The Head is sacrosanct

[SaintPav]

[The_Dud]

Are we still carrying on about Clark/Mackay?!?

Did you watch the vision? If you did you would have seen the score.

What do you think Mackay had on his mind at the 3.30 mark?

"Gee... I'm a good chance to win this footy" ...Or "Right... I'm a good chance to hurt the opposition"

When your side is down by 6 goals and you desperately need a spark to inspire the team, what better way than to clean up the opposition

The d**khead Mackay had the gall to say he was only going for the ball. Fwits at the tribunal asked what his intentions were... what did they expect him to say?

Yeah...hee hee hee...I knew I had the little Saint fukr on toast

I think we all went over this 2 years ago, but…

Looks like a footy incident to me.

Both players eyes on the ball, both players reaching out for the ball, both players get to the ball at the same time.

Unfortunately Clark was unlucky with the way their bodies lined up at impact, a few centimetres one way and they hit shoulder to shoulder.

Mackay had a long career where it was clear he was no thug.

Today he would (probably) get rubbed out for that as the rules have changed.

For the better? Who knows.

[saynta]

Correct re now, but any fair person would say he should have been rubbed out at the time.

[6621104]

'tis a very different legal environment now - the league has no doubt risk assessors/lawyers/actuaries and.... looking at the exposure and the future protections needed to prevent bankruptcy from lawsuits. the message and the actions need to cohere - the retired players that talk about a football incident have yet to understand that it is no longer good enough to state the players accept the risk - body collisions with both players eyes on the ball- no issue. The league will from now , it seems , sanction those where this is not the case.

[Annoyedsaint]

If anyone thinks Van Rooyen should be suspended, then you are an idiot.

Head injury or not, the decision is a disgrace and just plain wrong. So wrong in fact that anyone involved in that decision (from rule makers, to the MRO, to tribunal members sitting on last nights appeal) should be ashamed of themselves. Pathetic.

[saynta]

If anyone thinks Van Rooyen should be suspended, then you are an idiot.

Head injury or not, the decision is a disgrace and just plain wrong. So wrong in fact that anyone involved in that decision (from rule makers, to the MRO, to tribunal members sitting on last nights appeal) should be ashamed of themselves. Pathetic.

I agree with you. Said so at the time and if there is any justice in the world he should win his appeal.

But the AFL being the AFL they will probably dismiss his appeal.

[Annoyedsaint]

If anyone thinks Van Rooyen should be suspended, then you are an idiot.

Head injury or not, the decision is a disgrace and just plain wrong. So wrong in fact that anyone involved in that decision (from rule makers, to the MRO, to tribunal members sitting on last nights appeal) should be ashamed of themselves. Pathetic.

I agree with you. Said so at the time and if there is any justice in the world he should win his appeal.

But the AFL being the AFL they will probably dismiss his appeal.

They rely on the nuffies (us members & supporters) to just keep turning up each week regardless of the rot that we put up with.

Until enough turn their back on the game it will never change. Sad but true.

[saynta]

How the f*** did Caminiti get three weeks while Rioli only gets two.

[Mr Magic]

How the f*** did Caminiti get three weeks while Rioli only gets two.

The AFL wanted to give him 4

[mr six o'clock]

When I saw the clash on the weekend, I said who is it ?
van rooyen , never heard of him , he'll get weeks !
It's just the same old story with the Mrp.
If it's a no name player from a lesser club they cop it
Whereas if it's a big name or big club , things are different

Hypothetically if it was Buddy or Dusty who did it , the only talk would be how courageous a spoil it was , and maybe the incident may have been looked at , If the player was injured.

[Jacks Back]

The decision in the 'van Rooy' incident sets a whole new precedent about a player's responsibility when trying to punch the ball clear in a contest.

There is no doubt that the ongoing revelations about players suffering from Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), as a result of one or more concussions sustained when playing football, are starting to have an impact.

Obviously the onus is now on individual players to exercise a duty of care when engaging in a contest for the ball, no matter how difficult that will be to control in the heat of the moment.

If you're a parent or spouse or son/daughter of a player with CTE who has taken his life you may take the view that concussion caused by an opponent, accidental or otherwise, should be stamped out of the game.

I venture to suggest that the AFL has listened to these stories and in consultation with the medical specialists has decided that the time for change is now.

Jonathon Brown and a host of former players and commentators, plus many on this forum, complain that the 'van Rooy' incident has always been a normal part of the physicality of football, and should remain so.....and that the AFL is giving in to the litigation lobby.

Back in the 'good old days' we laughed when we saw a fullback give his opposing full forward a fist to the back of the head, or a 'cauliflower ear' in the process of preventing a mark.

There is good sense in both opposing viewpoints, but as I see it ultimately the AFL has a singular responsibility to protect players from the worst effects of knocks to the head, and while van Rooy's opponent was not seriously injured, it could easily have turned out otherwise.

The outcome of this situation is that coaches and players will need to adapt to the new criteria and as they have done in the past no doubt they can and will.

At the end of the day, as much as we all take football games seriously and enjoy the courageous physicality of the players, it is not a 'life or death' contest, it's just a game!

I don't disagree with anything stated here. However, I would bet London to a brick that the AFL's motivation extends no further than minimizing future potential payouts resulting from legal actions.

How will the AFL minimize that? If the guy that hits the other guy gets weeks or doesn't get weeks, how does that minimize or exonerate the AFL of future liability. Big can of worms here. It's a contact sport and accidents happen.

[Scollop]

It's just the same old story with the Mrp.
If it's a no name player from a lesser club they cop it
Whereas if it's a big name or big club , things are different

+1

The head is sacrosanct unless you are no name getting pummelled by a big name

The other thing you left out was it matters who the commentators are during the broadcast and whether they are unanimous in their defence of a player. Exhibit A… Luke Darcy and Hamish McLachlan and Cameron Ling all said Mitch Duncan should not be suspended

https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/geelong- ... c-10429846

Robbie Fox’s coach called for some consistency.

https://wwos.nine.com.au/afl/news-2023- ... f730598d42

[Jacks Back]

Jacob van Rooyen's controversial striking ban has been thrown out on appeal.

[chook23]

Jacob van Rooyen's controversial striking ban has been thrown out on appeal.

good

how the tribunal upheld MRO was a headscratcher

[The_Dud]

So sanity prevails in the end?

If your sole intention is to play the ball within the rules then incidental contact will not be punished?

I feel a rule change coming on.

[Scollop]

If your sole intention is to play the ball within the rules then incidental contact will not be punished?

So that's why Mitch Duncan got off. Thanks for clarifying

Incidental contact and he was focused only on getting the ball

Clearly Duncan needed to lower the point of his shoulder into Fox's head otherwise he could have lost focus

If someone trips or falls and they block you or impede your access to winning the footy, it's ok to knock them out.

https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/geelong- ... c-10429846

[Scollop]

Watch what happens if Dougall Howard does what Duncan did

Watch what happens if Battle knocks someone out or causes a Geelong player to suffer concussion

[meher baba]

Watch what happens if Dougall Howard does what Duncan did

Watch what happens if Battle knocks someone out or causes a Geelong player to suffer concussion

As I have asked Curky and others: if you think AFL is run in such a biased way, why would you follow it?

Having said that, I do think we were scapegoats to some extent back in the Demetriou era (whispers in the sky, 2 points taken off us vs Freo, Baker rubbed our on insufficient evidence in 2007, etc.), but those days are long gone. We get a pretty reasonable run in most respects: our draw this year is very cushy.

[Scollop]

I think the bias is sometimes subtle and we hear how we should be 'thinking' based on biased opinions.

We need more of our own pushing the St Kilda agenda on tv and in all forms of media. It's good having Joey but we need more

You hear how Nathan Brown and Luke Darcy do it with Western Bulldogs and like Anthony Hudson and Hamish, Cameron Ling and Cam Mooney do with Geelong

Same with Mark Robinson and Tim Watson always sticking up for Essendon. Same with Eddie and BT for Collingwood or Tim Lane and Tony Jones for years pushing Carlton's agenda

[asiu]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-13/ ... /102264176

this is a hard read

[Scollop]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-13/ ... /102264176

this is a hard read

Thanks again for posting that. This is the biggest issue facing our sport at the moment

The vision of Zac Stanton in the collision (in your ABC news story) shows a genuine contest between two people and no player is causing the other to get the head trauma.

In some of the AFL incidents that I raised from just this year alone (particularly the incident where Mitch Duncan targets Robbie Fox's head with the point of his shoulder) you clearly have one player who is choosing to cause head trauma to another player. I don't care how the commentators try and excuse it, or try to paint it as an accident of some sort when it's clear that players have other options. The MRO imbecile dismissed any charge on Duncan based on zero objective assessment in my opinion

The same with that thug Tom Lynch who knocked out Alex Keath earlier this year. Lynch caused the concussion and was only interested in taking out an opposition player.

I don't get how they think he was contesting a mark when it is clear he stops looking at the footy ( pause the below at the 20 sec. mark). The other Bulldogs player Liam Jones has his arms up and has both hands on the ball - this is where you should pause the vision. Lynch has gone past the point of the ball drop and does not actually contest the mark. Jones ends up dropping it, but not because Lynch got near it with hands.

Lynch is an All Australian FF and has a string of accolades which have mainly been achieved on the back of being able to judge the flight of the footy. In this incident Lynch chooses not to contest the mark and he chose to take out an opposition player. The idiots running the show at the tribunal let Lynch get away with it!!