Rd 17 vs Richmond @ MCG - Match Thread

[Blood Fever]

I don't think there's anything wrong with careless/reckless.

Collins Dictionary online:

'If you are careless, you do not pay enough attention to what you are doing, and so you make mistakes, or cause harm or damage.'

'If you say that someone is reckless, you mean that they act in a way which shows that they do not care about danger or the effect their behaviour will have on other people.'

The difference is the latter involves an awareness of the risk of harm to others and insufficient heed to avoid it. The former does not have the concious awareness of the risk associated with an action (which is then ignored).

Nankervis was classically reckless. He did not care about the real chance his concious, unnecessary action would cause head trauma to the opponent.

My view is if the player is reckless and it results in concussion, they're sent off but can be replaced.

At this press conference yesterday, Longmire suggested the purpose of a send-off would be to balance loss of the concussed player.

That's not my rationale. Given the serious, long-term damage caused by concussion, the penalty for a reckless action causing foreseeable head injury should be severe and immediate. The offending player should lose the opportunity to help their team win the game.

Agree

[liz]

I know what reckless and careless mean without resorting to a dictionary. But when you get people to apply those concepts to football acts it sometimes gets subjective and challenging. If we currently had the reckless/careless distinction I doubt anyone would have difficulty in classifying the Nankervis bump as reckless. But many instances are less clear cut. The more categories you have, the more boundaries you create, and it is the cases that sit at the boundaries that become fraught.

Re the purpose of penalties, by far the most important is deterrence.

[MattW]

I know what reckless and careless mean without resorting to a dictionary. But when you get people to apply those concepts to football acts it sometimes gets subjective and challenging. If we currently had the reckless/careless distinction I doubt anyone would have difficulty in classifying the Nankervis bump as reckless. But many instances are less clear cut. The more categories you have, the more boundaries you create, and it is the cases that sit at the boundaries that become fraught.

Re the purpose of penalties, by far the most important is deterrence.

Lol - resorting to the dictionary. Reckless is in my view a fitting term, because it turns on disregard for a foreseeable risk of harming another person. It's that disregard, when the harm is serious head injury, which draws the strong sanction.

I reckon players should have an obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid concussing another player - recognition of that responsibility is the purpose of the penalty.

[liz]

So which category does a slam tackle fall into? Reckless or negligent? Or if it could be either, which features of a tackle help distinguish?

[i'm-uninformed2]

I think the other annoying part of the sentence is he got down from four to three simply by showing contrition. Who cares?

The AFL is - in my view at least, largely in a serious and systemic way - confronting and trying to minimise the risk of lifetime after effects from concussions. Someone saying sorry ain’t gonna help someone whose brain is permanently rattled. I’d love to see how that stands up when the class actions come.

“Your Honour, I know Mr Lloyd has sustained 30 years of diminished quality of life but the perpetrator did send him a contrite text after the event.”

Please.

[Roadrunner]

I think the other annoying part of the sentence is he got down from four to three simply by showing contrition. Who cares?

The AFL is - in my view at least, largely in a serious and systemic way - confronting and trying to minimise the risk of lifetime after effects from concussions. Someone saying sorry ain’t gonna help someone whose brain is permanently rattled. I’d love to see how that stands up when the class actions come.

“Your Honour, I know Mr Lloyd has sustained 30 years of diminished quality of life but the perpetrator did send him a contrite text after the event.”

Please.

You are 100% correct but at least Toby has acknowledged and apologised for his late bump. It shouldn’t have reduced his suspension but to me it shows that players do care about each other and that these harmful acts are not deliberate. Unfortunately these things happen in contact sports when split second decisions are made and when players are striving to assert maximum pressure. He should have got at least 4 weeks nevertheless.

[Ludwig]

Without a sendoff rule, teams can select an enforcer to take out the best player on the opposition side in exchange for missing 3 or 4 weeks. Like if we play Collingwood, we would target Nick Daicos in the first quarter. We can rotate players like Same Wicks and Will Gould as our enforcers. I don't like it, but the way the rules stand, this would give the offending team a solid advantage in key games.

[i'm-uninformed2]

You are 100% correct but at least Toby has acknowledged and apologised for his late bump. It shouldn’t have reduced his suspension but to me it shows that players do care about each other and that these harmful acts are not deliberate. Unfortunately these things happen in contact sports when split second decisions are made and when players are striving to assert maximum pressure. He should have got at least 4 weeks nevertheless.

Yep. And should have made clear in my post I don’t regard Nank as a dirty player and don’t doubt the contrition. In fact, I think the dirty player has largely gone out of the game. But an apology shouldn’t get you a discount.

- - - Updated - - -

Without a sendoff rule, teams can select an enforcer to take out the best player on the opposition side in exchange for missing 3 or 4 weeks. Like if we play Collingwood, we would target Nick Daicos in the first quarter. We can rotate players like Same Wicks and Will Gould as our enforcers. I don't like it, but the way the rules stand, this would give the offending team a solid advantage in key games.

We finally found a role Gould could play (if he could catch Daicos without self-combusting).

[Blood Fever]

LOL. Wouldn't get near him.

[Ludwig]

The funny thing is that Gould is probably faster in a sprint than Daicos. When Daicos has possession the ball is moving very fast, not because of Nick's leg sped, but rather due to his vision, decision making and precision disposal. It's an optical illusion.

[Blood Fever]

Delusion?

[caj23]

Without a sendoff rule, teams can select an enforcer to take out the best player on the opposition side in exchange for missing 3 or 4 weeks. Like if we play Collingwood, we would target Nick Daicos in the first quarter. We can rotate players like Same Wicks and Will Gould as our enforcers. I don't like it, but the way the rules stand, this would give the offending team a solid advantage in key games.

That tactic just doesn’t happen at AFL level and it’s never going to

[troyjones2525]

That tactic just doesn’t happen at AFL level and it’s never going to

100%

Sent from my SM-F936B using Tapatalk

[MattW]

So which category does a slam tackle fall into? Reckless or negligent? Or if it could be either, which features of a tackle help distinguish?

The categories were, and could again be, careless, reckless and intentional.

Broad: reckless - unnecesary action with foreseeable risk of serious harm, opportunity to mitigate but did not: Richmond defender Nathan Broad referred directly to tribunal for tackle - YouTube.

Serong: careless - attempting legitimate tackle, but didn't take sufficient care in doing so: Caleb Serong has been handed a one-match ban for this dangerous tackle. - YouTube.

[Meg]

Rd 17 vs Richmond @ MCG - Match Thread

The categories were, and could again be, careless, reckless and intentional.

Broad: reckless - unnecesary action with foreseeable risk of serious harm, opportunity to mitigate but did not: Richmond defender Nathan Broad referred directly to tribunal for tackle - YouTube.

Serong: careless - attempting legitimate tackle, but didn't take sufficient care in doing so: Caleb Serong has been handed a one-match ban for this dangerous tackle. - YouTube.

I agree. And Nankervis was reckless.

I think if Liz’s category 1 category 2 system was considered, we would end up explaining it by using English word descriptors - such as 1. = careless and 2. = reckless. So use these words in the first place.

I also think ‘intentional’ is a discrete separate category (which fortunately seldom needs to be used).

I don’t agree that ‘intentional’ conjures up pre-meditated.

Pre-mediated means not only an intentional action but one that was planned in advance.

I don’t think anyone thinks that while Barry Hall was eating his breakfast cereal in the morning of the match he planned to king hit Staker later that day. But I think we would almost all agree Hall had a brain snap and intentionally hit Staker during the course of the match.