Eddie McGuire

[frickenel]

This is really simple and many posters are missing the point!

If a player does his knee and is out for 12 months, he's out for 12 months but the club fully expects that the player will make a full recovery and is therefore worth keeping on the list.

With both Rama and Polak, the doubt is / was so large that on the basis of club performance, the prudent thing to do is free up the list position and de-list the player! This is obviously a cruel blow to the player concerned and would show the club and the AFL to be heartless employers! In some respects you could say it would be bringing the game into disrepute more than some of the incidents that have fallen under the 'disrepute' ruling!

Essendon was granted an exception to the normal rule by the AFL board BECAUSE the act of showing a heart would have seen Essendon effectively one man down.

Richmond are in exactly the same position with Polak - it is NO DIFFERENT!

In fact the situation is actually WORSE than Rama's on the grounds that impact to Rama in a footy game was not going to exacerbate his illness (cancer)!

On the other hand, with Polak he could get fit and start running around again but another hit in the wrong spot could be disasterous!

If an allowance was made for Rama, then there would be no justice for the same ruling not being made for Polak!

 

[the claw]

This is really simple and many posters are missing the point!

If a player does his knee and is out for 12 months, he's out for 12 months but the club fully expects that the player will make a full recovery and is therefore worth keeping on the list.

With both Rama and Polak, the doubt is / was so large that on the basis of club performance, the prudent thing to do is free up the list position and de-list the player! This is obviously a cruel blow to the player concerned and would show the club and the AFL to be heartless employers! In some respects you could say it would be bringing the game into disrepute more than some of the incidents that have fallen under the 'disrepute' ruling!

Essendon was granted an exception to the normal rule by the AFL board BECAUSE the act of showing a heart would have seen Essendon effectively one man down.

Richmond are in exactly the same position with Polak - it is NO DIFFERENT!

In fact the situation is actually WORSE than Rama's on the grounds that impact to Rama in a footy game was not going to exacerbate his illness (cancer)!

On the other hand, with Polak he could get fit and start running around again but another hit in the wrong spot could be disasterous!

If an allowance was made for Rama, then there would be no justice for the same ruling not being made for Polak!

my understanding was rama was out of contract and as such could not be placed on the ltil. polak is contracted and can be.

 

[Rosy]

It is different in the timing. We're trying to move the goal posts in between drafts. With Rama other clubs knew what picks the Bummers had long before the event. With us other clubs expected us to have certain picks and we now want to change that. I don't know what difference it would make to them and how they drafted, if any, but the fact is we are are very late requesting the change. Collingwood isn't the only club with questions about it. If we are worse than the Bummers in that playing footy could exacerbate Polly's injury why didn't we opt for this earlier. For some reason I don't understand we've had a late change of heart in regard to Polly and I'm saddened to find him attracting such uneccessary attention, especially in the media.

 

[momentai]

Claw,
This is just nit picking. Both Rama and Polly suffered severe off-field 'injuries' which should have meant the immediate end of their careers. Rama was given a chance to play on with his mates as a means of encouraging his recovery. Exactly the same consideration applies in the case of Polly and you can put money on it being resolved in a similar manner.

Also the Commission want Ben to play in 09 and must be heartily sick and tired of being told its job by Eddie. They will not miss this opportunity to put him back in his box.

 

[momentai]

Rosy,
Everyone knows that Polly's injury was so severe that he can't play footy or participate in match practise next year and may never be well enough to do so again. I am sure from this mornings Age report, that he is more than happy to stand down and continue to help the team while still remaining a part of it.

 

[Rosy]

I am sure from this mornings Age report, that he is more than happy to stand down and continue to help the team while still remaining a part of it.

I haven't questioned that, or the extent Graham's injury will affect him, in the slightest.

 

[momentai]

Well Rosy the rest of it is nitpicking.

 

[Rosy]

Well Rosy the rest of it is nitpicking.

What "rest" of it is nitpicking momentai?

 

[jb03]

It is different in the timing. We're trying to move the goal posts in between drafts. With Rama other clubs knew what picks the Bummers had long before the event. With us other clubs expected us to have certain picks and we now want to change that. I don't know what difference it would make to them and how they drafted, if any, but the fact is we are are very late requesting the change. Collingwood isn't the only club with questions about it. If we are worse than the Bummers in that playing footy could exacerbate Polly's injury why didn't we opt for this earlier. For some reason I don't understand we've had a late change of heart in regard to Polly and I'm saddened to find him attracting such uneccessary attention, especially in the media.

Rosy your apologist posting on behalf of Eddie is quite surprising I must say.

 

[momentai]

What "rest" of it is nitpicking momentai?

From 'it' down to 'heart'.

 

[Rosy]

Rosy your apologist posting on behalf of Eddie is quite surprising I must say.

Rather than making personal judgements tell me do you disagree with what I said in my post that you quoted?

I'm not apologising for Eddie, and made it clear I don't think much of him, but that doesn't mean I don't understand some of his concerns, and those of other clubs. As I said I'd expect us to question Collingwood or any other club if the situation was reversed too and I think most here would feel the same even if they don't admit it.

I don't think it's right to infer anyone wishes Polly to be put on the scrap heap, and in fact I don't think it's anything personal towards him at all. It would be very different if opposing the request left Polly without a spot but that's not the case.

Momentai isn't what I posted fact? As with jb, rather than making personal comments, tell me why you think we've made this request now when shortly before the draft we gave our reasons for wanting Polly on the main list? And tell me honstly if Collingwood were making the same request would you be 100% in favour of it? I certainly wouldn't, and I hope we get their noses right out of joint over this, but I can be unbiased enough to understand other clubs at least asking questions.

 

[Scoop]

Doesn't the comment explain that JB disagrees with you entire stance. Not a personal attack at all.

Even that dopey Cornes is making Quagmire look bad.

Things are looking up.

Hence forth it is Quagmire. That is gold.

 

[Rosy]

Doesn't the comment explain that JB disagrees with you entire stance. Not a personal attack at all.

Not to me. I don't have an "entire stance", although I would certainly welcome you elaborating on what you perceive as my entire stance  seeing you decided to make a cameo reply to the question I asked jb.  I would be surprised if jb disagrees with everything I posted.  I didn't mention a personal "attack" either. :

 

[Scoop]

seeing you decided to make a cameo reply to the question I asked jb.

Sorry my mistake, wasn't aware that you were not allowed to comment on any post that wasn't personally directly asked of you. Won't happen again.

 

[Rosy]

Sorry my mistake, wasn't aware that you were not allowed to comment on any post that wasn't personally directly asked of you. Won't happen again.

You're quite welcome to, otherwise I wouldn't have asked you to elaborate with your own comments on what you think is my "entire stance" as you mentioned.

 

[Hayfever]

My personal opinion is that RFC wanted to give every encouragement to Graeme Polak so that he still felt part of our footy team and were hopeful his health recovery might accelerate enough to keep him on our main list. It works both ways as well. Not only has Polak responded to still being "one of the boys" his presence has also inspired the other players.

Physically and superficially his progress has been remarkable. The key issue though is the damage to his brain and to what extent he can recover from this. Richmond gave him as much time as possible before making a final assessment(no doubt based on expert medical advice) and biting the bullet for next season's list. Polak supports the decision and they are now seeking the best possible outcome for the club overall.

 

[evo]

Hence forth it is Quagmire. That is gold.

It's not my work,I'm just the publicist.It pretty funny though(but not very chimpy)

 

[gustiger12]

The reality is this. The AFL doesn't have a rule that specifically addresses the Rama/Polak situation. Yes it has the LTIL, but I would think that the intention of that rule is to cover players who have an injury sustained through the game, but has a realistic chance of a full and complete recovery. I don't think it adequately covers the situation where a player has a potentially career ending illness or injury, whether that injury be sustained on or off the field. There are a lot wider issues to be considered in this case. The AFL itself has acknowledged this by creating the Rama rule for want of a better term. They clearly acknowledged that his situation fell outside the rules as they currently stand. I don't see how Polaks situation is any different.

The AFL should have addressed this situation early, but in typical fashion has stuck their head in the sand hoping it won't comeback, or altenative you could say they have acknowledged that the Rama precedent is an acceptable option which should be considered in all similar circumstances based on its individual merits.

Eddie himself in his article yesterday tried to argue that it had nothing to do with Cousins situation. So if that is the case Eddie, why shouldn't Polak be put on the rookie list inline with the Rama precedent. You argue that is a different situation, but the only real difference that I can see is that if it is agreed it might pave the way for Cousins to play for someone else.

I don't buy the arguement that people would have know exactly what our picks were etc etc. We are after all talking about pick 7 in the PSD. Hardly a prized pick one would have thought. You could argue that it would be the pick that would be used to pick up an ex premiership player etc etc, but every other club had the opportunity to pick him up and passed. Other clubs who still have a PSD pick still have an opportunity to pick him up, so he may not fall through to us. But at the end of the day this would be a poor argument for not allowing Polly to be put on the Rookie list. Lists are so tight these days we need to use every means available to us to ensure we have a full contingent to pick from.

At the end of the day Graeme Polak needs to be given every opportunity to recover from his horrific injuries and that must be the clubs priority. But why have him occupy a spot on the senior list when he could be placed on the rookie list if his circumstances are deserving of such a move, which need to be sanctioned by the AFL.

Eddie can argue the timing all he likes, but surely Polly needs all the time he can get to show if he is likely to be able to make it back this year. We can simply argue that we have given him every opportunity to date, but the reality is that he obviously needs more time.

What is wrong with us doing everything within our power to provide him that opportunity. Afer all, as Eddie himself says, this is not about Ben Cousins. So lets keep it relative to Graeme Polak.

At the end of the day if we are off the mark then Im sure the AFL will reflect that in its decision.

 

[HeadandShin]

My personal opinion is that RFC wanted to give every encouragement to Graeme Polak so that he still felt part of our footy team and were hopeful his health recovery might accelerate enough to keep him on our main list. It works both ways as well. Not only has Polak responded to still being "one of the boys" his presence has also inspired the other players.

Physically and superficially his progress has been remarkable. The key issue though is the damage to his brain and to what extent he can recover from this. Richmond gave him as much time as possible before making a final assessment(no doubt based on expert medical advice) and biting the bullet for next season's list. Polak supports the decision and they are now seeking the best possible outcome for the club overall.

(I'm probably going to repeat a few other people's points; I suspect we're all in furious agreement on most issues in this matter!)

That's my understanding, too. I think it's irrelevant where (on-field or off-field) the injury was sustained. At the time for delistings to be done, I understand Graham did not want to go on the rookie list. The club did the right thing by not delisting him, in terms of his motivation and as a message to other players and the world at large that loyalty matters to us. With that reassurance, and more training sessions and medical advice in the interim, Graham is happy to go on the rookie list now.

To me, it does not matter whether his situation falls squarely into the "Rama exception". People and their circumstances are individual; earlier occurrences give guidance but should not be seen as setting rules in concrete. It's not even as if there have been a string of matching precedents; only Rama!

While rules should apply in most day-to-day situations, for rare events such as Rama's and Graham's the AFL should make decisions based on the facts of each case, with due sensitivity to the player's unique circumstance.

I also understand that being on the LTIL means a player cannot play at all. Graham will need to be eased back at a slower rate than others returning from injury; but playing will be good for him, so the LTIL might not suit his needs.

I agree that the Cousins thing complicates the Polak decision, and without the knowledge that we were going to take Cousins, all the other clubs (including the Pies) would be just wishing us and Graham well.

A way to improve the situation for the future: to be able to move players from the senior list to the rookie list without having to delist them (which is demoralising and leaves them in limbo til the rookie draft). Would have liked to see this for Gourdis, too.

 

[Chiang Mai Tiger]

you win McChins