General Footy Tipping and Discussion Thread

[Rod]

GOOD LUCK AARON.

We've only lost one, yes ONE game when Wells has been playing for us so hope that trend continues haha. He was BOG last week, would be sweet if he could dish up that kind of performance against his old team .

I think that's it but Nathan Hrovat was apparently really close to being drafted at Collingwood along with Grundy. Instead we picked up two spuds, one has left to the Dees and one barely gets a game. Hrovat was picked right after Grundy and those two other players (yes we had three picks in a row). Would be interesting to see how he goes.

I reckon it will be a good game tonight. All the best!

[Aaron]

We've only lost one, yes ONE game when Wells has been playing for us so hope that trend continues haha.

Dont hold your breath. He will stuff his leg up again... its only a matter of time. Still can't believe how you guys got him for $650k per for 3 yrs. That's insane... dont even get started on Mayne's deal.


Should be a good match Looking forward to mid contest. Do u reckon ur defence can contain Preuss and Brown?

God I want Benny to win the Coleman so badly. At least we'd win something this season. 

[Aaron]

ZZZZ zzzzz zz..

This game is.. just... shit all round lol

P.S - If Grundy doesn't get a week for that, will be a massive joke. I know it wasn't meant to result in that, but the fact is it did and now he's off to hospital.

[Rod]

Such a boring match. Glad we won but that game had nothing exciting at all in it lol. The amount of mistakes... gee... reminds us that it was a 13th vs 16th match.

Didn't think Preuss was that good but gee Brown was marking absolutely everything. Shame he went down. Honestly, that was the point where the game started to get so boring.

He won't get any matches I don't think. It's just going to light up a lot of discussion - like what else could have Grundy done?

[howey]

It's just going to light up a lot of discussion - like what else could have Grundy done?

I agree. In my opinion, very similar to the Dangerfield tackle in that it regrettably resulted in an injury, but was a perfectly legal and textbook tackle. As you say, I don't know what else he could have done, other than let Brown run off with/dispose of the ball to a teammate.

Having said that, I think he'll get a week or two because the precedent has been set now. Tackle + Concussion = Suspended.

[Russ]

What. He could have chosen not to pin the arms of the man he was tackling and not sling him to the ground?

He's got agency, he chose to make the tackle in that way and there's definitive proof he failed to protect the head whilst doing so. Let's not pretend there's nothing he could have done differently.

[brenden]

I agree. In my opinion, very similar to the Dangerfield tackle in that it regrettably resulted in an injury, but was a perfectly legal and textbook tackle. As you say, I don't know what else he could have done, other than let Brown run off with/dispose of the ball to a teammate.

Having said that, I think he'll get a week or two because the precedent has been set now. Tackle + Concussion = Suspended.

I agree. Either we need to change what is a legal tackle, or we need to stop saying something is dangerous only when someone becomes injured. Dangerous is a concept entirely removed from consequence - it's about potential. If Grundy's tackle was inappropriately dangerous, make it an illegal tackle and put it in writing. Otherwise, enjoy your free kick, bad luck Ben Brown.

[vox nihili]

What. He could have chosen not to pin the arms of the man he was tackling and not sling him to the ground?

He's got agency, he chose to make the tackle in that way and there's definitive proof he failed to protect the head whilst doing so. Let's not pretend there's nothing he could have done differently.

This. So. Much.


Hearing that tackle described as the perfect tackle is grating. A bloke ended up in hospital as a result of that tackle because of a head injury, ipso facto, it was anything but perfect.

[brenden]

This. So. Much.


Hearing that tackle described as the perfect tackle is grating. A bloke ended up in hospital as a result of that tackle because of a head injury, ipso facto, it was anything but perfect.

Surely injury can't make something not-perfect in a contact sport? If the aim is to not hurt people and you hurt someone, then it would be imperfect. But if the aim is to say, take a mark without fumbling the ball, and in the process someone's injured in the contest, that mark doesn't become any less good.

I don't see how a tackle becomes more or less perfect based on the result. It was perfect insofar that is how people get taught to lay tackles from junior footy onwards.

He could have done something differently, but probably not without improperly doing the job he's paid to do.

[howey]

Surely injury can't make something not-perfect in a contact sport? If the aim is to not hurt people and you hurt someone, then it would be imperfect. But if the aim is to say, take a mark without fumbling the ball, and in the process someone's injured in the contest, that mark doesn't become any less good.

I don't see how a tackle becomes more or less perfect based on the result. It was perfect insofar that is how people get taught to lay tackles from junior footy onwards.

He could have done something differently, but probably not without improperly doing the job he's paid to do.

Exactly my thoughts. Yes, it's terrible that Ben Brown got injured, and it's not something you ever want to see happen in a game of footy, but that doesn't mean the tackle wasn't performed well.

When you're taught to tackle, you are taught to pin the arms so that the opponent can't legally dispose of the ball. If Grundy hadn't pinned the arms, Brown would have disposed of the ball and North may have been away. Therefore, it is his job (and it is what every footballer is taught) to pin the arms.

I also personally don't think you can class this tackle as a 'sling tackle'. Brown is 100+kg - to tackle him successfully, it's going to take quite a bit of force. Grundy didn't fling him around his body, he just took him to ground in the tackle - which again, is something that you are taught to do from junior football onwards.

Either the rules need to change so that that type of tackle is illegal, or it needs to be accepted that injuries will happen and the tackle can still be legal. Because at the moment I personally think it's not good to see blokes being rubbed for tackling in the way that you are taught to tackle from U/10's upwards.

[vox nihili]

Surely injury can't make something not-perfect in a contact sport? If the aim is to not hurt people and you hurt someone, then it would be imperfect. But if the aim is to say, take a mark without fumbling the ball, and in the process someone's injured in the contest, that mark doesn't become any less good.

I don't see how a tackle becomes more or less perfect based on the result. It was perfect insofar that is how people get taught to lay tackles from junior footy onwards.

He could have done something differently, but probably not without improperly doing the job he's paid to do.

I think there are plenty of ways to tackle someone effectively without concussing them. As evidenced by the fact that concussions from tackles are relatively rare.

It's a fine line really. Accidents do happen; however, I was just disappointed to hear people discussing this particular instance as though everything about that tackle was fine. I suspect it does conform with the rules and I suspect it's in line with how people are taught to tackle, but the end result was a concussion and a hospital admission for Ben Brown. To simply dismiss it as an accident and not to examine why that came to take place is an abrogation of the club's responsibility to protect players.

[Rod]

If he hadn't pin the arms Brown would have hand-balled the ball off to someone else. The tackle was high intensity because Brown is 200cm/100kg and so is Grundy.

Basically IF Grundy wanted the free kick there was nothing else he could have done. I thought it was just bad luck. And to punish Grundy for it isn't the way to go. If you want to stop this stuff what's suspending Grundy going to do? It's just going to create more confusion.

 ******

REAL TIME football: Brown has the ball, about to pass it off - Grundy's instinct would have been to pin the arms, and use all his strength to bring a 200cm individual down. I don't understand how some of you say that wasn't a legitimate tackle - his head hit the ground yes, but was that Grundy's fault? It wasn't sling tackle, really it was just bad luck. As I said suspending Grundy won't do anything, it's a contact sport - may as well play touch football in 10 years.

[vox nihili]

If he hadn't pin the arms Brown would have hand-balled the ball off to someone else. The tackle was high intensity because Brown is 200cm/100kg and so is Grundy.

Basically IF Grundy wanted the free kick there was nothing else he could have done. I thought it was just bad luck. And to punish Grundy for it isn't the way to go. If you want to stop this stuff what's suspending Grundy going to do? It's just going to create more confusion.

Just want to make it clear that I'm not entirely sure whether Grundy should be suspended. The consensus appears to be that his tackle was fair. I also agree that there's a lot of inconsistency about how the rules are applied here and that that is bad for the game.

However, the idea that this concussion wasn't avoidable is, frankly, ridiculous. Yes, it was an accident. Just because an accident happens though doesn't mean that we shouldn't be consider (not necessarily enforcing) ways to prevent that from happening in the future. Naturally with any activity we have to accept some degree of risk, but where there are measures that can prevent concussions like this happening, we should be willing at the very least to discuss them and consider them, without simply just excusing this concussion as a foregone conclusion, which it clearly was not.

[Joseph41]

The precedent was set many, many years ago when Trengove got done for slinging Dangerfield. Caused a big uproar at the time.

Definitely agree that injury shouldn't be a factor.

[Rod]

However, the idea that this concussion wasn't avoidable is, frankly, ridiculous. Yes, it was an accident. Just because an accident happens though doesn't mean that we shouldn't be consider (not necessarily enforcing) ways to prevent that from happening in the future. Naturally with any activity we have to accept some degree of risk, but where there are measures that can prevent concussions like this happening, we should be willing at the very least to discuss them and consider them, without simply just excusing this concussion as a foregone conclusion, which it clearly was not.

Yes I agree with this. But rather than all the attention going into Grundy's possible suspension I think it should go towards how we can adjust the rules and as you say how we can PREVENT this happening in the future. It's going to spark a lot of discussion because in the last decade footy has gotten softer and softer - I'm not too sure if everyone wants that. I was watching a 2009 preliminary final and the tackling was so ferocious - it was so much more exciting to watch. Nowadays sometimes players are even afraid to tackle as they risk giving away a soft free-kick.

But I agree if it's for the safety of our players we need to make these compromises for the game. Who would want their children to play a game where at least one kid in the team gets knocked out every week?

But once again I just don't like the attention Grundy is getting. Last night on the AFL page the headline was ''PIE FACES NERVOUS WAIT AFTER TACKLE LEAVES ROO KO'D'' - It was an accident. Lets move on and discuss how we can prevent these things from happening in the future.