a woeful culture looks like - and this ain't it. I'll never forget RDB's reaction when he came home to the club to coach. He couldn't believe how bad the culture of the club had become. He was legitimately shocked.

A couple of levels of irony here. This is a thread started by a new poster asking posters to consider uniting behind our team and stop fighting amongst ourselves. The site owner follows up with a post noting he wholeheartedly agrees with this message of unity between fans You ask me this question: 'Surely even your confidence is a little dented watching this unfold? I answer your question respectfully ('no, not at all'). Then add some words i hoped might contribute to the spirit of this thread - lets unite behind one of the oldest and greatest sporting clubs in the world. Our club. I didn't ask you for any editorial feedback. But you gave it anyway. Waffle. Again, in the spirt of the thread, i didn't bite, and instead made a self deprecating joke. Again, I was not asking for any feedback But you gave it anyway. 'You fell a little short, about the English Channel gap' Perhaps you were trying to be funny and not trying to have another dig at me. Only you know the answer to that and frankly i don't care. But so there is no confusion, I didn't find it funny. The second level of irony? Claiming people are triggered by your suggestion we might slide. As i have noted i have not seen evidence of anyone being triggered by your assessment of where we are at. But I appear, for whatever reason, to trigger you. And if i were honest i find unnecessary rudeness, for example having a shot at me for no apparent reason in consecutive posts in a thread calling for unity, a little bit triggering. I don't get it. But each to their own i guess. So, for the sake of both of our mental health i'm popping you on ignore. Life is too short for silly back and forths on a footy forum. I'm telling you this because i don't want you to think I'm being rude when i don't reply to any more questions from you. Enjoy the season rooster. Go Redlegs

That's disappointing . I was aiming for Churchillian.

Good point. Would actually make a bit of sense - good way to get both Gus and Salo some mid time without losing anything defensively. Did you watch the last 3 periods of the scratch match? If so, thoughts on Salo as a mid?