Talking Footy

pookus wrote:

Definition of violence.
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

The act of a bump is actual intentional force to deprive the opposition of the ball or space.The bump fits in to this definition. It is definately a violent act You know the rules if a bump is clean I can smash a mans spleen in two and that is in the rules.You cant say a heavy hit isnt a violent act. And if you like it or not most of our greats(Ablett snr,carey,mathews,brereton) liked hurting people

Excellent point pookus, and one I tried to make to these closed minded bums pages from the get go in this thread.

1. The sports are violent.
2. Players use unsportsmanlike violence (and often get away with it) as a means to get the upper hand during the game.
3. Players should be given the respect and their god given right to retaliate violently to highly unsportsmanlike behaviour.
4. The majority of fans love a bit of good ol toe to toe biffo .

All these points are valid and fair. And that's all I'm saying. Those members, LG and Xman, dont understand the meaning and use of violence in sport or society hence they disagree. But that's just because they're dummy dum dums.

The WHO has it wrong.

That is all.

It's not just the World Health Organisation that defines violence in this manner LG.

And thus I repeat

1. The sports are violent.
2. Players use unsportsmanlike violence (and often get away with it) as a means to get the upper hand during the game.
3. Players should be given the respect and their god given right to retaliate violently to highly unsportsmanlike behaviour.
4. The majority of fans love a bit of good ol toe to toe biffo.

Yay NRL! :D

You are lying. The WHO is wrong and that's that.

Boo NRL.

The WHO's definition of violence is basically the English definition also. LG perhaps you should consider talking with the folk down at oxford dictionary? Or better still, why not login to wikipedia and do some good ol fashioned tamperin'

YAY NRL, for understanding what violence is and adjudicating it appropriately.

This thread should be sent to AFL HQ. :D

King-Eliagh wrote:

It's not just the World Health Organisation that defines violence in this manner LG.

And thus I repeat

1. The sports are violent.
2. Players use unsportsmanlike violence (and often get away with it) as a means to get the upper hand during the game.
3. Players should be given the respect and their god given right to retaliate violently to highly unsportsmanlike behaviour.
4. The majority of fans love a bit of good ol toe to toe biffo.

Yay NRL! :D

promoting toe to toe fist fighting is promoting fighting! Why do you think junior RL has such a problem with fighting lately? Strange that the NRL like it but at the same time it's been roundly condemned in junior levels? Fighting like this is linked to head injury and death.

Why not just say: "yay head injury and death"?

There's always been fisticuffs in junior RL. And senior for that matter. Why? Because the NRL understand biffo happens in violent sports, it's human nature. Honestly I'm not into partaking in the biff much myself but if someone continually throws cheap shots, decides to go an eye gouge or chomp on testicles, they're gunna cop some left hooks till they're on the deck.

The refs and umps WILL miss alot of the cheap shots going round, especially in the lower divisions and juniors. So it's best to adjudicate on the context and who started the biffo, this is what the NRL understands. YAY!

Your medical perspective is oh so awfully narrow in this thread Xman. Your actually embarrassing yourself quite a bit Did you study medicine by any chance? You do know we're talking about on field biffs right?

King-Eliagh wrote:

There's always been fisticuffs in junior RL. And senior for that matter. Why? Because the NRL understand biffo happens in violent sports, it's human nature. Honestly I'm not into partaking in the biff much myself but if someone continually throws cheap shots, decides to go an eye gouge or chomp on testicles, they're gunna cop some left hooks till they're on the deck.

The refs and umps WILL miss alot of the cheap shots going round, especially in the lower divisions and juniors. So it's best to adjudicate on the context and who started the biffo, this is what the NRL understands. YAY!

Your medical perspective is oh so awfully narrow in this thread Xman. Your actually embarrassing yourself quite a bit Did you study medicine by any chance? You do know we're talking about on field biffs right?

You may be talking about on field violence but this affects attitudes off the field as well. That's why the study I posted related a significant proportion of king-hits to sport. Monkey see monkey do. If its ok for sports stars to fist fight its ok for the public right? this attitude leads to unnecessary acts of violence that result in injury and death.

Seriously, there's no hope for you. The law punishes assault for a reason. Medical evidence shows the affects of fist fighting. For some reason you cannot make the link between fighting and injury. You claim people have the right to retaliate with violence. Well your way out of touch. This is not the answer and never will be.

We're talking about on field violence here Xman. In fact, thankyou for your off kilter response.

I now think that a promotion of on field violence should occur for RL and MArngrook, much like the AFL did in their promo to the essendon Essendon Hawthorn lopsided flop this season, but, with a disclaimer like they have in the WWF. "Dont try this at home folks, these men are professionals and this sport is inherently violent" . But in all seriousness there could be some promotion to help dummy dums dums like yourself and LG see that in violent sports, violent things happen, and that, it is quite normal to react violently to extremely foul play. In this sense the dummy dum dums in public might be more aware of the context in which this (RL/Marngrook) violence occurs and not, like you are, relate it to, or apply it in, the public realm.

Comprehende Xman my policially correct dribbling dummy dum dum? We're talking about on the sports field here.

King-Eliagh wrote:

We're talking about on field violence here Xman. In fact, thankyou for your off kilter response.

I now think that a promotion of on field violence should occur for RL and MArngrook, much like the AFL did in their promo to the essendon Essendon Hawthorn lopsided flop this season, but, with a disclaimer like they have in the WWF. "Dont try this at home folks, these men are professionals and this sport is inherently violent" . But in all seriousness there could be some promotion to help dummy dums dums like yourself and LG see that in violent sports, violent things happen, and that, it is quite normal to react violently to extremely foul play. In this sense the dummy dum dums in public might be more aware of the context in which this (RL/Marngrook) violence occurs and not, like you are, relate it to, or apply it in, the public realm.

Comprehende Xman my policially correct dribbling dummy dum dum? We're talking about on the sports field here.

so you're ok with violence in junior sport which often involves parents?

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

We're talking about on field violence here Xman. In fact, thankyou for your off kilter response.

I now think that a promotion of on field violence should occur for RL and MArngrook, much like the AFL did in their promo to the essendon Essendon Hawthorn lopsided flop this season, but, with a disclaimer like they have in the WWF. "Dont try this at home folks, these men are professionals and this sport is inherently violent" . But in all seriousness there could be some promotion to help dummy dums dums like yourself and LG see that in violent sports, violent things happen, and that, it is quite normal to react violently to extremely foul play. In this sense the dummy dum dums in public might be more aware of the context in which this (RL/Marngrook) violence occurs and not, like you are, relate it to, or apply it in, the public realm.

Comprehende Xman my policially correct dribbling dummy dum dum? We're talking about on the sports field here.

so you're ok with violence in junior sport which often involves parents?

For crying out loud I say it twice and its spoken within the essence of the whole post and dummy dum dum still doesnt catch it. Hopeless.

King-Eliagh wrote:

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

We're talking about on field violence here Xman. In fact, thankyou for your off kilter response.

I now think that a promotion of on field violence should occur for RL and MArngrook, much like the AFL did in their promo to the essendon Essendon Hawthorn lopsided flop this season, but, with a disclaimer like they have in the WWF. "Dont try this at home folks, these men are professionals and this sport is inherently violent" . But in all seriousness there could be some promotion to help dummy dums dums like yourself and LG see that in violent sports, violent things happen, and that, it is quite normal to react violently to extremely foul play. In this sense the dummy dum dums in public might be more aware of the context in which this (RL/Marngrook) violence occurs and not, like you are, relate it to, or apply it in, the public realm.

Comprehende Xman my policially correct dribbling dummy dum dum? We're talking about on the sports field here.

so you're ok with violence in junior sport which often involves parents?

For crying out loud I say it twice and its spoken within the essence of the whole post and dummy dum dum still doesnt catch it. Hopeless.

answer the question! Are you ok with violence in junior sport which often involves parents? Yes or No?

King-Eliagh wrote:

The WHO's definition of violence is basically the English definition also. LG perhaps you should consider talking with the folk down at oxford dictionary? Or better still, why not login to wikipedia and do some good ol fashioned tamperin'

YAY NRL, for understanding what violence is and adjudicating it appropriately.

This thread should be sent to AFL HQ. :D

The WHO is wrong. The dictionary definition is NOT the society definition, and is therefore not the legal definition as such.

Xman - the answer to that question you put to KE is "YES".

AFL football is violent by any definition even in a court of law.If you walked up and shirt fronted some guy in the street youd get six months.You waiver your right to such protest once you play a physical sport.Legal fact.But if you are hurt in an incident out side of the rules then you can be charged by the courts.Fact.KE in local footy there are no police,no security gaurds no protection.These incidents get out of hand pretty quickly and in yesteryear they often did.I agree with the violent nature of sport but I have to agree with X on this one.Example is everything.The one allowance Ill give is that provocation should be acknowledged when suspensions are handed out.