Nick Vlastuin

[year of the tiger]

I don't really see how that can be an issue for footy though? A team picks its best side so if you have to sub one and bring another in you are weakening your side. It's not like you can reverse a sub so your only getting weaker each time you have to use it.

I do like the sub rule for concussion as it makes it a bit easier for a team / doctor to rule a player out for concussion.

Did anyone read the op-Ed in today’s Age written by Wayne Campbell. He made the comment that while he was head of umpiring they bought in the automatic suspension rule for incidental high contract to make the game safer. ie can’t accidentally make head high contact.

Can someone please tell the match review panel that there was incidental high contact made by a Geelong player’s elbow to Vlas head during the last game of last year - still waiting.

 

[mrposhman]

I agree, the sub for injuries is a must. Not only does it allow for for the maintaining of an even playing field, but it also protects the players from having to carry and extra load from losing players through injury.

It's radical, but I'd go a step further and have the four emergencies available as injury subs each game. Concussion protocols remain as is, a player subbed for any other injury would be ineligible for selection for two weeks.

Totally agree with this. Not having injury subs is a blight on the game. A team that lose a player through no fault of their own (and regularly as the fault of a player from the opposition) is essentially the team that loses out. Its the total opposite in most other games, ie. that have sin bins / sendings off etc. I'm not advocating for that, but the field should still be left level, but its essentially weighted in favour of the team that offended.

I see the AFL have adjusted the protocols that a player that goes off with concussion can't play now for 10 days so essentially misses the following weeks game. I'm happy with that.

 

[kyuss]

I'm in the camp that the Dangerfield one was just a horrible accident but where I think they have dropped the ball is on the intentional acts with unintended consequences.

For example there have been incidents of sling tackles going unpunished. If you choose to take your opponent down in a tackle and make head impact you should get a minimum 2 weeks, regardless of any injury or not. Same as if you bump instead of tackling or taking possession of the football. Making the penalty tied to the impact just means you are making a head injury inevitable, because guys are going to ride the line until someone goes over it.

Can I also ask you and anyone else, what you think of his elbow continuing to fly forward after the collision with flossys head? I would of thought if you were tucking in to protect yourself, your arm would stay tucked in to the body or fly off to the side. After he hits Flossy hard enough to knock him out cold, his arm continues to travel away from his body. To me this means he has thrown an elbow rather than tucked his elbow in to his body. Not that any of this means *smile* anything, cos he was cleared by our "media experts" as soon as it happens cos he's such a great guy, and it was already a hard night for the poor fella. Meanwhile Big bad Tommy Lynch strokes hurleys beard and get's sent straight to the tribunural.

 

[DavidSSS]

If we are going to discuss the issue in the Grand Final, the rules are crystal clear - Dangerfield's actions should have been referred to the tribunal. The AFL clearly broke their own rules.

This would have been the most sensible outcome as the tribunal could then look at the incident and make a ruling.

The way that incident was dealt with was a complete joke.

DS

 

[zippadeee]

Let's see how the media treat the player who accidentally KO's an opponent.
The player concussed will be forced to miss a week..
God help us if lynch is involved.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

I’ve thought if a team loses a player to concussion due to a collision with another player, then the player who caused it should also have to leave the field. That way both teams suffer an equal penalty.

 

[123cups]

I agree, the sub for injuries is a must. Not only does it allow for for the maintaining of an even playing field, but it also protects the players from having to carry and extra load from losing players through injury.

It's radical, but I'd go a step further and have the four emergencies available as injury subs each game. Concussion protocols remain as is, a player subbed for any other injury would be ineligible for selection for two weeks.

I’ve been against the idea, but this is a good case for it.

The current emergency system would be perfect for levelling the playing field in case of injury, which reduces the load on the rest of the team and maintains the current interchange system.

The previous sub rule required a dedicated sub that normally would’ve been free to play the full game, but now couldn’t. Two players would then be chosen to play less than a full game - Matty White and the guy who subs off for Matty White. And it wasn’t ideal as a leveller for injuries given the other team would still have a fresh sub waiting.

No change to the current system with the addition of emergencies to be used in the case of an emergency makes perfect sense.

 

[123cups]

I’ve thought if a team loses a player to concussion due to a collision with another player, then the player who caused it should also have to leave the field. That way both teams suffer an equal penalty.

It’s pretty common for new rules to be applied in frustrating ways that were never intended. For example, the above could‘ve resulted in Jack Riewoldt getting removed in the last quarter of the Prelim.

Adding an emergency to your own team looks to have less grey area than removing a player from the opposition team to level it out. Something should happen though. We were lucky Vlastuin’s concussion wasn’t the difference in deciding the premiership.

 

[RoarEmotion]

Any time you create an incentive you will get folks look to use it and even potentially create more of what you are trying to stop. So if there are injury subs (which is effectively a fully fit player without any fatigue) then team will come up with a way to exploit it and you also at the same time incentivise getting injured relative to now as the cost to the team is less which would lead at some level to more risk taking behaviour. This is known as the cobra effect - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect

 

[AngryAnt]

I’ve thought if a team loses a player to concussion due to a collision with another player, then the player who caused it should also have to leave the field. That way both teams suffer an equal penalty.

What about a collision involving multiple players? What about friendly fire? Umps/video review has to determine who was "at fault", if anyone.

Hard to administer.

 

[Brodders17]

I’ve thought if a team loses a player to concussion due to a collision with another player, then the player who caused it should also have to leave the field. That way both teams suffer an equal penalty.

If a player gets knocked out by a teammate do they have to leave as well? Or could they pick a player from the opposition?

 

[DuD_Delist]

I’ve thought if a team loses a player to concussion due to a collision with another player, then the player who caused it should also have to leave the field. That way both teams suffer an equal penalty.

What if its Dusty?
To be fair he'd have to knockout 3 players.

 

[IanG]

I think when you look at these things in slow motion you can often see all sorts of actions that aren't necessarily representative of the incident.

For me it was just an unavoidable collision where the ball drew two players into each other with no intent from either of them. As I've always said, the players know what happens on field. If they thought for one second there was anything remotely malicious in what he did it would have been on like Donkey Kong with the game stopped for such a long time. Not one of them even went and spoke to him. That's your best indicator that it was just a horrible accident.

Maybe but it doesn't mean it shouldn't have been referred to the tribunal and let them make that determination.

 

[IanG]

I’ve been against the idea, but this is a good case for it.

The current emergency system would be perfect for levelling the playing field in case of injury, which reduces the load on the rest of the team and maintains the current interchange system.

The previous sub rule required a dedicated sub that normally would’ve been free to play the full game, but now couldn’t. Two players would then be chosen to play less than a full game - Matty White and the guy who subs off for Matty White. And it wasn’t ideal as a leveller for injuries given the other team would still have a fresh sub waiting.

No change to the current system with the addition of emergencies to be used in the case of an emergency makes perfect sense.

I'd say reduce the interchange bench to 2 but then have 4 injury subs.

 

[momentai]

I'm in the camp that the Dangerfield one was just a horrible accident but where I think they have dropped the ball is on the intentional acts with unintended consequences.

Not sure why you have that opinion Richo. If you look at the replay you will see that Dangerfield smacks into NV and then immediately looks away from him and takes off without looking back.
If it was other than deliberate he would have turned back and showed some emotion, maybe surprise, or concern or maybe even distress at Nicks then obvious concussion.
He didn’t look back because he knew.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

What if its Dusty?
To be fair he'd have to knockout 3 players.

Even if it’s Dusty. It would have to be a one on one incident, too. Like the Dangerfield Vlastuin one. I also recall Carlisle knocking Jack out early in a game against the Aints once, and that was when I first started to think that this could be applied, but yeah it’s way too hard to implement effectively, especially with the AFL’s incompetent knee jerk approach to rules.

 

[TT33]

I finally watched the GF edition of AFL360 last night. They showed the passage of play where Greg/brain marked the ball from an errant Tiger kick, I think it was by Short. What I did particularly notice was that the pressure was applied by Diverfield, his method of pressure was to dive full length with BOTH of his forearms "cocked" to inflict the maximum damage. I think that most players would have dived with their arms outstretched to try & tackle.
To me it shows what Diverfields real go to is. It also shows me that his real intent was to forearm Vlossy.

 

[AngryAnt]

Nothing goes directly to the tribunal though. It goes to the MRO who can then send it directly to the tribunal against a specific criteria.

In this case though the MRO didn't even see it as a sanctionable action.



I think there's a lot of assumptions and reading of feelings which may or not be there in what you are saying. Maybe he didn't look back because he didn't even realise he was hurt?

Passion can make us see things that aren't there. For example, you will find Geelong supporters who allege Cotchin used his leg to trip Ablett in the tackle to drag him down onto his shoulder. Does it all the time, they say. Watch it a few times with that though in your head and you start to see it, even though it's utter crap.

But I'll say it again, the players know. They know the speed of the game, they know the movements, they know what is controllable and what is not. It wasn't behind the play, it was at the footy so there were 21 sets of Richmond eyes on what happened. Does anyone seriously suggest that if there was even a faint hint of anything deliberate or untoward, that the players would have just wandered off into a huddle to regroup. I've heard people try and suggest they were told to be disciplined so they didn't respond.

Yeah right. If anyone believes they saw a team mate knocked out in an untoward way and didn't react then I've got a bridge to sell them. I can just hear the leaders now, "C'mon boys keep your heads. We can't afford to give away a free kick at the 3 minute mark of the first quarter when the score is 0-0. We'll never get that back! And we can't afford to cop any flak in the papers tomorrow!"

Not to mention after the game when Riewoldt went to Dangerfield to raise the idea of a guard of honour for Ablett. "Hey Danger, bad luck on the game mate, at least you got a decent clubbing of Flossy in first hey? Never really liked him anyway. Would it be ok if we lined up for Gazza?"

I'm sorry but the evidence just doesn't stack up. We can watch it at slow speed and analyse his arm and eyes movement and anything else but at the end of the day it was two guys getting stuck in an inevitable collision where neither of them had a chance to make a conscious thought. It was a pure collision. An unfortunate footy accident and no matter how much we all dislike Dangerfield it doesn't make it into anything else.

I agree that whether Dangerfield looked back or not could be read in a number of ways, you can't assume it meant he knew what he did. If I decked someone I'd probably look back to check it out, so who knows.

I dunno if they still use the high /deliberate reckless/impact categories. But for me, high (above the shoulder), at least reckless (IMO deliberate but that's subjective), high impact (Vlas out for the game and would have missed the next game if there was one).

Should have gone to the tribunal and got at least 1-2 weeks IMO.

Again completely subjectively I think DF deliberately leaves the arm up, elbow cocked, he could have easily dropped it to his body and turned away from impact. No duty of care for the other player. Again IMO.

 

[momentai]

Nothing goes directly to the tribunal though. It goes to the MRO who can then send it directly to the tribunal against a specific criteria.

In this case though the MRO didn't even see it as a sanctionable action.



I think there's a lot of assumptions and reading of feelings which may or not be there in what you are saying. Maybe he didn't look back because he didn't even realise he was hurt?

Passion can make us see things that aren't there. For example, you will find Geelong supporters who allege Cotchin used his leg to trip Ablett in the tackle to drag him down onto his shoulder. Does it all the time, they say. Watch it a few times with that though in your head and you start to see it, even though it's utter crap.

But I'll say it again, the players know. They know the speed of the game, they know the movements, they know what is controllable and what is not. It wasn't behind the play, it was at the footy so there were 21 sets of Richmond eyes on what happened. Does anyone seriously suggest that if there was even a faint hint of anything deliberate or untoward, that the players would have just wandered off into a huddle to regroup. I've heard people try and suggest they were told to be disciplined so they didn't respond.

Yeah right. If anyone believes they saw a team mate knocked out in an untoward way and didn't react then I've got a bridge to sell them. I can just hear the leaders now, "C'mon boys keep your heads. We can't afford to give away a free kick at the 3 minute mark of the first quarter when the score is 0-0. We'll never get that back! And we can't afford to cop any flak in the papers tomorrow!"

Not to mention after the game when Riewoldt went to Dangerfield to raise the idea of a guard of honour for Ablett. "Hey Danger, bad luck on the game mate, at least you got a decent clubbing of Flossy in first hey? Never really liked him anyway. Would it be ok if we lined up for Gazza?"

I'm sorry but the evidence just doesn't stack up. We can watch it at slow speed and analyse his arm and eyes movement and anything else but at the end of the day it was two guys getting stuck in an inevitable collision where neither of them had a chance to make a conscious thought. It was a pure collision. An unfortunate footy accident and no matter how much we all dislike Dangerfield it doesn't make it into anything else.

I agree that the players saw it as you did. And also that their reaction is usually a pretty good indicator.
Maybe the one exception was Dusty who came out and remonstrated with Dangerfield immediately after half time?
I also agree that the build towards the collision had a certain inevitability about it.
But what is missing and what the players and you overlooked is his reaction.

If it was an accident he would have shown some (human) reaction... He would at least have looked. We all would.
He knew seconds before that contact would occur.
If it was an accident, or if he didn’t in that moment intend to inflict injury, he would have taken a look. Surely.

 

[TT33]

I agree that the players saw it as you did. And also that their reaction is usually a pretty good indicator.
Maybe the one exception was Dusty who came out and remonstrated with Dangerfield immediately after half time?
I also agree that the build towards the collision had a certain inevitability about it.
But what is missing and what the players and you overlooked is his reaction.

If it was an accident he would have shown some (human) reaction... He would at least have looked. We all would.
He knew seconds before that contact would occur.
If it was an accident, or if he didn’t in that moment intend to inflict injury, he would have taken a look. Surely.

His only reaction was to check his elbow to see if there was any of Vlossys teeth there.