The Changing Nature of Violence in Rugby League and AFL

[King-Eliagh]

He's got no idea what he is talking about, especially this borderline BS about footy being "inherently violent"... ... ...I know the meaning of violence

Oh really you know the meaning of violence? And do you know the meaning of inherent?

If so please provide us with a well thought out argument (no that doesnt mean your usual one line oppositional childish ignorant retort) as to why the sport of marngrook is not inherently violent.

Comon now, out with it oh understanding one.

[TLPG]

Its a sunny day and all is going swell. You've slotted a few goals and have been giving your defender an absolute bath when the coach of the opposing team switches defenders. At his first opportunity your new defender elbows you square in the nuts, ala the chapman incident in the AFL, as you attempt to lead for a ball. You go down like a sack of poo, squealing like a sow who's just been brandished. The umpire misses it, much to your and your teammates dismay. You get up tell your defender he's a khunt and resume play. Next time the ball comes your way you end up on the ground scrambling for the ball. Your dikkwad defender see's your arm on the ground and promptly stomps on it ala hunts handstand. Again you let a high pitch whelp and begin uncontrollably sobbing ala nic reiwoldt after he was dealt with in an unsportsmanlike way by lions players.The umpire misses it again. You get up and return to your position...

And lodge a form with the league requesting an investigation. The club will back you on it, and the perpetrator is brought before the tribunal anyway. That's how it works, and justice is done after all. An elbow in the crown jewels would be worth at least six weeks. The stomp would add another four weeks.

[TLPG]

He's got no idea what he is talking about, especially this borderline BS about footy being "inherently violent"... ... ...I know the meaning of violence

Oh really you know the meaning of violence? And do you know the meaning of inherent?

If so please provide us with a well thought out argument (no that doesnt mean your usual one line oppositional childish ignorant retort) as to why the sport of marngrook is not inherently violent.

Comon now, out with it oh understanding one.

Simple.

When you play footy, you play the ball.

Lesson over.

[King-Eliagh]

So no tackling, bumping or any body on body impacts whatsoever is what you think the game should be. Mixed 9s TLPG heard of it? There's practically no violence in that sport

Marngrook though is inherently violent, you've provided nothing to prove otherwise. Understandable though mate, there is nothing which can prove otherwise.

[King-Eliagh]

Its a sunny day and all is going swell. You've slotted a few goals and have been giving your defender an absolute bath when the coach of the opposing team switches defenders. At his first opportunity your new defender elbows you square in the nuts, ala the chapman incident in the AFL, as you attempt to lead for a ball. You go down like a sack of poo, squealing like a sow who's just been brandished. The umpire misses it, much to your and your teammates dismay. You get up tell your defender he's a khunt and resume play. Next time the ball comes your way you end up on the ground scrambling for the ball. Your dikkwad defender see's your arm on the ground and promptly stomps on it ala hunts handstand. Again you let a high pitch whelp and begin uncontrollably sobbing ala nic reiwoldt after he was dealt with in an unsportsmanlike way by lions players.The umpire misses it again. You get up and return to your position...

And lodge a form with the league requesting an investigation. The club will back you on it, and the perpetrator is brought before the tribunal anyway. That's how it works, and justice is done after all. An elbow in the crown jewels would be worth at least six weeks. The stomp would add another four weeks.

Coming from a chump who's never played. At the amateur level this dog player would get away with it. At the professional level, from the evidence I've provided, the same could easily happen.

The evidence clearly suggests that less dog acts occurred when player retaliation was more accepted by the AFL.

[Xman]

Thanks for your two cents worth Xman but as per usual you havent really provided us with anything. Your argument states 2 facts and doesnt respond at all to what i said =D>

Lemme pose a hypothetical to laugh at your oh so basic argument that leaving punishment to the players is ludicrous. Firstly I agree, but I'm not really talking about punishment im talking about the right to retaliate.

So Xman, you say you've played before. Picture yourself back on the field...

Its a sunny day and all is going swell. You've slotted a few goals and have been giving your defender an absolute bath when the coach of the opposing team switches defenders. At his first opportunity your new defender elbows you square in the nuts, ala the chapman incident in the AFL, as you attempt to lead for a ball. You go down like a sack of poo, squealing like a sow who's just been brandished. The umpire misses it, much to your and your teammates dismay. You get up tell your defender he's a khunt and resume play. Next time the ball comes your way you end up on the ground scrambling for the ball. Your dikkwad defender see's your arm on the ground and promptly stomps on it ala hunts handstand. Again you let a high pitch whelp and begin uncontrollably sobbing ala nic reiwoldt after he was dealt with in an unsportsmanlike way by lions players.The umpire misses it again. You get up and return to your position...

Xman what do you do as you lead out again with the umpire looking in the other direction and your new defender coming at you with another elbow?

From your argument above I'd say you'd drop your dacks and raise your testicles so he can get a better shot at them before crawling off the pitch not to return to the game.

TLPG's already acknowledged he would let a family member be murdered in front of him before resorting to any form of violence. Please dont tell me we've got two complete nut cases on this forum?

You have the right to retaliate, just not with violence or acts that are against the rules.

How about beating your opponenet fair and square, or clashing with them physically within the rules.

Are you too gutless for that?

Furthermore, the ump may look the other way but the TV cameras dont. People who play that game get caught and give up very quickly.

[TLPG]

Its a sunny day and all is going swell. You've slotted a few goals and have been giving your defender an absolute bath when the coach of the opposing team switches defenders. At his first opportunity your new defender elbows you square in the nuts, ala the chapman incident in the AFL, as you attempt to lead for a ball. You go down like a sack of poo, squealing like a sow who's just been brandished. The umpire misses it, much to your and your teammates dismay. You get up tell your defender he's a khunt and resume play. Next time the ball comes your way you end up on the ground scrambling for the ball. Your dikkwad defender see's your arm on the ground and promptly stomps on it ala hunts handstand. Again you let a high pitch whelp and begin uncontrollably sobbing ala nic reiwoldt after he was dealt with in an unsportsmanlike way by lions players.The umpire misses it again. You get up and return to your position...

And lodge a form with the league requesting an investigation. The club will back you on it, and the perpetrator is brought before the tribunal anyway. That's how it works, and justice is done after all. An elbow in the crown jewels would be worth at least six weeks. The stomp would add another four weeks.

Coming from a chump who's never played. At the amateur level this dog player would get away with it. At the professional level, from the evidence I've provided, the same could easily happen.

The evidence clearly suggests that less dog acts occurred when player retaliation was more accepted by the AFL.

You idiot! There was a perfect example in a game I recently umpired! Both me and my umpiring mate missed an incident, and the bench got really hot over it to the point that a free kick was awarded against them. That's the rule in the league I umpire in. The coach apologised after the match and I reminded him of the investigation option. I'm told he took it, and guess what? The moron who committed the act got a five week holiday. Get away with it huh?

What's inherent about footy is playing the ball. What's not inherent is violence. Bumping, tackling and incidental body on body contact is not violence. To say that it is just goes to show yet again how little you know about the game.

So quit while you're behind.

[King-Eliagh]

Thanks for your two cents worth Xman but as per usual you havent really provided us with anything. Your argument states 2 facts and doesnt respond at all to what i said =D>

Lemme pose a hypothetical to laugh at your oh so basic argument that leaving punishment to the players is ludicrous. Firstly I agree, but I'm not really talking about punishment im talking about the right to retaliate.

So Xman, you say you've played before. Picture yourself back on the field...

Its a sunny day and all is going swell. You've slotted a few goals and have been giving your defender an absolute bath when the coach of the opposing team switches defenders. At his first opportunity your new defender elbows you square in the nuts, ala the chapman incident in the AFL, as you attempt to lead for a ball. You go down like a sack of poo, squealing like a sow who's just been brandished. The umpire misses it, much to your and your teammates dismay. You get up tell your defender he's a khunt and resume play. Next time the ball comes your way you end up on the ground scrambling for the ball. Your dikkwad defender see's your arm on the ground and promptly stomps on it ala hunts handstand. Again you let a high pitch whelp and begin uncontrollably sobbing ala nic reiwoldt after he was dealt with in an unsportsmanlike way by lions players.The umpire misses it again. You get up and return to your position...

Xman what do you do as you lead out again with the umpire looking in the other direction and your new defender coming at you with another elbow?

From your argument above I'd say you'd drop your dacks and raise your testicles so he can get a better shot at them before crawling off the pitch not to return to the game.

TLPG's already acknowledged he would let a family member be murdered in front of him before resorting to any form of violence. Please dont tell me we've got two complete nut cases on this forum?

You have the right to retaliate, just not with violence or acts that are against the rules.

How about beating your opponenet fair and square, or clashing with them physically within the rules.

Are you too gutless for that?

Furthermore, the ump may look the other way but the TV cameras dont. People who play that game get caught and give up very quickly.

Like those caught on film stomping?

Fact: Dirty dodgy doglike unsportsmanlike tactics have increased since the AFL has come in all hard ass against player retaliation to said acts.

[King-Eliagh]

And lodge a form with the league requesting an investigation. The club will back you on it, and the perpetrator is brought before the tribunal anyway. That's how it works, and justice is done after all. An elbow in the crown jewels would be worth at least six weeks. The stomp would add another four weeks.

Coming from a chump who's never played. At the amateur level this dog player would get away with it. At the professional level, from the evidence I've provided, the same could easily happen.

The evidence clearly suggests that less dog acts occurred when player retaliation was more accepted by the AFL.

You idiot! There was a perfect example in a game I recently umpired! Both me and my umpiring mate missed an incident, and the bench got really hot over it to the point that a free kick was awarded against them. That's the rule in the league I umpire in. The coach apologised after the match and I reminded him of the investigation option. I'm told he took it, and guess what? The moron who committed the act got a five week holiday. Get away with it huh?

What's inherent about footy is playing the ball. What's not inherent is violence. Bumping, tackling and incidental body on body contact is not violence. To say that it is just goes to show yet again how little you know about the game.

So quit while you're behind.

I'm afraid you dont know the meaning of violence TLPG. Look it up, then get back to us. k?

[TLPG]

I'm afraid you dont know the meaning of violence TLPG. Look it up, then get back to us. k?

You are the one who doesn't know what it means. You don't know the difference between incidental conduct and intentional conduct.The former is not violent. The latter is.

Quick note - the unsportsmanlike behaviour that you refer to will be eliminated. It's not a question of "if". It's a question of "when". And like Xman imputed, the way to win a game of football is on the scoreboard.

[Xman]

Thanks for your two cents worth Xman but as per usual you havent really provided us with anything. Your argument states 2 facts and doesnt respond at all to what i said =D>

Lemme pose a hypothetical to laugh at your oh so basic argument that leaving punishment to the players is ludicrous. Firstly I agree, but I'm not really talking about punishment im talking about the right to retaliate.

So Xman, you say you've played before. Picture yourself back on the field...

Its a sunny day and all is going swell. You've slotted a few goals and have been giving your defender an absolute bath when the coach of the opposing team switches defenders. At his first opportunity your new defender elbows you square in the nuts, ala the chapman incident in the AFL, as you attempt to lead for a ball. You go down like a sack of poo, squealing like a sow who's just been brandished. The umpire misses it, much to your and your teammates dismay. You get up tell your defender he's a khunt and resume play. Next time the ball comes your way you end up on the ground scrambling for the ball. Your dikkwad defender see's your arm on the ground and promptly stomps on it ala hunts handstand. Again you let a high pitch whelp and begin uncontrollably sobbing ala nic reiwoldt after he was dealt with in an unsportsmanlike way by lions players.The umpire misses it again. You get up and return to your position...

Xman what do you do as you lead out again with the umpire looking in the other direction and your new defender coming at you with another elbow?

From your argument above I'd say you'd drop your dacks and raise your testicles so he can get a better shot at them before crawling off the pitch not to return to the game.

TLPG's already acknowledged he would let a family member be murdered in front of him before resorting to any form of violence. Please dont tell me we've got two complete nut cases on this forum?

You have the right to retaliate, just not with violence or acts that are against the rules.

How about beating your opponenet fair and square, or clashing with them physically within the rules.

Are you too gutless for that?

Furthermore, the ump may look the other way but the TV cameras dont. People who play that game get caught and give up very quickly.

Like those caught on film stomping?

Fact: Dirty dodgy doglike unsportsmanlike tactics have increased since the AFL has come in all hard ass against player retaliation to said acts.

as ive already addressed, stomping can be deliberate, reckless or accidental. Is this stuff too complicated for you champ?

[King-Eliagh]

And the two links ive shown are clearly deliberate, albeit it with a veil of disguise so as to bit the flimsy AFL judiciary system. Is that too complicated for you to understand chump? As i said dirty kniving tactics a plenty and all since the AFL decided to "get tough" on retaliation...dear dear me, what have they done

[King-Eliagh]

I'm afraid you dont know the meaning of violence TLPG. Look it up, then get back to us. k?

You are the one who doesn't know what it means. You don't know the difference between incidental conduct and intentional conduct.The former is not violent. The latter is.

so whats tackling? This is gettin boring, its just too easy to prove you wrong TLPG. Pick up yer game mate.

[TLPG]

If you think tackling is violent, you are nuts - unless the tackle is illegal of course. Tackling is only legal if the player being tackled has the ball! Key words - HAS THE BALL!!

Some time ago you claimed to be playing in Sydney and I criticised your attitude to tackling. It still stands now and your attitude to tackling calling it (in effect) legal violence goes to show that you have no idea. Not to mention knowing that you haven't played, as if you had with that attitude you would have been before the tribunal for unduly rough play.

Give it up, KE. You don't know what you're talking about. I'm not even going to suggest that you "pick up your game" because you are incapable of doing so.

[Xman]

And the two links ive shown are clearly deliberate, albeit it with a veil of disguise so as to bit the flimsy AFL judiciary system. Is that too complicated for you to understand chump? As i said dirty kniving tactics a plenty and all since the AFL decided to "get tough" on retaliation...dear dear me, what have they done

So you know more than our MRP who have been criticised heavily for being too heavy handed?

Whatever.