Advanced  

Latest Result

Grand Final MCG
Sat, 29 Sep 2018 • 12:00 WST
West Coast Collingwood
11.13 (79) 11.8 (74)
Game Focus



The "state of the game"

Discuss the AFL, other clubs and the game in general

Moderators: Mr Q, DALBY

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby DALBY on Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:47 am

Grimes is so lucky to only cop 1 week for his hit on Elliot last night. Great to see Hogan over his anxiety problems already and be selected this week.
Do or do not!
There is no try.
User avatar
DALBY
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:33 pm
Location: WAIKIKI

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby Fat Side on Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:00 pm

DALBY wrote:Great to see Hogan over his anxiety problems already and be selected this week.


He was clearly only suspended for a week
Make the switch now
User avatar
Fat Side
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby WCE Booka 89 on Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:32 pm

DALBY wrote:Grimes is so lucky to only cop 1 week for his hit on Elliot last night. Great to see Hogan over his anxiety problems already and be selected this week.


On pure face value I am fine with it. Compare it with others and it gets very murky, such as Cox from the same game. There is no way they deserve the same penalty, Grimes deserves about 3x what Cox is penalised. My opinion, fair bump play on for Cox, next step up, in game free kick, next step hefty fine, next step (third and what I'd deem fair for Grimes) 1 week ban. Cox still gets a week, then grimes deserves 3 if not 4. I'd have no issue the AFL trying to stamp out late hits with the point of the elbow to a players head, regardless of the medical reports afterwards.
WCE Booka 89
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: Mandurah WA

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby Occidental shoreline on Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:30 am

Bit of an existential question, but shouldn't the intention and action be more important than a medical report? Taking a player out with a late, high elbow is highly dangerous and should be wiped out of the game. Why lessen any penalty just because the player on the receiving end got lucky and avoided injury?
Occidental shoreline
Regular
 
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:26 am

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby WCE Booka 89 on Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:59 am

Occidental shoreline wrote:Bit of an existential question, but shouldn't the intention and action be more important than a medical report? Taking a player out with a late, high elbow is highly dangerous and should be wiped out of the game. Why lessen any penalty just because the player on the receiving end got lucky and avoided injury?


It's a hard one really. Medical report can show how severe a hit was. The problem I feel is the AFL is starting from the medical report and working back, whereas they need to look at an incident, deem whether it is something that should be in the game or not, then work out whether it was player error or if it was a deliberate act, then use the medical report to determine how severe the act was.

But that is a bit too logical...
WCE Booka 89
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: Mandurah WA

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby MelbourneBased on Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:01 pm

Just watch the Hawthorn v Doggies game and watch 2 goals to the Doggies from pre bounce frees, a reversal plus a 50 metre penalties in Doggies favour for push and shove.... absolutely disgraceful, Doggies Win as a result of umpire rulings.,.....

I am sure the 6-6-6 intention was not to downgrade the 50 metre penalty. I certainly didn't read that the intention that the umpires would create new rules, such as running through the circle ...

Surely the Umpires and their minders are paid enough that they can ensure common sense. I know it is the second game and like players.... they are rusty. But... after a weekend where a 100 metre penalty was given ..... I say it again a 100 METRE penalty ....this needs a please explain to the people who they rely on.... the supporters.
MelbourneBased
Regular
 
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:36 pm

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby Fat Side on Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:34 pm

MelbourneBased wrote:Just watch the Hawthorn v Doggies game and watch 2 goals to the Doggies from pre bounce frees, a reversal plus a 50 metre penalties in Doggies favour for push and shove.... absolutely disgraceful, Doggies Win as a result of umpire rulings.,.....

I am sure the 6-6-6 intention was not to downgrade the 50 metre penalty. I certainly didn't read that the intention that the umpires would create new rules, such as running through the circle ...

Surely the Umpires and their minders are paid enough that they can ensure common sense. I know it is the second game and like players.... they are rusty. But... after a weekend where a 100 metre penalty was given ..... I say it again a 100 METRE penalty ....this needs a please explain to the people who they rely on.... the supporters.


Umpires tend to over officiate in the first few rounds then common sense sinks in and we get back to normalcy
Make the switch now
User avatar
Fat Side
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby domo_the_eagle on Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:59 am

WCE Booka 89 wrote:
DALBY wrote:Grimes is so lucky to only cop 1 week for his hit on Elliot last night. Great to see Hogan over his anxiety problems already and be selected this week.


On pure face value I am fine with it. Compare it with others and it gets very murky, such as Cox from the same game. There is no way they deserve the same penalty, Grimes deserves about 3x what Cox is penalised. My opinion, fair bump play on for Cox, next step up, in game free kick, next step hefty fine, next step (third and what I'd deem fair for Grimes) 1 week ban. Cox still gets a week, then grimes deserves 3 if not 4. I'd have no issue the AFL trying to stamp out late hits with the point of the elbow to a players head, regardless of the medical reports afterwards.


The tribunal will play the same stance when natanui was rubbed out for tackling that geelong player. Cox needs to consider the size and weight of himself relative to his opponent before standing there and bracing for impact...
User avatar
domo_the_eagle
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:18 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby DALBY on Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 am

Martin should have got two weeks or even more for his elbow off the play. I'm sure the AFL tribunal makes the sentences up as they go along. Martin is a great player, better down grade that one. What a joke. :roll:
Do or do not!
There is no try.
User avatar
DALBY
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:33 pm
Location: WAIKIKI

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby farmer joe on Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:07 pm

DALBY wrote:Martin should have got two weeks or even more for his elbow off the play. I'm sure the AFL tribunal makes the sentences up as they go along. Martin is a great player, better down grade that one. What a joke. :roll:

Agreed. Not a look that we should want promoted to the kids and others watching the game. Anything off the ball should be 2 weeks minimum.

Though this doesn't apply to anyone hangs one on Ballantyne...
farmer joe
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:22 pm

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby MrWoollie on Fri Apr 12, 2019 3:00 pm

DALBY wrote:Martin should have got two weeks or even more for his elbow off the play. I'm sure the AFL tribunal makes the sentences up as they go along. Martin is a great player, better down grade that one. What a joke. :roll:

100%.

It was even further off the ball than the infamous Barry Hall 'let's get him into the GF' incident.
The elbow was clearly raised (intent).
He got him high (head).

I was thinking three and thought him lucky to get two. Piss weak to downgrade because of who it is. When compared to other one week incidents it just doesn't stack up. Sets a new bar as to what gets a week. I just just see everyone going to the tribunal with a defence... 'it's not as bad a hit as Dusty's'.
2017 sponsor of #6 - Elliot Yeo. 2017 B&F, 2017 EFH POTY.
User avatar
MrWoollie
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:53 am
Location: Peak District National Park

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby Fat Side on Tue May 14, 2019 7:44 am

I think the use of the elbow/forearm by stars lately needs to be discussed. The AFL come out strong during pre-seasons announcing a crack down on punches and that forearm/elbow raising is deemed intentional just to dispense with it as soon as it doesn't suit them. By round one we had forgotten the announcement that punches will result in suspensions.

The bizarre decision making by the MRO and the tribunal during the past week or so, have just thrown a blanket of confusion over the issue of elbow/forearm raising and striking players in the head.

The AFL needs to decide whether striking players in the head with the forearm/elbow is acceptable or not. It's simply not good enough to demonstrate that strikes to the head with forearms/elbows are okay provided the recipient doesn't get knocked out or receive a serious injury. The AFL is attempting to transfer the risk to the player raising the arm rather than accepting responsibility for changing player behaviour.

This is all in an environment of concussion issues and litigation.

If I was hypothetically representing a player such as Angus Brayshaw, Paddy McCartin who were suing the AFL after being struck in the head with a forearm, got concussed and had to retire, I would be questioning the AFL's approach to the issue. I would be playing footage of the 2 x Ablett and 1 x Fyfe incidents where I would argue that the AFL has given tacit approval to raising the forearm/elbow and striking another player in the head. That the AFL gave that behaviour the tick. That the only difference between those incidents and my client's incident is the outcome.

The AFL are playing with fire here by their failure to act especially where concussion is a massive issue. To my mind, either striking an opponent with a forearm/elbow to the head is okay or its not, particularly where the player has an option to keep the forearm down. Currently the AFL has delegated the issue to the player and keeps its fingers crossed that a player is not knocked out and concussed. Coaches have a role here too. Chris Scott cannot be comfortable with Ablett's behaviour at the moment.

It will be interesting to see this play out over the course of the season. These types of issues have a habit of cropping up regularly after the AFL has committed to a controversial course of action.
Make the switch now
User avatar
Fat Side
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby MrWoollie on Tue May 14, 2019 2:45 pm

Well said FS.

On a sillier note, maybe the AFL could help us mug supporters out a bit by releasing the list of protected players for whom it is acceptable to raise the elbow. Obviously Fyfe and Ablett top the list.
2017 sponsor of #6 - Elliot Yeo. 2017 B&F, 2017 EFH POTY.
User avatar
MrWoollie
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:53 am
Location: Peak District National Park

Re: The "state of the game"

Postby DALBY on Tue May 14, 2019 2:48 pm

MrWoollie wrote:Well said FS.

On a sillier note, maybe the AFL could help us mug supporters out a bit by releasing the list of protected players for whom it is acceptable to raise the elbow. Obviously Fyfe and Ablett top the list.


If you have won a Brownlow, you are untouchable.
Do or do not!
There is no try.
User avatar
DALBY
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:33 pm
Location: WAIKIKI

Previous

Return to AFL Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron