-
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.
Rhyan Mansell welcome to Tigerland
- Thread starter MB78
- Start date
3 weeks
Selwood and Dangerfield would've got off
No they wouldn’t.
They would never have been charged in the first place!
Same mistake the tribunal made.
If they thought he was Richmond’s Rhyan Mansell, 6 weeks minimum.
Exactly. And he braced himself for a collision at the last split second to protect himself when he saw what was coming
Surely there is some common sense left in the afl? Surely?
'Not always' is being very charitable, but agree. It's the inconsistency that gets me, Made clear or not. There's first and second class citizens.
Or led with his elbow like Dangerfield on Flossy in the GF and all would have been good......
Of course Gerard thinks Mansels suspension was clear cut. Why did I expect anything less
and there was an exact incident like you describe where both players turned on Monday, and the commentators lauded it as a great tough piece of play. Mansell did the right thing, Aish was dumb and left himself open and paid part of the penalty but the AFL makes Mansell pay for most of Aish's lack of awareness.
Hodge echoed out thoughts this morning when he said he feels for Mansell who is a young player going in hard, trying to play well to keep his place in the side.
I initially thought Mansell was stiff to be suspended and we should appeal. He braced for impact, Aish failed to brace himself, etc. but now I think we just accept it and Mansell has to change his approach and not run flat out into such contests.
Just before impact Aish has his eyes on the ball trying to take possession which he is entitled to do. He probably did not see Mansell who is closing fast running in from the side but I believe Mansell can see both Aish and the ball. It seems the tribunal message is that Mansell has a duty to not run into Aish where head contact is likely. That is not the way our game has been played in the past and in fact it's those brave clashes that has attracted fans to our game but those days are gone. Player welfare and avoiding contact to the head is now a higher priority than high speed clashes where a bump is involved.
Players can no longer run at speed into a contest like Mansell did unless they know they will get to the ball first. Yes we are asking a lot of players to make split-second decisions but Aish had the run of the ball in front of him and now his head needs to be protected. Mansell failed to do that so he will need to adjust the way he approaches similar contests in the future.
When does he make the decision that he won’t get to the ball first? 10 metres out? 5? When the ball bounces the wrong way a split second before he can take possession?
If a player decides that he’s going to be second to the contest early and slows down to not make the contest, he won’t be in the team very long.
If the AFL want to make footy a non contact sport to eliminate any potential of a concussion, then they should state their intentions.
Then I can be thankful for the last 3 flags and find something else to do on a weekend
Aish is as much responsible for the contact as Mansell, thats something that isnt being considered. Degoey responsible for his bump, stewart the same. The ball is in dispute, they expected Mansell to change line or slow down but not Aish.
We’re at the point where if two players collide while going for the ball and neither are hurt, that’s an awesome part of our game. But if one is hurt or hit in the head and their scrunchie flies off omg we’ve got to stamp this out of our game. The players must be totally confused.
Three weeks seems an incredibly harsh penalty for what is essentially an accident in a 360 degree collision sport.
Three weeks seems an incredibly harsh penalty for what is essentially an accident in a 360 degree collision sport.
So no doubt we are accepting it?
We are too soft to deal with.
Always accommodating other clubs in deals when trading with draft picks etc.
Letting players/coaches go with blessings.
Not bagging Benny or the other bosses.
This is a flag in the sand moment.
Must challenge and explain reasons for it.
Then throw in an editorial where these decisions will take the game to non contact.
No more nice guys, Tigers.
Claws out!
We are too soft to deal with.
Always accommodating other clubs in deals when trading with draft picks etc.
Letting players/coaches go with blessings.
Not bagging Benny or the other bosses.
This is a flag in the sand moment.
Must challenge and explain reasons for it.
Then throw in an editorial where these decisions will take the game to non contact.
No more nice guys, Tigers.
Claws out!
Not sure whether we will appeal, normally I'd say yes, but this week should be about Trent but at the moment its being dominated by Marlion and now Mansell. That may come into the clubs thinking about whether to appeal, but for me, we should be appealing this, and we bring in some physics graduates and body mechanics graduates and prove to the AFL, that its not actually physically possible to do what they are asking players to do.
You appear to be suggetsing because Aish didnt have the vision to know contact was coming Mansell should let him get the ball?
If a forward is leading out, and a defender is running back with flight looking over their shoulder, is it the forwards job to avoid contact, or the defender to be aware of what is coming?
to me it is crazy in our game to say a player wouldnt be aware contact is a possibility while contesting a bouncing ball and that their opponents should avoid contact because of this?
