Redford above mentioned 'Circle-Jerking'
'too many cooks'...
too many (rhymes with rocks)?
Redford above mentioned 'Circle-Jerking'
'too many cooks'...
It's only tricky because the mantra 'the head is sacrosanct' has excused individuals from the responsibility to protect themselves first and foremost. Because it is the AFL, the AFL protects the head by encouraging players to put their head in harm's way.its very tricky;
wilmotts action is smart; he braces for and bumps Hayward in the head primarily, then goes for the ball. kind of concurren, but I think its a 1-2 decision in his mind but motivated out of self-preservation, not intent to hurt.
how do you protect Hayward? penalise him for going for the ball? 'play-on' and log it in an archive to defend against legal action if his brain goes mushy?
its really hard and I dont have the answer.
but what I do have is an understanding of how the answer comes about;
strategically, consistently, informed by experts, in consultation with clubs, communicated to all stakeholders including members and fans, and regulated effectively.
is AFL are capable of that?
zero chance
a heap of under qualified, overpaid, bozo's who clearly aren't there on merit, who learned bullying entitled leadership at boys grammar , foster an organisational corporate stonewall response system, and are answerable only to Kerry stokes and Rupert Murdoch
It's only tricky because the mantra 'the head is sacrosanct' has excused individuals from the responsibility to protect themselves first and foremost. Because it is the AFL, the AFL protects the head by encouraging players to put their head in harm's way.
We have to stop putting the onus on players executing correct technique to protect those who recklessly refuse to protect themselves. If I run into traffic it's not the truck driver's fault if I get run over.
Most of Selwood's too high frees came from tackles that started legal and he shrugged/wriggled to make slip high. A sneaky trick that he should not have been rewarded for, but not a lot of damage to the scone done.it will be very unfortunate, but very interesting legally,
if Joel Selwood gets the elephantiases of the brain
but not a lot of damage to the scone done.
Yeah but that wasn't caused by his Selwooding. He did recklessly go head-first into packs as well.Huh?
the scar tissue on his eyebrows is about 120mm thick.
he could play Korg
in Korg 70000BC
if I was him,Id be tattooing my address on the back of my hand
him and Jon Brown would be hard to split
for 'man most likely to get the encephalosis' I reckon.
Don't disagree with the suspension (expected it) so long as it's applied consistently. Which of course it won't be.a broken clock is correct twice a day
Don't disagree with the suspension (expected it) so long as it's applied consistently. Which of course it won't be.
I still think expectations on players now is getting tougher & tougher with the line forever creeping.
how much of the AFLs confusion and sphincter tightening is about the concussion lawsuits?
is that still happening?
nice work eZy.. you're on fire lately btw ...its all about lawsuits.
they give as much *smile* about the players
as Nero did about Gladiators.
If The AfL did regulate gladiators, they would have ordered
"all Lions must be de-clawed"
and then de-clawed some lions and pulled the fingernails off some gladiators
Say 'well announce lion swallowing numbers onnthe winter solstice'
And never announce them, put a tiger to the sword, and tick it off
He should be suspended. Just like drunk drivers, it's reasonably foreseeable that if you have a poor technique you might come off second best.terrible 'method' from Hayward... reminds me of Keith v Lynch in the stupidity stakes
Wilmot does everything right, if Hayward does the same, all is sweet ..
'do not lead with the head'
it's play on ...
nice work eZy.. you're on fire lately btw ...
Couldn't agree more. Hayward in danger of hurting himself. Wilmot did the right thing.Finally someone says what I've been saying for years
WATCH | “Make the change”: King and Cornes discuss Hayward/Wilmot collision
Who is in the wrong for this collision?www.sen.com.au
If Wilmot goes for the ball the same way Hayward does the only difference to the result would have been that Wilmot got knocked out too.Finally someone says what I've been saying for years
WATCH | “Make the change”: King and Cornes discuss Hayward/Wilmot collision
Who is in the wrong for this collision?www.sen.com.au
And the sling tackle (which continued until Keane's head hit the ground got how many?SPP got 4 weeks.
Hayward has to protect himself by turning side on to collect or contest the ball. Geez it ain't rocket surgery. You're taught this stuff at Aus kick. One player is using the correct technique, the other player is going in "wide open". It's extremely frustrating that the player with the poor technique is rewarded with a free kick.its very tricky;
wilmotts action is smart; he braces for and bumps Hayward in the head primarily, then goes for the ball. kind of concurren, but I think its a 1-2 decision in his mind but motivated out of self-preservation, not intent to hurt.
how do you protect Hayward? penalise him for going for the ball? 'play-on' and log it in an archive to defend against legal action if his brain goes mushy?
its really hard and I dont have the answer.
but what I do have is an understanding of how the answer comes about;
strategically, consistently, informed by experts, in consultation with clubs, communicated to all stakeholders including members and fans, and regulated effectively.
is AFL are capable of that?
zero chance
a heap of under qualified, overpaid, bozo's who clearly aren't there on merit, who learned bullying entitled leadership at boys grammar , foster an organisational corporate stonewall response system, and are answerable only to Kerry stokes and Rupert Murdoch
How many weeks does Tom Stewart get next he knocks a bloke out with his elbow 3 seconds after the ball is handballed?Yep - SSP sanction was correct.
Therfore, if someone lines someone defenseless up and hips them in the head and knocks them out in 2024,
Its 4 weeks
If you accidentally knock someone out in say a tackle? Its less
If you drive your fist into someones face and knock them out, its more.
Consistency and relativity isnt that hard is it?
Its the potential to cause injury when it gets muddy,
And also the media muddy the *smile* out of the waters.
Thats an easy fix; if a player is cited, media
Cant discuss.
Even if the player cited is the best bloke in barwon heads and sends a
Semi trailer full of flowers
And choccies to the victim
And phones their nana in tears.
media cannot prejudice the tribunal.
Coaches cant criticise umpires; media cant comment on case before tribunal.
'Hey Dil, kerry here, yeah listen maaaaaattttteeee, i pay $1b for the tv, i want to discuss hits'
'Yeah ok kezza'
AFL ruling: community radio may not discuss matters before the tribunal under any, repeat any circumstances. unless they involve marlion pickett even running near a daicos in a threatening manner, and in circumstances whereby someone from the AFL , or a person or persons who attend school or played more than one (1) quarter at old Xavs, played golf with someone who wants to disciss a matter. If the player cited is a good bloke and/or went to a gps school, the media may discuss how they didnt do anything wrong. However, this might change sometimes, depending on a few things which shall be determined by someone
cooks or crooks?and the over-riding take was 'there's nothing like bureaucracy' ... or 'too many cooks'...