Past #18: Shaun Atley - delisted end '21 - 237 NM games / 44 NM goals - thanks Ats

Remove this Banner Ad

Broke them lines!

And that closing speed!

Integral to today's win!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kidd Vicious said:
Ive come around on this.

He is best as an attacking defender, charging up at the ball. And he is brutally strong in one on ones. Leave him in defense.
Click to expand...

If only he backed himself to just burn through fifty and have a ping.

Just like we want Wells to do.
 
Ats had a great game. I said it a couple of times during the last quarter. Unfortunately, on both occasions, he drilled his kick straight to the opposition. The first mistake cost us the early goal in the last. Still, he had a great game.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

 
Quivorir said:
Shouldn't have even been a free kick.
Click to expand...
Didn't the commentator say something 'the rules there to protect the bigger stronger players from hurting the smaller players'?

Next we'll be making rule to help out the slower guys.

On second thought our midfield would go gangbusters if the quick players could only run at 70%
 
I notice a few weeks back, maybe four or five, that Atley had brought this style of tackle into his game and I said to the person I was watching it with that I bet he gets stung for it one day.

Whether we want it to be a free kick or not from a philosophical point of view, under the way they are interpreting it at the moment it's clearly a free kick and he is lucky it didn't end up worse.

There's a fine line between strong tackle and reckless tackle in this climate. When the AFL announced they were going to crack down on that style of tackle it should have been the coaching staff's responsibility to tell Shaun he needs to find another way of bringing an opponent to ground.

With the new environment of strict liability, it's not worth lifting a guy and dumping him anymore. Just find a new way of laying strong, dominant tackles.
 
Lavy_Panther said:
I notice a few weeks back, maybe four or five, that Atley had brought this style of tackle into his game and I said to the person I was watching it with that I bet he gets stung for it one day.

Whether we want it to be a free kick or not from a philosophical point of view, under the way they are interpreting it at the moment it's clearly a free kick and he is lucky it didn't end up worse.

There's a fine line between strong tackle and reckless tackle in this climate. When the AFL announced they were going to crack down on that style of tackle it should have been the coaching staff's responsibility to tell Shaun he needs to find another way of bringing an opponent to ground.

With the new environment of strict liability, it's not worth lifting a guy and dumping him anymore. Just find a new way of laying strong, dominant tackles.
Click to expand...
Actually if you watch the incident closely he actually takes most of the weight when going down.....then turns the doggie player to his side. I don't have a problem with any player doing this way, nor did the MRP for that matter.
 
ozzyoslo said:
Actually if you watch the incident closely he actually takes most of the weight when going down.....then turns the doggie player to his side. I don't have a problem with any player doing this way, nor did the MRP for that matter.
Click to expand...
So you can't hit your head if you're on your side? That's ridiculous.

The MRP 'didn't have a problem' (they did, btw) purely because the dogs player didn't hit his head. It is completely strict liability, if you do they action and the player does hit his head, you're in trouble. The fact that he didn't hit his head was, IMO, more good fortune than good design. If he does that sort of tackle another ten times, chances are the tacklee will hit their head one or more times. It's poor technique given the rules that are in place.
 
yeah I just seen that tweet after I posted....but lets be honest now it's hard to tackle and not have some chance the head is going to contact the ground.

!st the bump is taken out of the game , now the tackle !!
Might as well call it another name now as it not Australian rules football.

Duty of care football maybe?
 
ozzyoslo said:
yeah I just seen that tweet after I posted....but lets be honest now it's hard to tackle and not have some chance the head is going to contact the ground.

!st the bump is taken out of the game , now the tackle !!
Might as well call it another name now as it not Australian rules football.

Duty of care football maybe?
Click to expand...
If you tackle a player in a traditional sense (i.e. not lift him off the ground) and he hits his head that's fine. If you lift them up and they hit their head on the ground then there's a problem. So it's irrelevant saying 'it's hard to tackle and not have some chance the head is going to contact the ground'. We're talking about specific situations where the tackler lifts the opponent up.

I'm not arguing the merits of the rule. It's incidental what we think about it. The fact is that the rule is in place and our players need to adjust or they will be punished. Atley did not adjust when the AFL announced they were cracking down on it and it's fortunate that he hasn't paid a price (other than a free kick).

Let's hope this is a wake up call for him and he won't give away those free kicks or worse - get rubbed out for an important match.
 
Last edited:
Why don't we ever play this guy in the centre square? We are crying out for a point of difference in there and yet we always play the same guys.
 
Donkey Chop said:
Why don't we ever play this guy in the centre square? We are crying out for a point of difference in there and yet we always play the same guys.
Click to expand...

Probably because we would have zero run from out backline if he isn't down there, McMillan, Ferrito and Wright aren't fast enough to do what he does.

I still think Lindsay is the one we should play in the middle/wing in Wells' absence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

giantroo
Past #15: Daniel Howe - #31 in '14 ND to HFC - delisted end '22 - #33 in '23 RD to NM -retires from AFL & NM end '23 - 107 AFL games / 11 NM games
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
399
Views
28K
r00boy96
r00boy96

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top