Concussion re a high flying mark

[Rubyjo]

Where you fly for a mark and inadvertently knee some one in the back of head ...great mark or a free kick to the player under the hit who copped one high ...you don't want to take high flying out of the game but if you smash some one in the head whilst doing it it has to be a free kick to the guy who copped it ..otherwise it's all ridiculous re t he current rule with concussion.

[Sainter_Dad]

Ruling is easy

A concussion is suffered:
Was there another course of action you could have taken?
- No - Play on - nothing to see here (high marks, properly executed tackles, rucking duels etc)
- Yeas - Face weeks (bumps, sling tackles, charges etc)

[Vortex]

The OP is talking about the elephant in the room.

MCartin
Brayshaw
Murphy ( will mostly like be retired by the AFL also).

All these players suffered nearly all of their concussions from legal acts.

But the AFL have deflected attention away from the elephant and diverted our small attention spans by brainwashing us into placing responsibility onto the players and their very infrequent illegal acts that cause concussions.

Absolutely flying for a contested mark will become illegal at some stage, but possibly players backing back into oncoming traffic has to be outlawed an/or removed from the game with rule modifications long before the contested mark.

[Rubyjo]

Knee in the back of the head if you took a sreamer ..free kick to the opposition ..accumulate knocks will have an impact. ..frees will be given against the high flyer in the future no doubt.

[King Max]

[Otiman]

There will be riots in the streets if the specky is banned.

It will be the last line taken against concussion.

[Vortex]

There will be riots in the streets if the specky is banned.

It will be the last line taken against concussion.

Will the people rioting in the streets be the same self righteous brainwashed hypocrits calling for Jimmy to be nailed to a cross? At the surface of their virtue signalling they seemed only int6erest in removing concussions from the game at all cost. Or are you suggesting there are certain concussions that are acceptable?

[Scollop]

So ...the 'purists' are saying our boys should just dish it out at every opportunity. Right?

Tackle hard. Smash heads when attempting to win the footy (jumping in the air is justified because Patrick Cripps won a Brownlow doing this) and knee people in the temple and in the head when going for speccys.

We need to practise these things more at training. We need to target 1 player each game and especially from our top 8 opponents. If one of the opposition players is not concussed at the end of each game, we have failed.

The more ruthless we are, the better our chances come finals time when we compete against these bastards.

Let's get a few more opposition guys retiring from the game.

That's what footy is all about

I only go to Bathurst to watch the car crashes

[NickyDal]

Where you fly for a mark and inadvertently knee some one in the back of head ...great mark or a free kick to the player under the hit who copped one high ...you don't want to take high flying out of the game but if you smash some one in the head whilst doing it it has to be a free kick to the guy who copped it ..otherwise it's all ridiculous re t he current rule with concussion.

If a high mark is taken and in the process the marker has kicked his opponent in the head then it should be a free kick against the marker. The head needs to be sacrosanct so if the marker deliberately kneed/kicked him in the head it should be a free kick against and automatic suspension. If the knee/kick to the head was accidental it should be just a free kick against and no suspension.

[Scollop]

Winning the footy is the essence of contact sports.

If your intent is to mark it and you fly high and execute, then any incidental contact to someone's head is secondary and inconsequential.

If you don't mark it and you were not a realistic chance to mark it, and at the same time you've caused an oppo player to be concussed...well you should be rubbed out imo.

If you intentionally kick someone in the kidneys while jumping up for a mark, that's a dog act, but it's still legal in our game.

I think that's how it should remain and if you have a player who has repeated behaviour that could be seen as endangering opposition players ( e.g. when Toby Greene had a habit of lifting his leg and foot towards opponents faces) then that's where the AFL exercises it's authority.

[Yorkeys]

See Grundy's tactics in Round 0 to jump with knee into Gawn's hip/kidney region.
All good according to umpires and commentators.
Gawn didn't look too good. Rematch may be interesting if umpire interpretations don't change in the meantime.
Duty of care is a catch all lip service when considering Maynard and McKay got nothing for doing terrible damage with intent.

[Vortex]

Would you want your kids playing the game?

That will always be the true test, when the numbers dip at grass roots, I believe that could come as more high profile players are forced out of the game and their stories spread of poor quality of life after leaving the game. And you'd have to guess the class actions against the AFL will only snowball.

More than likely Paddy Mc Cartin, Brayshaw and Murphy will end up suing.

[Ghost Like]

I think the OP is a fair question. It always has been, however there will always be incidental and collision contact in a fair contest.

Conspiracy theories do not cut it, especially when some believed Covid doomed the AFL and they were to become broke.

Again, a person who chooses to take out soneone in the way Webster did does not deserve excuses or faux reasoning. Even Jimmy knows that. I suspect he's been told that by the Club, the coach & his team mates. He's let them all down.

This pseudo bravado is simply that, false.

Webster will become available, mid season, the concussion issue and its consequences will continue. Incidental contact happens in a contact sport. That cannot, nor should not be, mitagated against, they chose the sport.

[Vortex]

they chose the sport.

With some enticement by Auskick.

[Sainter_Dad]

I think the OP is a fair question. It always has been, however there will always be incidental and collision contact in a fair contest.

Conspiracy theories do not cut it, especially when some believed Covid doomed the AFL and they were to become broke.

Again, a person who chooses to take out soneone in the way Webster did does not deserve excuses or faux reasoning. Even Jimmy knows that. I suspect he's been told that by the Club, the coach & his team mates. He's let them all down.

This pseudo bravado is simply that, false.

Webster will become available, mid season, the concussion issue and its consequences will continue. Incidental contact happens in a contact sport. That cannot, nor should not be, mitagated against, they chose the sport.

Are you telling me the sun will rise tomorrow and that we will all go on with our lives?