I’m sick of watching the treatment of Jack Ginnivan.
We’re now two years into this malfeasance.
I’ll pause briefly to let the flogs counter with such witty repartee as, “He deserves it”, and, “He’s a git”, and all that juvenile condemnation that has no relevance to the reality of the situation.
How a kid in only his second season of senior football (last year) earned a target from the AFL, and constant persecution from commentators such as Anthony Hudson and Brian Taylor, while much better credentialled players had been dipping for frees for years, is beyond me.
Those in the AFL media who scapegoated him should be ashamed. They won’t be, because many of them thrive on sensationalism and hyperbole. At least Kane Cornes, as criticised as he is, recanted on Ginnivan and then defended him, while Gerard Whateley was the only one to show genuine contrition.
Mason Redman nearly ripping Ginnivan’s head off in the Collingwood-Essendon Round 19 clash last year, and then slinging him around on the ground, should’ve been the AFL’s line in the sand.
It wasn’t.
AFL legend Leigh Matthews talked about how sick it made him to witness the player being unprotected. The Twitterites condemned Matthews because, you know, he once hit Neville Bruns, like one thing has anything to do with the other. And the AFL? Well, they defended the initial contact, and said the sling should’ve been the free.
I’m sick of this narrative the AFL have perpetuated, and which people are buying into. I am not disputing that Ginnivan – like other players – would occasionally duck. But this belief that when he’s in motion, picking up the ball, and trying to accelerate clear, that he’s leaned into a tackle to invite head-high contact is the biggest fallacy going around.
When you’re moving forward, bent low, picking up the ball and trying to burst clear, you are leaning forward. That’s physics.
But the AFL has sold that it’s a duck.
Similarly with this shrug of the arm to drive a tackle high – so what’s the alternative? You wear the tackle? Or – like every player would be expected to do – you try shrug it and break the opponent’s grip before it lands? To not do so would be derelict. Yet the AFL has sold you this lemon and you’re buying into it and reselling it yourselves. I have some swampland for sale, too, if you’re interested.
In Collingwood’s clash against Carlton, Ginnivan had his head ripped off from behind and still didn’t get a free. How could he possibly duck into this, given he didn’t know it was coming? In the commentary Tim Watson and Cameron Ling cited it unequivocally as a free kick. Brian Taylor was silent.
(Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
We see how seriously the AFL is taking concussion. There are concussion tests whenever a player is hit in the head. If a player fails a concussion test, then they effectively miss the following game (and can only return 12 days after the impact).
There’s also this big new minefield that the AFL are trying to navigate as former players explore whether the AFL is culpable for long-term effects they’ve suffered from concussions during their careers in headier times.
We don’t connect Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) with AFL – players go out there and face the risk of injury. But what the AFL is doing with Jack Ginnivan is sanctioning illegal opposition contact, and enabling opponents not to tackle Ginnivan, but attack him – and his head – with impunity. This has now become an unsafe workplace. The AFL are not protecting Ginnivan. This is an OHS issue.
The AFL had better pray that he never suffers concussion(s) and, if he does, never has lingering repercussions, because I’m sure any court will find them culpable. You don’t let a kid get whacked for two years and think you can just walk away from it. You are just complicit as those doing the illegal tackling.
And, with all this, we’re not even considering the mental health issue. Ginnivan spoke about his mental health battles last year. You can see that the kid has lost some of his spark. It wouldn’t be easy walking out onto the field knowing the opposition have the license to belt you.
While I’ve admired Collingwood president Jeff Browne for not being dial-a-headline, this is where I wouldn’t have minded some abrasive bombastic personality like Eddie McGuire to challenge what’s going on and to shout at the AFL and the umpiring fraternity.
Perhaps that will only happen some time in the future – after Ginnivan has been battered out of the game, and is retired and navigating chronic traumatic encephalopathy from all the blows to the head.
Enjoy the lawsuit then, AFL, because when the existing mandate is to protect the head, when the justifiable paranoia exists about protecting players not only from concussions in the here and now but also long term, when it comes to Ginnivan and how he’s being handled, you have abysmally failed your duty of care, and no finagling of rule interpretations will ever change that.
We see how outspoken more and more media personalities are becoming – people who are identifying that this is wrong.
For those like Hudson and Taylor who’ve led their crusades against Ginnivan, I hope you’re pleased.
Today it’s Ginnivan.
Who’s next?
Because don’t think, don’t believe for a moment, there won’t be another player who is victimised unless this is addressed now.
HR
Roar Rookie
I can't imagine you're replying to me, Mr Apps, as I don't believe there's a time we've discussed this before, so I can't see how my argument would be wrong "again". If you were addressing me, see my reply to No9.
HR
Roar Rookie
And in judging the act on its merits, the umpires will use contextual information in their assessment. Remember that Ginnivan isn't the defendant in this analogy, he's the complainant. The umpires aren't judging him as guilty, they're judging the merit of his complaint. And if he's seen as a vexatious complainant by the umpires, his claims will be given less weight.
Marshall
Roar Rookie
Pies supporter much?
George Apps
Roar Rookie
Who listens to Cane Cornes anyway? He is too biased for my liking and slow to apologise, if at all.
George Apps
Roar Rookie
Hoo-bloody-ray! Someone with a bit of sense!
George Apps
Roar Rookie
No! Wrong again! I say bullshit - the umpires should judge each occurrence on its merits. They make mistakes, just like players do in the heat of the moment, but some of the frees not paid to Ginnivan were outrageously unfair!
George Apps
Roar Rookie
Tall poppy syndrome!
Arges Tuft
Roar Rookie
Confusing with a bafflement of personal opinions at best. Fully lost read when you gave Kane Corn credentials. yada yada yada
No9
Roar Rookie
Quite so !
No9
Roar Rookie
They have no choice .They are obliged to apply the rules of the game .
No9
Roar Rookie
Umpires should be reminded that their obligation is to apply the rules . They should not , and must not , let their personal opinions sway their judicial judgment . If an umpire decides not to apply the rules because of personal animosity he is acting outside the rules and exposes himself to litigation if misadventure arises . One can ask : where does this policy of umpires subjectively deciding intent takes precedent over the rules end up . Where does it end ? That umpiring policy is a slippery slope and leads inevitably to litigation .
No9
Roar Rookie
There is a view that if he draws an illegal tackle by ducking he should be rewarded , He has deceived an opponent to make a tackle which is above the shoulders. That is outside the rules .Tackles must be below the shoulders . I'm not convinced that he ducks with that intent on every occasion . It seems to me that he drives forward to break tackles . Anyway , intent is not relevant . The action must be judged on its merits . I have seen many players deceive opponents to win a free kick .
No9
Roar Rookie
I don't know the sort of judicial procedings you are referring to . I have never seen such a court The neck is above the shoulders and is an illegal tackle . That rule applies even if there is no intent . Most judges still apply black letter law .
No9
Roar Rookie
If they do they are wrong . The act must be judged on its merits . In court a defendent's past criminal history must not be shown to the court until conviction for the present charge . That common law principle applies here .
No9
Roar Rookie
How does that impact the rules umpires are paid to impose ? Private opinions are without merit when a game is being played . This is a scandal in my view as the opposition realise that there is open season on this young man while he is playing under supposedly strict rules . Simply put : umpires are stating : we impose our own rules . I point out to those umpires who consider themselves above or outside the rules that they are employed to act judicially . If they do not they are themselves subject to potential litigation . You don't have to be especially clear sighted to see seriojus litigation coming .
Josephine
Roar Pro
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Thank you for this article- this is the type of conversation I’ve been having since last year. It’s gone way too far now. The AFL clearly have directives about paying frees to him because they know all it would take is someone to side-by-side footage from last year with a please explain- ‘how is this any different to this tackle from last year?’ This continuous narrative around Jack continues to draw out the nuffies & highlight the worst fans this sport has to offer. Imagine cheering when someone gets their head taken off because you’ve decide that because he has a PERSONALITY you don’t like him. I’m also sick of people saying he’s playing for it. Despite you being unable to possibly know that, you sound like bloody children trying to prove a point. “He plays for it let him get what’s coming. Good on the umpires!” You’re inadvertently saying it’s ok for the umpires to target players due to their history. But imagine if this was Joel Selwood. & everyone time he ducked he actually got pulled up on it. Then I’m sure you would be complaining about that & how it’s shit umpiring & that they have a vendetta. For all the people NOT angry about this- decide what you want from the game. Fair umpiring that isn’t biased because of a personality or previous events. OR umpires that make lasting decisions about a player then either pull them up everytime or ignore them everytime because they have a limited track record. & before anyone comments “you’re a collingwood supporter you would say that” get a better argument before wasting my time.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
“ after Ginnivan has been battered out of the game, and is retired and navigating chronic traumatic encephalopathy from all the blows to the head.” How many concussions has he had? Must be heaps to justify this alarming statement, yes?
Jack Russell
Roar Guru
Who's next? Cody Weightman, hopefully. The lawsuit you speak of would last about 20 minutes - 19 of which would be footage of the hundreds of times Ginnivan has deliberately caused contact to his head. The other minute would be the judge laughing his head off before dismissing the case.
PeteB
Roar Rookie
No they don’t
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
No they mustn't. He's a flog who dives for free kicks, and the umpires are getting smart to it.