-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Essendon = Entitlement
- Thread starter Number8
- Start date
Brad Scott, like his brother the other day, giving commentary on MRP matters. Remember when Dimma was labelled a whinger…..
SCOTT CRITICISES AFL OVER ITS TRIBUNAL PENALTIES
Ed Bourke
Essendon coach Brad Scott has criticised the AFL for penalising players based on outcomes and not actions, as GWS prepares to challenge Toby Greene’s suspension at the tribunal.
The Giants star was offered a one-match ban for launching at the ball in a marking contest with a motion similar to the one that led to Bombers forward Peter Wright’s four-week suspension for concussing Sydney’s Harry Cunningham.
Greene turned side-on as he flew for a mark and his shoulder hit the head of Carlton defender Jordan Boyd during the final term of the Giants’ loss to the Blues on Saturday.
He escaped being sent straight to the tribunal because Boyd was able to quickly get to his feet and play out the game, with the impact graded as “medium” rather than “high” by match review officer Michael Christian.
With Wright due to return from his ban on Anzac Day, Scott said he was still seeking clarification from the AFL on how his coaching group should instruct players to attack the ball in marking contests.
Scott agreed with Giants coach Adam Kingsley that Greene had a right to contest the ball if he kept his eyes on it, and said the tribunal system was not adequate for dealing with Wright’s and Greene’s cases.
“All we can say to Pete is ‘keep your eyes on the ball, attack the contest’. The players are in an incredibly difficult position at the moment, and as a coaching group we’re just trying to get some clarity on how we should instruct our players,” said Scott, the former AFL general manager of football.
“I can show you so many examples where there are collisions with players with their eyes on the ball, but if one player gets concussed, the AFL holds someone liable for it … almost all cases now.
“It’s basically put back to the club to challenge it if they disagree, and the system is not set up for that … you don’t go to the tribunal with an ‘innocent until proven guilty’, you go to the tribunal if you’re guilty and you have to prove your innocence, that’s the system.”
The Giants are challenging the one-week suspensions for both Greene and Jesse Hogan, who struck Carlton defender Lewis Young in an incident late in the game.
SCOTT CRITICISES AFL OVER ITS TRIBUNAL PENALTIES
Ed Bourke
Essendon coach Brad Scott has criticised the AFL for penalising players based on outcomes and not actions, as GWS prepares to challenge Toby Greene’s suspension at the tribunal.
The Giants star was offered a one-match ban for launching at the ball in a marking contest with a motion similar to the one that led to Bombers forward Peter Wright’s four-week suspension for concussing Sydney’s Harry Cunningham.
Greene turned side-on as he flew for a mark and his shoulder hit the head of Carlton defender Jordan Boyd during the final term of the Giants’ loss to the Blues on Saturday.
He escaped being sent straight to the tribunal because Boyd was able to quickly get to his feet and play out the game, with the impact graded as “medium” rather than “high” by match review officer Michael Christian.
With Wright due to return from his ban on Anzac Day, Scott said he was still seeking clarification from the AFL on how his coaching group should instruct players to attack the ball in marking contests.
Scott agreed with Giants coach Adam Kingsley that Greene had a right to contest the ball if he kept his eyes on it, and said the tribunal system was not adequate for dealing with Wright’s and Greene’s cases.
“All we can say to Pete is ‘keep your eyes on the ball, attack the contest’. The players are in an incredibly difficult position at the moment, and as a coaching group we’re just trying to get some clarity on how we should instruct our players,” said Scott, the former AFL general manager of football.
“I can show you so many examples where there are collisions with players with their eyes on the ball, but if one player gets concussed, the AFL holds someone liable for it … almost all cases now.
“It’s basically put back to the club to challenge it if they disagree, and the system is not set up for that … you don’t go to the tribunal with an ‘innocent until proven guilty’, you go to the tribunal if you’re guilty and you have to prove your innocence, that’s the system.”
The Giants are challenging the one-week suspensions for both Greene and Jesse Hogan, who struck Carlton defender Lewis Young in an incident late in the game.
Yep, the Scotts get away with commenting on anything they want to, and this, yet again, shows the AFL's gross inconsistency and favouring of those they seem to like.
But, Scott makes a very good point. The AFL should be penalising on the basis of the action, not the outcome. If Wright gets 4 weeks for ironing out a player while going for a mark then so should Greene, and vice versa, Greene gets 1 week then so should Wright.
What the AFL need to do, highly unlikely because they prefer to make it up as they go along, is to have a tight range of games missed for a specific action. Eg: 3-4 weeks for hitting an opponent's head while going for a mark - some leeway to account for the situation but not much.
As for the "impact" grading, that should go as it just gives them too much discretion and we all know what the AFL does with discretion.
It is the action they need to stop, somehow as this is a very difficult situation. But the main point is: they need to define the actions they wish to outlaw and make it clear. At the moment it is the usual dog's brekkie.
DS
Devils advocate.
Drink drive and get caught the same penalty as drink drive and kill someone?
Outcome base seems normally how things are done.
Brad Scott giving more commentary, this time on the sub rule. Remember when Dimma was labelled a whinger…..
SCOTT FURY OVER SUB RULE HURDLE
Ed Bourke
Essendon coach Brad Scott has lashed out at the AFL sub rule after his side was forced into a change with 15 minutes to play.
Key forward Harry Jones was subbed out after a face knock midway through the last term. He was helped off, bleeding profusely from his nose.
Scott said Jones had avoided a fracture or concussion, but again railed against the inclusion of a tactical substitute after the laws were changed for the 2023 season.
“He’s fine, and no concussion. (The doctors) cleared him, but it was such a difficult one because they’ve got to assess him,” Scott said.
“We had 16 minutes to go in the last quarter and they’ve got to make an assessment, so we just made the call, ‘Take your time, we’ve got to sub him’.
“Again, it’s one of those frustrating … I don’t know why we have a sub. I’ve got absolutely no idea.”
Scott said instead of alleviating pressure on club doctors, it was having the opposite effect.
The Bombers had to activate Nick Hind because they feared Jones would not be assessed in time to bring him back on.
“If we didn’t have a sub, we wouldn’t have to worry about rushing the doctors to try and get a concussion diagnosis or not, we’d just put the fresh player on who’s sitting there,” he said. “The sub’s supposed to take the pressure off the doctor? I’d love someone to explain that to me, I’ve got no idea. They brought back the rule everyone hated.”
With Jones available to play West Coast in Perth next week, the Bombers will need to review whether they can take in the same number of talls. Scott said playing both Todd Goldstein and Sam Draper was giving the Bombers important stoppages flexibility.
But he said a structural issue had to be addressed after the Bombers managed only two tackles inside their forward 50 compared to the smaller Collingwood forward line’s 14.
“It will be horses for courses for us in terms of what our best structure looks like, but Sam Draper just doesn’t get beaten in a contest – he might not mark every one, but the role of a key forward is either to mark or bring it to ground and he does that really well,” Scott said.
SCOTT FURY OVER SUB RULE HURDLE
Ed Bourke
Essendon coach Brad Scott has lashed out at the AFL sub rule after his side was forced into a change with 15 minutes to play.
Key forward Harry Jones was subbed out after a face knock midway through the last term. He was helped off, bleeding profusely from his nose.
Scott said Jones had avoided a fracture or concussion, but again railed against the inclusion of a tactical substitute after the laws were changed for the 2023 season.
“He’s fine, and no concussion. (The doctors) cleared him, but it was such a difficult one because they’ve got to assess him,” Scott said.
“We had 16 minutes to go in the last quarter and they’ve got to make an assessment, so we just made the call, ‘Take your time, we’ve got to sub him’.
“Again, it’s one of those frustrating … I don’t know why we have a sub. I’ve got absolutely no idea.”
Scott said instead of alleviating pressure on club doctors, it was having the opposite effect.
The Bombers had to activate Nick Hind because they feared Jones would not be assessed in time to bring him back on.
“If we didn’t have a sub, we wouldn’t have to worry about rushing the doctors to try and get a concussion diagnosis or not, we’d just put the fresh player on who’s sitting there,” he said. “The sub’s supposed to take the pressure off the doctor? I’d love someone to explain that to me, I’ve got no idea. They brought back the rule everyone hated.”
With Jones available to play West Coast in Perth next week, the Bombers will need to review whether they can take in the same number of talls. Scott said playing both Todd Goldstein and Sam Draper was giving the Bombers important stoppages flexibility.
But he said a structural issue had to be addressed after the Bombers managed only two tackles inside their forward 50 compared to the smaller Collingwood forward line’s 14.
“It will be horses for courses for us in terms of what our best structure looks like, but Sam Draper just doesn’t get beaten in a contest – he might not mark every one, but the role of a key forward is either to mark or bring it to ground and he does that really well,” Scott said.
No need to read the detail
If a Scott twin opens his mouth - by definition it’s a whining moaning hypocritical whinge
I love the idea that if there wasnt a sub rule they could just bring the fresh player on- like the 5th interchange player would just be waiting for an injury before they came on.
and anyway if the docs had to assess him for concussion he would have to sit out 20 minutes, so with 15min left might have been able to return for the last couple of mins anyway. and the docs wouldnt have been rushing cos they have 20 minutes.
it is almost like Scott is just having a whinge for the sake of it!
