Scott lauds footballing courage, but urges caution

Cant argue with any of that.

I am not arguing against that and IMO should have got more than 5 weeks. But it is a interesting convo regarding players running with the flight of the ball blind to oncoming traffic. You play the game albeit starting at an older age and compared to RL the tackling angles, the vision needed and talk from team mates of where they are etc makes it massively different. You literally need eyes in the back of your head.

No guarantee of a next time. Lions have seen this 1st hand with Justin Clarke, promising young defender having to retire due to health issues, There's no guarantees Harris is going to return from this. I understand the players having a bit of duty of care for themselves in certain circumstances, however Andrews arrived well before Cameron, the ball had cleared the area quite clearly. There was no way in the World Andrews would of been expecting raised elbow to the head. Cameron clearly had time to go from looking to out stretch mark with his hands to the clenching of his elbow. He clearly choose to make contact with elbow. If his arms were outstretched as going for a mark the impact would not been any where near as bad.

The easy answer is don't elbow players in the head deliberately Cameron seems to be the only one struggling with it. He could have contested that footy in such a way that he didn't strike Andrews in the head. He chose to elbow him in the head deliberately. End of discussion. There is no wider issue of safety at play here, not if the rules are obeyed.

IMO Harris has done nothing wrong to deserve what happened but as a matter of self protection and preservation he should have not opened himself up, even if he did not turn to face the oncoming pack he could have been kneed in the back or kidneys etc or perhaps even remained unscathed. These type of situations have to be weighed up by the player at the time, backing into a pack or running wit the flight of the ball is expected sometimes by coaches and teammates. I wonder what Harris will do next time and there will be a next time. Are players running into meet the ball expected to make way for players running with the flight or backing blindly back into a oncoming pack. No easy answer here.

I'll just add to this, if Cameron doesn't do anything like this again in his career, then 5 weeks is perfectly adequate - I still think he should have got more, but ultimately the outcome will be what's important I tell you what tho, it's gonna be a bad look if Harris is still suffering the effects by the time Cameron is ready to return. Hoping for a speedy recovery

In general the higher standard you play the safer it is and the more respect players have for each other. You get old slow blokes who the only way they can compete is through physicality and intimidation on younger blokes. Unfortunately it is the way it is.

I think we are getting a lot of wrong with where this discussion has deflected. Probably not even on purpose. But there's a hell of a lot of talk about what Harris Andrews should have done???? Hang on a second....... You know what, there is one simple thing Jeremey Cameron could of done that wouldn't of caused this issue. NOT LEAD WITH HIS ELBOW. Cameron (The Coach) argument is he's a ball player....If he was being the ball player he claims he is, that contest Cameron's arms would of been extended out in an attempt to mark the footy. The fact he had his elbow primed for contact with Andrews head shows there was premeditation in the contest.

I thought gutless was Riewoldt bawling his eyes out on the sidelines half an hour later

It certainly is contrived WWE theatre. But Scott shouldn't be getting high and mighty. He (or his brother) were prepared to target a maimed player as they were leaving the ground with a serious injury. Would be a 10 week suspension by today's standards to inflict added injury on an already clearly maimed player. As gutless as it gets.

I agree that players should be taught to protect themselves. But, the elephant in the room in this instance was an act that was completely avoidable and unacceptable that undermines the sport of AFL. AFL is more a business than a sport and, on that basis, Andrews livelihood has been put in jeopardy. If the AFL, as the controller of everything to do with the game, is responsible, then it has a duty of care for the AFL players. Cameron is a skilled player who hasn’t learned from previous misdemeanours. If justice is to prevail he must serve a very lengthy suspension, while an education program needs to be developed and employed that not only teaches players how to protect themselves, but also educates players to eliminate unacceptable aggression that puts the health and livelihood of other players at risk.

With his history (thug) eight weeks for me is the minimum he needs to get the message.

So you think that despite this being only the third incident graded severe and intentional in four years of football that there is something to be learned from this? I don't. There really isn't anything to be learnt, beyond what Jeremy Cameron needs to learn about himself. Cameron made a split second decision to deliberately hurt a fellow worker in their workplace and he has to suffer the opprobrium now of his colleagues. He will have a long time on the sidelines to have a big think about what he has done and the way he plays the game, and then he will be given a chance to come back and demonstrate he is a changed man. It won't be easy though. Look at Tomas Bugg, barely sighted in 2018. Again, only the third incident in 4 years. Hundreds of other footballers don't seem to have this issue.

I see it in suburban footy all the time, it's happened to my son playing. He is fast and agile at 20 and a 34 year old was getting embarrassed by him so early in the second qtr lifted the knees into the back of the hammy in a pack for a massive corky to quell his influence. Doesn't attract the attention of head high stuff but a 90 kilos 34 year old bloke going full on with his knee into a fleshy back of a 75 kilo 20 year old's thigh isn't much good for the sport either.

I'm not assuming anything on your frame of mind Paul, just describing what you're pumping out onto the page there. I know how you write and that's exactly what I was referring to, it wasn't about whether you respect AFL footballers or not. You'll also have to get specific with exact examples if you're accusing irrationality. It's not something you've done too well so far. A quick skim read of your post there suggests to me you've missed the point I was making. I didn't say Cameron shouldn't cop some weeks (around about four would be fine, plus add maybe one for the emotional), the point I was making was basing assessments of what actions to take on how avoidable it was and whether anything could be gotten from it that would benefit down the track.

Dal I assure you I'm as calm as the med in summer, this is just how I write. What is your argument - you think you're in a better frame of mind than me? Mine is entirely an intellectual argument, although if you're not responding rationally I suppose I have myself to blame, given I'm the one slinging barbs. I believe it is a problem of a few individuals, not something requiring anything beyond strict enforcement of the rules. I respect everyone who plays AFL football and I think one of the things that allows them to do what they do so fearlessly is a sort of understanding, that they aren't going to do to each other what Cameron did to Andrews. That's why Cameron needs to be punished, he broke the rules, one of the most important rules around contact we have. This is symptomatic only of a wider trend within his playing career, he is basically doing what Jonathan Brown was doing in his early days, lots of suspensions and hard play. And now it has turned into something altogether more spiteful. I think I am addressing this logically. Couple of questions for you to finish off, as I'd like to hear your views on these, rather than anything wider - Do you agree with the decision by Michael Christian to grade Cameron's conduct intentional and severe? - From a news article on this: "It is only the third an incident has been graded as intentional conduct and severe impact since the latest table classification system came into effect. The other two were Tom Jonas’ hit on Andrew Gaff in 2016 and Tyrone Vickery’s strike on Dean Cox in 2014. Jonas was handed a six-match ban, while Vickery was suspended for four games. Cameron’s latest charge is his 11th since 2012, having been found guilty of all previous 10." What sort of punishment do you think Cameron is going to get? Andrews is bleeding inside his brain because of what he did. You've seen the suspensions increase with Vickery and Jonas, and I think this is the worst of the lot. I reckon he's going to get 8 weeks

It's obvious you've switched off from looking at this in any other way than what fits your emotive view, you don't need to wheel out your petulant stomping act to try and put on a show about it to convince me on that score. I guess ultimately you're saying is you are what you do. And so if you value respect you use respectful actions. If you value logic you'd try to address things logically. If you value labels, you label broadly.

Funny you mention that as I actually have a relevant experience to speak to about that - on the weekend at maroochydore I got cleaned up in a big bump right across the chest just after I was kicking the ball clear from a close in stoppage/contested ball, kicking on my off foot. Bounced to the ground, got up again, no worries bar a sore shoulder - but as I was going back I overheard the guy who hit me say to his mate "he took me on, I wanted to hurt him" Now, I'd never heard this before, and I thought about it - I guess there must be a mentality amongst some players that if you're prepared to focus solely on the ball and not modify your approach based on the proximity of other players - essentially relying on them not following through if they can see you're going to beat them to what you want to achieve with the footy, well, there has to be physical consequences for this. It's an interesting attitude and approach. Certainly I agree that players should look to protect themselves when both are going for the footy - ground ball situations the most obvious candidates, we don't see anywhere near as many head knocks as we used to in those instances. But I think there's always going to be a human need to want to make the threat of the physical contest real if players insist on focusing on the footy, and the strategy needs to be to make the head sacrosanct, rather than to minimise and reduce all contact

Here's a useful summary. I contended the act has everything to do with Jeremy Cameron as a player, based on his prior conduct, and not much to do with the rules. You asked a lot of questions where you said you didn't think we could stop players influencing contests, we could reduce risk, but we didn't want to stop players running at the ball but we could teach players not to raise arms. Which as I said originally is something not many players do apart from guys like Jeremy Cameron and Tomas Bugg last year. So it is a problem with the players, not the rules. Only you could write that Dr Philesque para above and call that simplifying it.

No one is excusing Cameron, well I am not who no doubt did the wrong thing and if Andrews was my son I would be ropeable, but I do wonder if Andrews because of his size during his junior career had to really worry about getting cleaned up ?. Did he play footy with men at 16 or was he smaller during his junior days and learnt self preservation and protection techniques which smaller players tend to learn. These techniques according to many pundits are not as pronounced as they once were or do coaches demand contested football from players who are not really in the position to offer it. I don't know!!