Good response – wow, I can’t believe it’s 33+ years since they dropped Deano – it feels like it was yesterday – I was pretty incensed at the time (victorian) and I felt like he was hard done by, but Peter Robuck’s article at that time pointing out the discrepancies in Deano’s scoring in easy vs hard situations was perceived to have being the straw that broke the camel’s back (or someone might have suggested he look at those stats…) — in any case, I’d forgotten that he was a bit ‘do it my way’ and it might’ve cost him with Simmo — I did struggle though to understand them never giving him another chance, albeit it was a strong up and coming team at that time

My recollection is that the rules don’t spell it out clearly – I’m thinking of preparing an article that refers specifically to the hodgepodge that is AFL’s current ‘rule book’ (which is poorly defined), but my recollection is that the current guidelines do not have a clear basis for this being classified as Careless, including based on precedence of prior incidents (hence why MRO apparently felt there was no basis for sending this to the Tribunal).

Wow cam if your views were in the comments section I’d have thought you were trolling – I normally like your articles whether or not I agree with them – I agree that Maynard wanted to make a statement with his physicality – he always does – I also agree that players should generally be suspended for concussing other players but that fairly the current rules does not cover what Maynard did – however to imply Maynard intended to take him out is purely conjecture and emotive – I’d honestly describe it as click bait

Exactly – the AFL’s definitions around matters like this is seriously lacking.

The issue is that the AFL’s rulebook is poorly defined when it comes to defining punishable acts similar to this – I was really surprised how amaeturish it is.

Other than the Toby bit at the end :), this is the best comment I’ve seen on the matter – there’s a lot of assumptions being made in the Comments, but there is a lack of clarity in the existing rule and that’s why he needs to be cleared.

In essence (as there’s a lot of ‘arbitrary’ lines being drawn on this one), it seems to be that the AFL’s stance (heavily influenced by legal implications of class actions) is that if you hit someone in the head and cause damage for pretty well any reason (unless you probably weren’t aware they were there), they will attempt to suspend you – it’s really arbitrary to describe this smother as ‘careless’ or describe a natural human reaction to protect oneself as ‘intent to cause harm’ (which others have indicated) and use that as a basis for suspension.

Potentially, although you ommited to mention that they both have ‘heads’, which could’ve clashed and that can cause really serious injuries.

As I don’t follow rugby, I thought I’d check out the comparison — Mallia’s charge is clearly reckless and would probably be categorised in AFL as Careless Conduct — it looks different to Maynard’s action who engaged in a standard football action (smothering), whereas Mallia turns his whole body away from Williams as he recklessly cannons into him.

In mid-air, with a split second, he decided to turn his shoulder and take him out…??? (btw, Maynard leaves the ground to smother before the ball leave Brayshaw’s foot, or at worst, at the same time – I don’t think we just expect him stand there passively whilst the ball is kicked into his forward line)

I assume you’re joking – ‘a far less dangerous front on collision’ – that almost seems like an oxymoron?

I just don’t see how choosing to leave the ground means you’re liable for everything that happens next! I agree with the league’s crackdown on head related injuries (and if anything, they really don’t go far enough), BUT in any contact sport, you will see unfortunate serious injuries and you can’t just take the outcome as indicative of requiring a serious penalty – one of my son’s had broken ribs and the other was concussed playing soccer through incidents where the other player left the ground, but it was just physical play, not careless conduct. If it does go to the tribunal (which it will), he surely won’t be held responsible for ‘choosing’ to jump and smother, and then in a milisecond brace for contact he couldn’t avoid.

Although I’m an ex-bowler, I feel like the ball change should never benefit the fielding team. Unless I’m mistaken, with the exception of the ball hitting the helment, the ball will go out of shape b/c either a) the batsmen is pounding it everywhere or b) the fieldsmen are doing things to the ball to change its condition (like the old habit of ensuring it is bounced into the adjacent pitches). I’d prefer to see a law change that says something like the ball changed should be in the same or worse condition than the current ball, especially since it seems to be fielding teams that mainly request the ball change.

Thanks Flem – well put – the spirit of cricket has always been a doozy (and agree with the roarer who said it’s more about behaviour towards each other on the field) — I recall umpiring junior cricket, when the ump from the other team would sometimes say to me ‘no mankads or LBWs’ today under the guise of spirit of cricket, and I’d think they’d lost their marbles (given the rules are clear, as in the Bairstow stumping) — given that all the key protagonists have engaged in the same behaviour when with NZ / England, it’s just sanctimonious at this point — agree with others – we just need to move on.

Thanks Kevo – @Cam – c’mon ‘to a lesser extent Hafey’ — let’s give him the respect he deserves — took a wooden spoon Pies in 1976 to the GF in 1977, and a generally ‘more than the sum of their parts’ squad to 4 GFs in 5 years (and from memory, it was only 1979 we were really slightly favoured, since in 1980 and 1981 we ran into superb Tigers and Blues teams). I get it – otherwise it’s a good article – but I couldn’t leave that unsaid!

Hey – great article who due to recency bias tends to get forgotten about when discussing great players – I can’t recall exactly where I had him in my best NBA player list, but certainly in my top 20 all time and from memory, probably slots in somewhere between 10th and 15th?

Of course the spectacle matters, but not prioritised over someone’s long term health…

My view is unlikely to be popular, but I think some commentators are getting their priorities confused — the only thing that really matters here is the safety of AFL players and reduction of risk in long term head injuries and their consequences. Take the perspective of the player being a family member or friend of yours who suffers from the kind of long term consequences that a number of retired players have been reporting. Whether changes impacts the spectacle etc of the game isn’t really relevant in this context. The game can be physical enough with tackling (Brayden Maynard’s wonderful tackle last season as an eg) or legitimate bumps with feet firmly on the ground (thanks @Junk for that prudent commentary).

One of the real issues, in my view, is that AFL has just not been serious enough when it comes to stamping out the kind of hit that Pickett used on the weekend. I take the view that say 3 offences like that in your career and it’s ‘career over’ for the player (even if meant someone like Franklin didn’t play a full career!) — serious, preventable, head-high bumps should be, for instance, half a season or even a full season suspension (I know it’s not the same issue, but for context, I would have suspended Gaff’s hit of a few years ago for a full season minimum). If you take the perspective of ‘long-term player welfare’, there can be no compromise on the issue, even if it impacts some aspects of the game (for context, I’ve been watching AFL since the 70s and did enjoy the very physical nature of the game back then).

As for onus on players to protect themselves, I think it’s prudent for players to be taught how to protect themselves, but this is not the UFC (‘protect yourself at all times’) — the onus is on the ‘tackler’ to tackle in a way that doesn’t unneccessarily create long term risk of serious injury.

Apologies – I need to work-out how to create paragraphs on the roar!

Nice article – my worry about the Suns is their depth come play-off time – I’m not fully across their roster, but they gave up a fair bit to get KD (you just have to look at how Bridges is playing for the nets over a few games) and also, CP3’s game has been off-kilter this year — also, although KD is sublime, 20 games isn’t much to gel as a team — I think they might be better placed next year than this year to make a deep run, although the counter is that there is no stand-out team in the West this year.

Nice article – I’m a fan of these Nuggets and Jokic is incredible. I respect their offence, but not their defence, as Malone is highlighting. I don’t see the Nuggets getting it done, unless they beef up their defense — IF (and it’s a big IF) they make it out of the West, I think the Bucks or Celtics will take them apart in the finals (ie, simple maths — their defense will do more to stiffle the Nuggets’ offense, then the Nugget’s defence can do to stiffle the Bucks or Celtics’ offence)

I’m just dumbfounded you saying that Novak is the greatest player without a doubt? He has the same number of slams as Nadal and their H2H record is almost even (as is their H2H record in slams). I could see an argument that some might want to push his time as no.1 or 2nd tier tournament wins as pushing him ahead (I think that’s flimsy, but it’s a perspective), but ‘without a doubt’?! I also find the unbalanced record for Nadal’s slam view a paper tiger – he has 8 non-French open slams, which is amazing (and their are other frequently considered top 10 players such as Agassi / McEnroe who only has 7 or 8 slams in total). Lastly, some people would push for Fed being the greatest b/c at his peak, no one has a record like him (I don’t really agree, but again, it’s a perspective). Bottom-line, Novak still has some work to do to be the undisputed GOAT, albeit he will very likely get there.

I feel like we’ve had this debate before? I’ve oscillated on this for a while, but on reflection, I don’t feel you can count Rod’s professional career when evaluating his greatness (or the other pro players of that era) – it is what it is – he decided to play professional and didn’t play Slams for 8 years. The professional events, whilst they had the best players of the time, were such circumscribed events that they just can’t be counted in the same breadth as a Slams with 7 best of 5 set matches. The best you can do is look at modern era GOAT, but I don’t mind not making that distinction.

I never understand how people just write off Nadal for his French Open wins (14), when he has 8 other slams to his name — that’s the same amount or slightly more than each of legends like Agassi/McEnroe/Connors etc won in total – Nadal’s H2H record is also excellent against Fed/Djoker – I won’t bore everyone by restating the case for Nadal, but it’s impossible really to leave him out of the GOAT discussion, even though Novak looks like he will surpass him shortly (I think we’re just spoilt by having 3 players with 20+ slams and it’s easy to lose perspective)

We were favourites heading into 2003 as the Lions were getting older and as I recall, a number of their key players had injuries in the lead-up – we also beat them in the QF, making them go the longer road to the GF. I’m pretty sure we at least equal favourites heading into 2011 GF, although possibly the 96 point drubbing by the Cats in the last round made some question our credentials (although we had been no.1 team for last 9 rounds). However, in neither GF were we seen as ‘underdogs’, so Les’ narrative doesn’t really stack up in the AFL era – as really only the ‘battlers’ in 2002 GF.

It’s not often an article ‘ticks me off’, but this is one of them – Les is traditionally a ‘glass half empty’ author, but it’s a bit harsh to produce an article like this when the Pies have produced such a fantastic season, rising from 2nd last to 3rd on the ladder and nearly beating a more fancied opponent in the PF. It reminds me a lot of 1977, when I first started following the Pies. I also don’t think Les’ narrative necessarily fits the facts.
Although I’m also a VFL ‘romantic’ and tend not to separte the VFL from AFL eras in how I think, it’s risky to equate performance in the VFL with the AFL era – it’s a modern professional sporting code now with not much separating the teams year on year thanks to equalisation efforts by the AFL – the VFL was more about the have’s and have not’s in part. In addition, if we look at the AFL era, I don’t think Les’ narrative fits the facts either – in 1990, 2003, 2010 and 2011 (6 of the GFs we’ve played in during the AFL era), we’ve been favourite or equal favourite, so it’s only 2002 and probably 2018, where we were the battling underdogs (2018, you’d probably need to take an overall lens across the finals participants). I agree that we’ve often had holes in our lists, but I’m not sure whether the ‘team of battlers’ narrative holds up — as a 1970s era Pies supporter, I know we have a lot of ‘scars’ from the era, but probably better to put some of the narratives to rest, as it will help us move forwards as a club (notwithstanding, that we’d like to definitely improve even our AFL GF win hit rate!)