Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. MRP Lotto thread II

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Lay a legal tackle and if he doesn’t get injured you’re fine.

Lay the exact same legal tackle and if he gets injured you’re banned.

An outcome based model has been brought in by the AFL as it has no idea how to deal with the concussion issue and wants to wipe its hands off it.

Pushing responsibility to the players whilst trying to maintain control over every other aspect like an OCD mother in law.
This sums it up perfectly and shows it just makes no sense and they make it up on the run.. cause a concussion, you probably get rubbed out(unless you play for a high profile team), but there is no clear rules as to what you can or can not do.

"If a player chooses to..." bump, tackle whatever.... is the biggest cop out of all time. It's like saying if you choose to drive drunk you only lose your license and get punished if you're involved in a fatal accident.

The AFL has had long enough now to come up with a clear set of rules that are adapted to the new world of concussion in sport. It's up to them to say these actions are unacceptable, these actions are not, no result based rules.

If you do something from the unacceptable list, you're suspended regardless of the result, if someone is concussed from something from the acceptable list, it is an accident and part of the risk of playing a contact sport.

But it easier for the AFL to just continue this bull$hit and use us and any other low profile teams and players as scapegoats and test cases to appease whatever agenda they feel they need to appear to be pushing.
 
Anyone thinking Laura Kane barracks for North is kidding. LK barracks for the “organisation” now……it’s like the Masonic Lodge of 1970’s. Corrupt AF.

Unqualified fraud in the role to keep the future concussion court case as successful as it can be for the AFL

She couldn’t give a **** about footy
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

This sums it up perfectly and shows it just makes no sense and they make it up on the run.. cause a concussion, you probably get rubbed out(unless you play for a high profile team), but there is no clear rules as to what you can or can not do.

"If a player chooses to..." bump, tackle whatever.... is the biggest cop out of all time. It's like saying if you choose to drive drunk you only lose your license and get punished if you're involved in a fatal accident.

The AFL has had long enough now to come up with a clear set of rules that are adapted to the new world of concussion in sport. It's up to them to say these actions are unacceptable, these actions are not, no result based rules.

If you do something from the unacceptable list, you're suspended regardless of the result, if someone is concussed from something from the acceptable list, it is an accident and part of the risk of playing a contact sport.

But it easier for the AFL to just continue this bull$hit and use us and any other low profile teams and players as scapegoats and test cases to appease whatever agenda they feel they need to appear to be pushing.
“If you choose to tackle…” is the worst thing I’ve ever heard in a game where tackling is part of the fundamentals.

May as well say “if you choose to kick the ball…”
 
“If you choose to tackle…” is the worst thing I’ve ever heard in a game where tackling is part of the fundamentals.

May as well say “if you choose to kick the ball…”
It is genuinely the only way to dispossess the opponent who has the ball in their hands.

The game is ****ed.
 
The ridiculous thing about the AFL suspending anyone involved in a concussion for 3 weeks for 'carelessness' is that it won't help reduce head trauma incidents one iota. It's a combat sport and accidents like this will always happen.

But the AFL can go away and say how tough they are on concussions and hope that's enough to avoid legal action going against them. Nothing to do will player welfare one bit.

So stupid.
 
“If you choose to tackle…” is the worst thing I’ve ever heard in a game where tackling is part of the fundamentals.

May as well say “if you choose to kick the ball…”
If you kick the ball into someone’s head and they’re concussed is that considered careless, high contact and severe? Three weeks? What about taking a specky and kneeing a player as you go up?
 
If you kick the ball into someone’s head and they’re concussed is that considered careless, high contact and severe? Three weeks? What about taking a specky and kneeing a player as you go up?

"If you choose to take a speccy"

What if you carelessly run into a teammate and knock him out? 3 weeks?
 
Yep, encourage players to fold at the knees at the first hint of contact; surely no better way to protect that player's head.

Before the AFL decreed the 'head was sacrosanct' who ever saw someone willingly go face first into the ground in a tackle without any attempt at self preservation?

Looks completely unnatural to this old spud who played prior to the WWE-ification of our game.
 
Zero chance he gets off. Small club tax. AFL can make it look like they are cracking down without impacting a big club. We will roll over and take it because we are just happy to exist. This thread will get 90 pages in the next 2 days claiming he should get off when it’s already a fait accompli.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Curtis deliberately went to ground first, at the side of Sinn instead of on his back, and tried to rotate him.

Unfortunately, Sinn's knees dug into the turf. Look here at where Curtis ends up when Sinn's head hits the ground. The only way Curtis could be at his full side instead of on-top of him is if he was trying to avoid illegal contact.


1745743041479.png
 
Even the AFL's own article of the suspension shows PC on the side of the player as head contact to the ground is made.

He drops the knees almost immediately after the tackle is made and makes an attempt (and succeeds as per below image) to roll the player rather than drive into the back of him.

Go into the tribunal with these points and get the f**king thing thrown out. Unreasonable, my rear end. His only other option was to let Sinn run away with the ball.

Screenshot_20250427_183642_AFL.jpg
 
Zero chance he gets off. Small club tax. AFL can make it look like they are cracking down without impacting a big club. We will roll over and take it because we are just happy to exist. This thread will get 90 pages in the next 2 days claiming he should get off when it’s already a fait accompli.
I tend to agree. Best forward in the comp currently could also miss crucial games that we can win in Essendon and Richmond.

Keeps us far away from our 6 to 8 successful season and rewards Richmond handsomely.

Now the tackle and subsequent concussion were not engineered. But the outcome will be irrespective of precedence.
 
Nice Giantroo and Bedford got off that on appeal.

This will be interesting.

Shame that was last year. The stupidity here isn't in this individual incident. It lies at a much higher level. North must appeal, but can't expect to beat that level of dumbness.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I tend to agree. Best forward in the comp currently could also miss crucial games that we can win in Essendon and Richmond.

Keeps us far away from our 6 to 8 successful season and rewards Richmond handsomely.

Now the tackle and subsequent concussion were not engineered. But the outcome will be irrespective of precedence.
It also won’t help that we will most likely hire some kid from legal aid doing his winter internship because he is cheap.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom