News Injuries & Suspensions

[doc ron]

View attachment 27581

Dangerfields lawyer, " it was just the vibe of the thing your honour"

 

[Johnsy44]

Robbie Tarrant out for the first half of the season. Had surgery to remove a small mass on his kidney.

 

[Professor]

Good for Berry

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1374615745129185281

 

[Professor]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1374626590957604866

 

[wogitalia]

BB, does that help with you Jordon and do you expect him to hold his spot for a few weeks?

Just wondering if I may go early with a rookie correction in case I need trades the following round to sort rucks and any other issues.

Jordon already booked himself a couple more games with his outing on the weekend, if Gulden hadn't played so ridiculously he'd have been right up there for a rising star nom. Played a great game. This just means more midfield minutes for him and a safer role with Viney due back any minute.

 

[N29]

Josh Treacy is free to be selected from round 3. Common sense prevailed.

https://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/887837

 

[Zim^zuM]

I think that's going to far. What about when you bump a player, side by side, as a shepherd? Steele did a beauty on the weekend, and there was little danger of the recipient ending up concussed.

Its actually pretty logical that in order to win the ball you need to execute a good tackle and not just knock someone with force. But the reasoning for me going that far is.. I think what is going too far is rubbing out a bloke for 3 weeks because of an accidental head clash after a good bump. If it just so happened that Kelly didn't get hurt then immediately its seen a good bump. Makes no sense what so ever. In my view they have just bowed down to the media hype and commentary crapping on that he needs a lengthy ban. Dead set dumb and one of the reasons this sport is largely given no respect by the rest of the world.

 

[freowho]

Its actually pretty logical that in order to win the ball you need to execute a good tackle and not just knock someone with force. But the reasoning for me going that far is.. I think what is going too far is rubbing out a bloke for 3 weeks because of an accidental head clash after a good bump. If it just so happened that Kelly didn't get hurt then immediately its seen a good bump. Makes no sense what so ever. In my view they have just bowed down to the media hype and commentary crapping on that he needs a lengthy ban. Dead set dumb and one of the reasons this sport is largely given no respect by the rest of the world.

If he hit him in the head it wasn't a good bump.

 

[PC]

If he hit him in the head it wasn't a good bump.

Yep.

 

[Zim^zuM]

If he hit him in the head it wasn't a good bump.

His injuries had nothing to do with the bump. Accidental clash of heads. Replace Kelly with gawn in a parallel universe and its nothing to see here.

Would you rub a bloke out for 3 weeks if he kicks the ball, hits someone in the face, breaks their nose and knock them out?

 

[Zim^zuM]

Or

His injuries had nothing to do with the bump. Accidental clash of heads. Replace Kelly with gawn in a parallel universe and its nothing to see here.

Would you rub a bloke out for 3 weeks if he kicks the ball, hits someone in the face, breaks their nose and knock them out?

Or if you go for a mark in the pack, by coincidence 2 heads clash, do we rub out the bloke who didn't get knocked out?

 

[Chumpion]

Or

Or if you go for a mark in the pack, by coincidence 2 heads clash, do we rub out the bloke who didn't get knocked out?

I think the difference is if you're going for the mark you're playing the ball, however when you're going the bump you're playing the man.

 

[NT.Thunder]

I think the AFL continues to make a statement regarding the bump, it's finished in their eyes, they just don't want to be the ones that ban it from the game, they're leaving that in the players hands now. The AFL is weak IMO, make a decision, stand by it and just ban it.

 

[Zim^zuM]

I think the difference is if you're going for the mark you're playing the ball, however when you're going the bump you're playing the man.

But the rules allow you to go for the man 🤷‍♂️

 

[Studz]

Josh Treacy is free to be selected from round 3. Common sense prevailed.

https://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/887837

Geez..a bit late now that the season and SC has already started...I would’ve taken him over Hunter at R3...thanks AFL 🤡’s

 

[Zim^zuM]

I think the AFL continues to make a statement regarding the bump, it's finished in their eyes, they just don't want to be the ones that ban it from the game, they're leaving that in the players hands now. The AFL is weak IMO, make a decision, stand by it and just ban it.

Exactly, either allow the bump and the consequense of it, or ban it. Makes no sense to allow it yet be so picky over it.

 

[Chumpion]

But the rules allow you to go for the man 🤷‍♂️

They do, but they say if you go for the man you are liable for whatever happens next. There are plenty of times (and ways) you can bump someone in a way that has a far reduced chance of injury - the reality is, Danger made a decision to line someone up and hit them when they were at their most vulnerable so he shouldn't be surprised it resulted in an injury the way it did.

 

[Chumpion]

Exactly, either allow the bump and the consequense of it, or ban it. Makes no sense to allow it yet be so picky over it.

That is like saying we should either ban cars or get rid of speed limits - it makes no sense to allow cars to be fast but say you can't drive that fast.

 

[Zim^zuM]

That is like saying we should either ban cars or get rid of speed limits - it makes no sense to allow cars to be fast but say you can't drive that fast.

Not really. The comparison would be you can speed, but you are liable for what happens next.

NT is correct in saying the AFL is weak. They want to rule out head injuries but but rule out the main cause of them.

 

[Chumpion]

Not really. The comparison would be you can speed, but you are liable for what happens next.

NT is correct in saying the AFL is weak. They want to rule out head injuries but but rule out the main cause of them.

To be fair to the AFL, it's not the bump per se that causes head injuries.. it's players being lined up and bumped with excessive force when they are in a vulnerable position.

If they were to outlaw the bump, how would you differentiate things like a player getting bumped in the side as two players complete for a ball vs what we saw Danger do? Writing a rule to outlaw the bump without creating flow on grey areas that we all hate would be a nightmare. Imagine a ruck contest? Ruck free kicks are bad enough as it is without adding this in!

I much prefer the current, extremely black and white position - you can bump but you do so at your own risk. If this means players ease the force they hit a player to avoid the risk then the AFL has achieved it's goal.