Barnzy said:
I popped over to a Crows forum to see if this statement had any basis.
They majority there think it's crap decision too.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
MRP verdicts
- Thread starter CK
- Start date
I popped over to a Crows forum to see if this statement had any basis.
They majority there think it's crap decision too.
Barnzy said:
Edwards was concussed when slung by Milburn a couple of years back. And McGuane injured Riewoldt's knee in a slinging tackle. But the issue with those was that the slinging to the ground was a second action, after the tackled player had been dispossessed. Trengove's tackle was one action, with the ball coming free (unbeknownst to Trengove) in the motion of the tackle. I'm not aware of any section of the rules which outlaws slinging tackles per se.
The tribunal found Trengove "had not exercised his duty of care to his fellow player's safety" and "used a level of force above what was required to achieve his aim of dispossessing Dangerfield or stopping him from disposing of the ball". So, three weeks for tackling too hard. Dangerfield's a strong player with a reputation for standing up in tackles. Legislating for "softer" tackles is bad, bad news for the game.
I'm certain this ruling and others have been inspired by recent US research which found long-term damage to the brains of professional athletes who suffered concussions in their playing days.
\arlobill said::sssheeeeesh.... in my opinion kids shouldnt be taught to pin a players arms to him before tackling him head first into the ground..a players arm has to be free to protect his head as it goes into the ground..thats the problem. not the bloody tackle.. :
pinning the arms is here to stay whether you like it or not. theres a simple reason why its used copius times by every team throughout any match.
do you honestly think he is pinning his arm so he can not protect his head? what a load of crap!
you say kids shouldnt be taught to tackle like that so lets here your suggestion? Helmuts?
head high contact is now over policed. fair enough if the contact is significant but alas the game is now so politically engineered to protect the head you could breath on someones head and they'll get a free.
Nason should of recieved a free last year when hailstones were pounding his head! they were whacking him harder than most frees that are given!....oh the hipocracy of it all!
Barnzy said:
it was one of our players once and most of us agreed that Hamil executed a textbook tackle so that blows your argument out of the water.
so lets recap...
1. you cant tackle a player from behind (in the back)
2. you cant tackle a player from in front (head high)
3. you now cant turn a player on his side (slinging apparently)
i step closer to basketball
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
But they could achieve the same effect by suspending him for 1 week. The real flaw in this tribunal system is its lack of flexibility. If a case gets referred to the tribunal the tribunal should have the power to assess the offence on its merits and adjust the penalty.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
No doubt in a knee jerk crack down because of this.
However if they're really concerned about head injuries, I'd prefer they made helmets compulsory than tear at the fabric of the game.
Fixed penalties just do not work.
AS it stands he got 3 weeks by the letter of the law.
If we had flexibility this case would have been done and dusted by now.
AS it stands he got 3 weeks by the letter of the law.
If we had flexibility this case would have been done and dusted by now.
Have tempered my view somewhat after viewing the AFL video which is no doubt shown to players. It distinctly warns against slinging opponents into the ground.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud7t81qouXw&feature=player_embedded
In combination with the medical report, Melbourne really don't have a leg to stand on in appealing this. It's just hard to accept, after ~35 years of watching footy, that a forceful tackle is now a more serious offence than most punches, elbows and kicks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud7t81qouXw&feature=player_embedded
In combination with the medical report, Melbourne really don't have a leg to stand on in appealing this. It's just hard to accept, after ~35 years of watching footy, that a forceful tackle is now a more serious offence than most punches, elbows and kicks.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
i think trengove's tackle is different to those in the video.
motlop and hunt both lift their opponent off the ground and throw them into the ground. mumford in a seperate act from the tackle drives his opponents head into the ground.
trengove grabs dangerfields hand as part of the tackle, and then throws him off his kick, resulting in dangerfield hitting the turf. while noone except trengove can really know what his intention was, i think there is a fair argument the head hitting the ground was incidental to the tackle rather than the purpose of the tackle.
again i think it is different from the hammil tackle on *smile*, or milburn on edwards where their intention was to drive them into the ground.
as others have said it is shakey ground the afl is getting into. will jack be suspended if flying for a mark he knees someone in the back of the head? will he be suspended next time he runs back into a pack to mark if he knocks some into the ground coming the other way? or his shoulder collects someones jaw?
i agree with the afls attempts to stamp out head contact as much as possible, and dont mind guys getting rubbed out for cheap shots, or deliberate acts to hurt their opponent, but they do need to remember afl is a contact sport and it is unavoidable that players will get hurt.
IanG said:
Understand your point there but we are talking about the same panel that said last year that Judds elbow
to the face on big Pav was deemed below that required to constitute a reportable offence.
The biggest worry I have is how can the MRP deem an intentional elbow to the face which needed 5 stitches
not be a reportable offence yet a fair tackle that was well within the spirit of our game can earn you 2-3 weeks?
This all wreaks of incompetence & or corruption.
Brodders17 said:
I agree they're different (and worse). But the point remains that, although it's not written into the rules of the game, players have been warned over this sort of tackle.
Given Motlop got 2 for the spear tackle and Hunt 1 for the WWF-style body slam, 2 + 1 for the failed appeal seems harsh. But when you take into account that Dangerfield had to be subbed off as a result of the concussion, the AFL's position looks more reasonable. I don't think it's a bad thing to make players accountable for consequences when they contravene the rules.
It's just hard to reconcile the penalty with those for Brown, Jackson etc. which have traditionally been seen as more serious offences.
I can't understand the furore about this penalty. T held D's wrist to add leverage to the sling to bring D down as hard as he could to hurt him, and so that D didn't have his arm to protect himself, and D's head hit the ground. If this tackle is permitted, then it will be trained to the utmost to wipe skillful players out of the game. The defence that D contributed to damage by trying to kick in the tackle is laughable.
The defence was a waste of time by Melbourne. The offered up no compelling evidence to have the charge overturned, just a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo. Every time I hear the defence at the tribunal I think of the lawyer that got Chef from South Park off using his famed "Choobaka defence".
That said the MRP needs a major overhaul. How this gets 3 weeks and Campbell Brown gets 2 is a joke.
That said the MRP needs a major overhaul. How this gets 3 weeks and Campbell Brown gets 2 is a joke.
Ghost of 29 said:
I think this is the gist of it.
I think that incident deserved a week at most.
Freakin ridiculous penalty!!!!
Hetti said:
a tackler grabs the wrist, or hand, to stop the ability to handball.
according to this judgement a tackler cannot pin arms, as every kid is taught to do, and cannot try to take the player with the ball of his feet.
if they follow thru consistently with this ruling the tackle as we know it will be under great pressure.
also while the effect of an action should effect the severity of the punishment surely an act, in this case a tackle, is either legal or illegal, and therefore every tackler who pins an arm and takes his opponent off his feet should be cited. if they are to be consistent.
Hetti said:
yep....i totally agree....
.you simply cannot / pin your opponents arm and slam him into the ground :
..no one is against arm pinning..no one is against a great hard tackle..but its is insane to think its ok to pin an arm and then throw a guy into the ground, how does he protect himself ??could do serious damage .. ...christ..pin an arm to stop a handball.and tackle as hard as you like..but you cannot and should not do something as dangerous as slam a guy into the ground with his arms pinned...learn to do it properly and its no problem..For f8&^ sake..someone here even suggested its ok for kids to learn to tackle that way...could you imagine going to my sons under 12 team and telling to tackle by pinning a kids arms and then slamming to the ground...?? ???
...