Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
That's the missive the MRO lives by.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
That's the missive the MRO lives by.
A bit of a shock that Toby Bedford got three weeks for his tackle that resulted in Taranto's concussion. The MRP got it right despite all the callers saying nothing to see
Yeah I reckon they'll appeal it. To me it looks like Timmeh just loosened the muscles which whiplashed his head. Cameron's one was more aggressive as it was a front on tackle.
I dont believe that's 3 weeks. Duty of care but not much he did wrong. I would have been confortable with 1 maybe 2.
This decision is saying we need to stop the game now , re write the rule book and start all over again , totally understand the idea of stopping head injuries , however deliberate acts get less weeks ….hate it , like the game of AFL footy less and less
I dont really know how a blokes supposed to play footy if thats 3 weeks.
if I was still coaching, id have absolutely zero idea in how to teach young players to approach a contest.
A tackle causing a concussion has to have consequences . I am not saying Bedford went out to hurt Taranto but Tim's arms were pinned and he was a passenger in that tackle . So what should the punishment be for making a tackle that causes injury? Hard to say but at least the MRP are being consistent on this for a change
Last edited:
Umpires have a duty of care. I get they missed giving the free. Yet subsequently he was clearly hurt and the Umpires ignored it.
They have form for doing this when it involves a Richmond player. Sniper Stewart and Dion.
didn't surprise me - the non free or ignoring him being hurt.
they're all over the shop.
what about if a bloke has his shoelaces undone, trips on them while being tackled, no arms pinned, no sling,
he hits the fence and is knocked out cold?
or what about Paddy Mccartins case? in the end, he'd be concussed from a seagull's shadow. do the umps warn against touching McCartin, and then swans get him to take kick-outs, and he runs the length of the field and kicks 12 goals untouched?
1. I think protecting the head is good, but
2. waiting till someone gets concussed to protect them is downright dumb.
just pay a free for pinning arms, and arms dont get pinned.
Been quite a while since posting, but the Bedford/Taranto incident is being so poorly argued, especially in the media that my little brain may soon explode. Jonathan Brown's embarrassing Milo Kerrigan-esque TED Talk on 'On The Couch' last night about "tearing at the fabric of the game" just about did it for me. By the way, any time somebody trots out the "fabric of the game" as a defence you know you've got a drip or a dinosaur on your hands with a flimsier grip on logic than I have on quantum physics.
The AFL are in an truly difficult position here. They know that Bedford's tackle has been historically fine, that players are not yet trained for tackling differently and that the footy public aren't ready/willing to see the tackling part of the game change dramatically.
However, should Taranto retire in 8 years and encounter CTE issues 10 years later ... what will his lawyer point to? It will be incidents where he was concussed and the AFL will be asked whether Taranto was protected from this kind of incident by their rules - both during the game and at the tribunal. If Bedford gets off, the answer is 'No' and the AFL/GWS and possibly even Bedford or Richmond will be culpable.
The AFL has a choice to make and both choices have a cost. Cost 1 is that Bedford's suspension will upset (perhaps even disenfranchise) current fans and befuddle current coaches/players. The response to that could feasibly be that they speed up the process of a change to tackling technique that the game will perhaps need to survive. That's effectively forcing the clubs to make the change on their behalf in order to keep their best players available. The burden of "imagine this happened to a star in a Prelim" conveniently sits with the clubs in this scenario, not the AFL.
Cost 2 (letting Bedford, Cameron, etc off) is possible a tidal wave of law suits in 20 years time with the potential to completely bankrupt the clubs, the governing body and the funding of all grass roots investments - let alone their expansion agenda.
They're choosing Cost 1. I can genuinely understand why they're making that choice. What I can't get is why they don't just tell the footballing public that instead of the mealy-mouthed, PR inspired half-truths about current incidents that we're enduring now.
The AFL are in an truly difficult position here. They know that Bedford's tackle has been historically fine, that players are not yet trained for tackling differently and that the footy public aren't ready/willing to see the tackling part of the game change dramatically.
However, should Taranto retire in 8 years and encounter CTE issues 10 years later ... what will his lawyer point to? It will be incidents where he was concussed and the AFL will be asked whether Taranto was protected from this kind of incident by their rules - both during the game and at the tribunal. If Bedford gets off, the answer is 'No' and the AFL/GWS and possibly even Bedford or Richmond will be culpable.
The AFL has a choice to make and both choices have a cost. Cost 1 is that Bedford's suspension will upset (perhaps even disenfranchise) current fans and befuddle current coaches/players. The response to that could feasibly be that they speed up the process of a change to tackling technique that the game will perhaps need to survive. That's effectively forcing the clubs to make the change on their behalf in order to keep their best players available. The burden of "imagine this happened to a star in a Prelim" conveniently sits with the clubs in this scenario, not the AFL.
Cost 2 (letting Bedford, Cameron, etc off) is possible a tidal wave of law suits in 20 years time with the potential to completely bankrupt the clubs, the governing body and the funding of all grass roots investments - let alone their expansion agenda.
They're choosing Cost 1. I can genuinely understand why they're making that choice. What I can't get is why they don't just tell the footballing public that instead of the mealy-mouthed, PR inspired half-truths about current incidents that we're enduring now.
Last edited:
And also not waiting until he was off the field before resuming play
welcome back Hops.
there one large flaw in your argument.
suspending Bedford did not protect Tarranto from concussion.
a rule change banning pinning arms would have protected him, and Bedford would be negligent
But Bedford didn't break any rules until after Tarranto was concussed.
This is the absurdity
I do get your point. The current bias of the AFL rules toward the harm caused by the action (instead of the action itself) is problematic for multiple reasons - one of them is the lawyer's playground that it'll create down the track. Further, it makes it very difficult for coaches to show players what's legal and what isn't.
The lawyers aren't going to argue that Bedford personally broke rules or that concussions aren't possible in a collision sport. They'll argue that the AFL's rules and their application didn't sufficiently create a safe work environment for Taranto. If Bedford gets off, it'll make that case stronger not just for Taranto but for anybody suing the AFL in 20 years time.
Of course, the Bedford/Taranto case is just an example. This type of thing taken to scale is what they'd be petrified of at HQ.
<
Gold Coast
|
Ivan Soldo
>
