Page 33 of 34 FirstFirst ... 23293031323334 LastLast
Results 385 to 396 of 403

Thread: Match Day Thread Rnd 15 V Melbourne. MCG 19.50 pm.

  1. #385
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Why should concussions be treated any differently to any other kind of game-ending injury? The impact on the side that has lost a rotation is the same, whether it's the head, knee, shoulder or ankle that is injured.
    They shouldn't. Injuries are an unfortunate part of the game but sometimes they just happen. I'm only advocating it for situations such as the Bugg one, where it's the result of a clear, thug act.
    Today's a draft of your epitaph

  2. #386
    I think a classy decision by a coaching group could make things fair.

    Imagine if a Swans player had committed the act that Bugg committed on Mills.

    The Swans coaching staff, in the interest of fairness, decided to withdraw the perpetrating Swans player from the game so that the opposition were not disadvantaged on the bench.

    Would Red and White support that style of decision?

    I think the coaches should make a pact that If a Bugg or Houli incident occurs and leaves the opposition disadvantaged, they will voluntarily remove the offending player to even up the numbers.

  3. #387
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor View Post
    They shouldn't. Injuries are an unfortunate part of the game but sometimes they just happen. I'm only advocating it for situations such as the Bugg one, where it's the result of a clear, thug act.
    But situations like the Bugg incident (thankfully) happen once in a blue moon. Do you advocate every team should have an extra player sitting on the bench for every game on the off-chance that an opposition player has a brain fade like that?

    And who is going to assess whether the act that caused the concussion is a "clear thug act", as opposed to just accidental (or even careless) contact? If the game feels the need to protect a side against this situation, wouldn't a red card system work more effectively? (Not that I am necessarily advocating that - but you'd need to have the same decision making process whichever solution is used to even up the numbers, and the second one doesn't require an extra player to sit on the bench.)

    I understand where people are coming from, but acts like Bugg's are very very uncommon in the game. The disincentive to do something like that is surely best provided by having very heavy sanctions against the transgressor. Only in a grand final could the benefit really outweigh the cost to the player and I'm certainly a supporter of the tribunal coming down especially hard on a player who commits such an offence in a grand final. This used to be codified into the system but isn't any longer. Still, I am sure the tribunal could use some discretion to apply an extra loading if someone deliberately knocked out an opposition player, a la Bugg, in a grand final.

  4. #388
    The only way to truly even things up would be to have a swans player king hit a demons player off the ball causing them to lose a player to concussion and for us to have a player worried throughout the game about possible penalties.



    insert tongue-in-cheek emoji here

  5. #389
    Quote Originally Posted by AB Swannie View Post
    The only way to truly even things up would be to have a swans player king hit a demons player off the ball causing them to lose a player to concussion and for us to have a player worried throughout the game about possible penalties.



    insert tongue-in-cheek emoji here
    I'll have to check through the old posts to see if people had the same views when BBBH gave Staker a chin rub

  6. #390
    Quote Originally Posted by Club 80 View Post
    I think a classy decision by a coaching group could make things fair.

    Imagine if a Swans player had committed the act that Bugg committed on Mills.

    The Swans coaching staff, in the interest of fairness, decided to withdraw the perpetrating Swans player from the game so that the opposition were not disadvantaged on the bench.

    Would Red and White support that style of decision?

    I think the coaches should make a pact that If a Bugg or Houli incident occurs and leaves the opposition disadvantaged, they will voluntarily remove the offending player to even up the numbers.
    I would be against that. It's not the job of the coaches to officiate the game, regardless of what happens.

  7. #391
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,969
    The principle a 'concussion sub' would reflect is that a team which has lost a player for an entire game as a result of severe foul play should not be worse off than the offending player's team. I like the original suggestion on here that it would be available for a reportable offence. That is an offence the umpire deems serious enough to warrant review, without condemning the player. It works most logically for concussion above other injuries because there is an accepted protocol for assessing concussion and a diagnosis mandates a player missing the rest of the game. Similar decisions about non-concussion injuries would be more subjective and liable to be abused.

    The 'red card' reflects the same principle, but is problematic because there is a question as to where to draw the line of severity and applying it consistently.

  8. #392
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    I'm ambivalent about the emergency player issue but I can see there is an argument that concussion is a special case.

    The AFL has mandated a concussion protocol with set medical tests a player who has suffered a head knock must pass before he is allowed to continue playing. That doesn't apply to other injuries - it is up to the individual player, his pain threshold and the medical staff whether one player continues while another with the same injury does not (Fyfe, broken leg; Goodes, torn PCL; Tippett, fractured jaw; etc.).

    And associated with the latter is the possibility of exaggerating an injury to bring on a fresh player. The concussion test is a clear-cut decision factor.
    Exactly right. An "emergency substitute" would see a remarkable number of game-ending injuries early in the fourth quarter, followed by a nearly equal number of miraculous recoveries the next day. Remember what rugby union was like in the early 80s when there were no subs except for injury? A lot of unexplained and mysterious injuries used to happen every game. Even with the concussion test, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some abuse by players who were coached to fake concussion.

    I think the only way of combatting it would be to say that a player who is replaced is ineligible to be selected the following week (or the following game, in the event of a bye). It seems the standard practice in cases of concussion to rest the player for a week anyway, so it would still be effective in cases where the player was genuinely injured, but would provide a strong disincentive to fake injuries.

  9. #393
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Beerman View Post

    I think the only way of combatting it would be to say that a player who is replaced is ineligible to be selected the following week (or the following game, in the event of a bye). It seems the standard practice in cases of concussion to rest the player for a week anyway, so it would still be effective in cases where the player was genuinely injured, but would provide a strong disincentive to fake injuries.
    I don't believe it is automatic that players who are concussed miss the following week. It depends on the severity of the concussion and the individual player.

    It sounds like Mills is still a reasonable chance for this weekend's game. Do you think someone on the Swans coaching team should have had to make a decision halfway through the first quarter last week to be without Mills not just for the rest of that game but also for this game. Imagine if the same decision needed to be made about Franklin, or Kennedy.

  10. #394
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    I don't believe it is automatic that players who are concussed miss the following week. It depends on the severity of the concussion and the individual player.

    It sounds like Mills is still a reasonable chance for this weekend's game. Do you think someone on the Swans coaching team should have had to make a decision halfway through the first quarter last week to be without Mills not just for the rest of that game but also for this game. Imagine if the same decision needed to be made about Franklin, or Kennedy.
    I agree that it's not automatic, and my proposal is definitely not perfect. I just think it would be better than the rampant abuse that would happen if there were no such penalty, particularly if the emergency were allowed for any injury and not just concussion.

  11. #395
    I think the idea of an emergency sub is a good one for concussion and I'd actually have no problem with it being just a blanket sub (or even two) that is part of an extended bench. Or for all injuries deemed game ending by an independent doctor.

    I just find the concussion injuries are often as a result of questionable play and by doing the right things by the player the club is being penalised.

    10 years ago Mills would have come back on in the second quarter and played OK. I'm glad we are more enlightened about head injuries but I just would like the clubs in question to not be disadvantaged. And I do think there is a difference between concussion and other injuries because they are really AFL mandated player removals

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by MattW View Post
    The principle a 'concussion sub' would reflect is that a team which has lost a player for an entire game as a result of severe foul play should not be worse off than the offending player's team. I like the original suggestion on here that it would be available for a reportable offence. That is an offence the umpire deems serious enough to warrant review, without condemning the player. It works most logically for concussion above other injuries because there is an accepted protocol for assessing concussion and a diagnosis mandates a player missing the rest of the game. Similar decisions about non-concussion injuries would be more subjective and liable to be abused.

    The 'red card' reflects the same principle, but is problematic because there is a question as to where to draw the line of severity and applying it consistently.
    I'd be OK with this too...

    - - - Updated - - -

    The red card I agree with in theory but in practice I can see the borderline indiscretions being a minefield

  12. #396
    I don't like the idea of introducing a concussion sub. Remember what we all thought of having subs? Players like Luke Parker we sitting on the fringes missing out on valuable game conditioning and having to do additional training post-match.

    Taking the emotion out of it, concussion is no different from any other game ending injury. The only difference is that concussion can sometimes be caused by an opponent.

    Introducing a red card would solve this problem. I would give this responsibility to the "3rd umpire" after he has reviewed all video footage and enforce a burden of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt". I would never trust a field umpire to make an important decision such as this. Just look at last years GF if you think they are competent.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO