Rhyan Mansell welcome to Tigerland

[TigerForce]

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.

I hope we do, but reckon we won't given that Mansell's probably not rated as best 22 yet by the club and to give someone else a spot next game. Could be wrong.

Should I also bring out that word...'conspiracy'? Sometimes get the feel these d-heads do this on purpose to force clubs to appeal just so these legal clownsels earn another pay. Could be wrong.

 

[momentai]

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.

Agree with most of this but you can't base a decision on whether to appeal on how the media may cause that decision to detract from the celebration of TC's career. The media will get plenty more juice out of Marlion and Rhyan no matter.

Still believe there is a high chance of success to bang down the finding that Ryhan acted carelessly. The mandatory three weeks for the actual level of his contribution (as found by the tribunal) is totally unreasonable, and further reflects on the fact that his conviction in these circumstances was unwarranted.

 

[toothless]

Not convinced Chimp likes the attention as he's seemingly solely team oriented but perhaps appreciates the accolades anyway

 

[TT33]

I'm afraid that the AFL is now the Anti Football League

 

[YeOldeTiger]

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.

It's become increasingly difficult to argue against this logic. I doubt the club will appeal because it's become clear that footballers have to change their mindset now when approaching a contest. Them's the facts.

It's the inconsistency that does everybody's head in.

 

[YeOldeTiger]

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?

I don't think tigermike is suggesting it, merely stating what the AFL directive is now.

 

[Dyer'ere]

Effectively Mansell went down because he didn't reach for the ball as he hit it. That's the ratio even if it's not expressed that clearly.

Without stating it openly the AFL has ruled that if the contact is so dangerous that Player A withdraws from gathering the ball, electing to brace at any stage, Player A deemed the contact dangerous in so doing. If Player A concusses Player B in the contact it's an offence.

They've never expressed it what strictly before.

The effect of this is to deter any player from hitting the ball in a way that might cause head contact. In short, from hitting the ball.

We all know that partly due to CTE the AFL will continue to steadily water down the contact in the game. I'm surprised that it's reached the level of ruling out Rhyan's attack on the ball this soon. Amazed.

We have to appeal. Not sure how that will work out. In the medium term Mansell's attack will be deemed illegal but not many of us saw it coming this soon. And I can't recall it's ever being stated as strictly as this interpretation.

 

[Cooper O'Reilly]

It's become increasingly difficult to argue against this logic. I doubt the club will appeal because it's become clear that footballers have to change their mindset now when approaching a contest. Them's the facts.

It's the inconsistency that does everybody's head in.

I understand we have to protect the head, but surely there is some onus on the player to protect themselves. At present the bloke who gets to the ball first (even if it’s by a fraction of a second) is completely absolved of any responsibility to protect himself. Get there a fraction of a second late and you are totally responsible for the outcome and can expect a suspension.

That’s not footy.

We were taught as kids to be aware of what’s going on around you when you attack the footy AND to protect yourself whilst doing it.

The AFL are trying to turn footy into a non contact sport and that’s not the game I want to watch.

 

[Dyer'ere]

That DeGoey's contact is ruled an equal offence to Mansell's is based on effect-only judgement. Each player breached the rule, each player caused a concussion. DeGoey did not take out Hewitt (because no such offence was considered)- he bumped.

 

[theglove3]

Appealling!

 

[shawry]

Appealling!

So he should. That decision was just blatantly wrong and harsh when he was contesting the footy.

 

[tigermike]

I understand we have to protect the head, but surely there is some onus on the player to protect themselves. At present the bloke who gets to the ball first (even if it’s by a fraction of a second) is completely absolved of any responsibility to protect himself. Get there a fraction of a second late and you are totally responsible for the outcome and can expect a suspension.

That’s not footy.

We were taught as kids to be aware of what’s going on around you when you attack the footy AND to protect yourself whilst doing it.

The AFL are trying to turn footy into a non contact sport and that’s not the game I want to watch.

The AFL have stated that if you bump a player in the head, whether you meant to or not, and he is concussed then you are responsible for that contact. You are correct in that it's not the footy we have watched for decades but it's the way it is mostly being adjudicated today in order to reduce concussions. I see that we will appeal the decision so the explanation may either assist us and the players or confuse us all. I hope Mansell gets off of course but I still think he needs to adjust the way he attacks those contests so that concussion is avoided.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

The AFL have stated that if you bump a player in the head, whether you meant to or not, and he is concussed then you are responsible for that contact. You are correct in that it's not the footy we have watched for decades but it's the way it is mostly being adjudicated today in order to reduce concussions. I see that we will appeal the decision so the explanation may either assist us and the players or confuse us all. I hope Mansell gets off of course but I still think he needs to adjust the way he attacks those contests so that concussion is avoided.

So, a player shouldn’t contest the ball? If they see an oppo player ahead of them going for the ball, they should just stop and watch it happen while the opposition get the ball and move it down the field?

 

[tigermike]

Thats a silly conclusion. They can contest the ball provided they don't arrive late and bump their opponent in the head to cause a concussion which keeps them off the field for some time. If they see an opponent going for the ball just ahead of them they can tackle or block but don't just run hard at them giving them a shirtfront or a bump to the head. Is that satisfactory? That's the modern game designed to stop the concussion law suits which number over 100 atm.

 

[eddazol]

Thats a silly conclusion. They can contest the ball provided they don't arrive late and bump their opponent in the head to cause a concussion which keeps them off the field for some time.

And we are playing with an oval football that can bounce unpredictably in different directions.

 

[tigermike]

I understand we have to protect the head, but surely there is some onus on the player to protect themselves. At present the bloke who gets to the ball first (even if it’s by a fraction of a second) is completely absolved of any responsibility to protect himself. Get there a fraction of a second late and you are totally responsible for the outcome and can expect a suspension.

That’s not footy.

We were taught as kids to be aware of what’s going on around you when you attack the footy AND to protect yourself whilst doing it.

The AFL are trying to turn footy into a non contact sport and that’s not the game I want to watch.

The AFL have stated that if you bump a player in the head, whether you meant to or not, and he is concussed then you are responsible for that contact. You are correct in that it's not the footy we have watched for decades but it's the way it is being adjudicated today in order to reduce concussions.

 

[tigermike]

And we are playing with an oval football that can bounce unpredictably in different directions.

And we would expect that to be taken into account by the tribunal thus making it more of an accident leading to a different decision.

 

[AstuteTiger]

Luke Hodge had this to say on SEN's Whateley this morning:

“I feel that the Tribunal got it wrong last night.”
“On face value, if you watch that last split-second of the bump, it looks like he’s going to run straight through him,” Hodge added.

“If you look at how the play unfolded, Aish was running with the ball, the ball’s gone over his head, Mansell has run out and that ball bobbled end over end and sat up which meant it went back towards Aish.

“If that had have bobbled one more time, Mansell picks the ball up and he’s charging out. Everyone is going to sit there and go ‘well done, look at the attack on this young fella’.

“That ball bounces up, Aish doesn’t get the ball in his hands so he (Mansell) can’t tackle him, he can’t slow down and he collides. The Tribunal said why didn’t he attempt to pick up the ball? If he had have tried to get the ball, he would have run head-first straight into Aish.

“So then you would have had two blokes knocked out.
“As a (past) player I feel for him because he did the right thing and because of the bounce of an oval ball, it made him hesitate.

“I’m sitting here going is three weeks fair for that? That’s probably a bit harsh in my books.”

 

[CarnTheTiges]

And we would expect that to be taken into account by the tribunal thus making it more of an accident leading to a different decision.

But they didn’t, so Mansell got the same penalty as JDG, who genuinely elected to bump. The AFL want to remove contact from the game to lessen any possible risk of concussion. They’ll go after high marking next, because the player may land awkwardly and hit their head.

 

[tigersnake]

Its not the suspension that gets me, it's the inconsistency. If degoey is 3, mansell is 1, I'd take 2 factoring in the richmond factor. Or alternatively if mansell is 3, degoey is 5.

They just showed a table of sling tackle suspensions for the year, 21, broady only 4 weeker. And he was first.