Schulz Tackle on Ted Richards

[Proud SJW]

This season it seems as if the MRP are giving weeks to guys who end up knocking players out of games, so on that logic I think he'll get a week, it's almost as if the offending action doesn't even matter anymore, only the result, you just have to look at the Franklin and Tippett incidents to see that

Is right.
I've seen Franklin do it for at least the last two weeks, and nothing, mostly because the guys on the end of his have been lucky enough or tough enough to be able to get up afterwards.

It's bullshit if only the result is taken into consideration. If the MRP are serious about protecting players, they'll stomp on anyone who does it regardless of result. That's a sling tackle, and it's against the rules of the game for a reason. I don;t want to see anyone taken out of a game, and I certainly don't want to see this crap go on until someone ends up with a busted neck.

 

[El Topo]

Was upset about it until reading this thread. Are Port fans this salty two weeks after every loss?

 

[raven echo]

Comical decision.

Trengove a few years back and the recent Gibbs tackle set the precedent, you would think.

 

[Back One Out]

For years and years we had this peanut stinking up the Match Review Panel processes...

Mark Fraser

Thankfully, they got rid of the douchebag.

The problem is the MRP is just bad as ever in 2015. Some truly disgraceful decisions and woeful inconsistency.
It's just mystifying how the AFL's MRP can continue to f**k things up, year after year


We've now got these buffoons stinking up the joint...

Clown no.1: Luke Ball

Clown no.2: Brad Sewell

Clown no.3: Nathan Burke

Clown no.4: Michael Christian


Please AFL. Just get rid of them. Get another four people on the panel. And if they stuff it up, get rid of them. Just keep turning it over until we find four competent people to do the job properly. No more "jobs for the boys". These current guys have suffered too many concussions and it's effected their brain function.

 

[AM]

View attachment 150002

Quite disingenuous. Take account of the whole definition. Particularly the last bit which specifically refers to the swing tackle.

 

[SSwans2011]

Don't like this at all. My brother has been knocked out twice in similar tackles in the past few months - been taken away in an ambulance both times. In neither one of those incidents was a free kick paid. This basically gives the tackle the green light, despite how ridiculously dangerous it is. Pathetic from the MRP and I want an explanation as to why they deem it acceptable.

I won't even go into how Gibbs got off for the exact same tackle - that speaks for itself.

 

[SilenceOz]

MRP have set the standard, dont smirk after the sling tackle and you will get off.
Smirk and you are gone.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

LOL since when did Colquhoun appoint himself as defence spokesman for the MRP?

As for the Schultz decision - I'm actually happy with it. If the MRP showed anything resembling common sense or consistency then it would indicate that there is a tear in the fabric of reality, or some other major disturbance in the universe as we know it. I'm just not ready for that sort of upheaval right now.

 

[Suma Magic]

Colquhoun's tweet is hilarious!

The use of 'pal' was such epic trollery.

 

[Obeanie1]

Quite disingenuous. Take account of the whole definition. Particularly the last bit which specifically refers to the swing tackle.

Well it doesn't say swing is says slung and both Gibbs and Shultz slung and opponent into the ground with excessive force with pinned arms. Both knocked out their opponent. Both are dangerous.

Its a dangerous tackling technique simple fact. You can tackle players hard without slinging them into the ground. You grab them and drop your weight and take them / drag them to ground. As soon as you start slinging someone to the ground and pinning their arms that should be deemed as dangerous. Fine players who do it and don't cause injury. Those who knock out opponents get weeks.

AFL MRP are like a 'frog in a blender' - have no idea which way they are going.

Keep it simple and stay consistent.

 

[Obeanie1]

All i will say is watch the knees and use of legs in both incidents. Schulz barely plants his feet in the tackle which suggests one conitinuous motion.[/B] Gibbs slows halfway through his tackle plants his feet and bends his knee than continuing with the tackle thus the second motion.

Im as suprised as any that schulz didnt even get a week. I actually wanted him out for one just to see who we could bring in aswell as giving him a bit of a rest because he is down on form.

1. Did he sling him? Yes.
2. Did he pin his arms so he couldn't protect himself? Yes.
3. Did his head make forceful contact with the ground? Yes.

If the answer is yes to those three questions therefore it should be deemed as a dangerous tackle.

Who cares about one motion or two or how he plants his feet. It's a dangerous tackle.

You get a fine if the player isn't injured and weeks if he is.

 

[SilenceOz]

You get a fine if the player isn't injured and weeks if he is.

Apparently not.

 

[Obeanie1]

Apparently not.

That's the problem though. The MRP only take notice when someone gets injured. Start fining player for excessive dangerous acts and it will stop.

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

The decision aside, would this style of tackle possibly happen less if umpires started paying dropping the ball/incorrect disposal when a player gets tackled?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Schulz went to ground with Richards, he didn't have a lot of control, bad luck with the outcome.

Gibbs controlled Gray all the way into the ground, inevitable outcome.

 

[Ron The Bear]

View attachment 150085

Can't really argue it was two actions, merely one continuous spin.

Pretty standard tackle, not inherently dangerous. Could argue that because his arms were pinned it's dangerous. But it's also how you're taught to tackle! iffy

Could argue the force was excessive, but the only real evidence of that is the outcome. iffy.

Fair enough really

No sale.

"AFL legal counsel Jeff Gleeson SC conceded that King executed a 'reasonably fluid' one-movement tackle on Otten."

"Toovey told the jury that King's action was 'executed the way players are taught to tackle'."

"With inconclusive video, the jury relied on two Adelaide football club medical reports, the second which said it couldn't be determined whether Otten's concussion was caused by King's tackle... Another report from a different medical officer, emailed to the AFL, said Otten told a trainer he was OK immediately after the incident in the third quarter. It said Otten suffered dizziness, confusion and blurred vision after the game, but it couldn't be determined whether that came from the tackle. Defence advocate Michael Tovey QC showed the jury a videotape of Otten giving off and receiving a handpass only 30 seconds after the incident."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-on-sling-tackle/story-e6frf9jf-1226125825804

They're a pack of ******* idiots with no idea what they're doing.

 

[Wargreymon90]

Port and Schulz were probably a bit lucky. But Carlton fans can't complain about being treated unfairly after the port Carlton result

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Supporter bias aside, this is just frustrating as a footy fan. At least Gray actually had the ball when he was brought to ground. The ball was long gone when Schulz drove Richards into the turf. Just a bizarre decision.

Yes there was two actions in the Gibbs tackle, but that's because Gray wouldn't release the ball and was trying to keep his feet through the tackle. What were Gibbs' options? Let go? Stand there hugging him and hope he doesn't use the extra strength you get from being upright to break his tackle? If Gray had remained on his feet and used his legs/hips to twist free of the tackle and get a handball away Gibbs would again be copping s**t for his weak tackling.

 

[blueboy25]

This week, anyone with two eyes could see that Shultz's action was one movement, and that he would get off because this doesn't fall into the definition of a sling tackle. Others call for 'consistency', when the two tackles are different, albeit with the same outcome.

It was the tackle that was punished, not the result.

It seems not many industry experts seem to have "two eyes" because the majority have come out and said they can't understand the schultz verdict.

 

[ashep]

I think there's a definite difference between the Gibbs and Schulz tackles but I think it's a 1 week difference as opposed to 2.

 

[MattyB_76]

1. Did he sling him? Yes.
2. Did he pin his arms so he couldn't protect himself? Yes.
3. Did his head make forceful contact with the ground? Yes.

If the answer is yes to those three questions therefore it should be deemed as a dangerous tackle.

Who cares about one motion or two or how he plants his feet. It's a dangerous tackle.

You get a fine if the player isn't injured and weeks if he is.

Spot on, but I would say, if the answer is yes to ANY of those 3 questions it should be deemed a 'dangerous tackle'.

We need clear, easily definable and observable rules (on the field and in the MRP).

 

[le dominateur]

Laughable decision after the Gibbs precedent the week before, the AFL bias against some clubs is barely concealed.

 

[MattyB_76]

Laughable decision after the Gibbs precedent the week before, the AFL bias against some clubs is barely concealed.

I don't think it's neccessarily bias.

Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

 

[RobbieGray17]

For years and years we had this peanut stinking up the Match Review Panel processes...

Mark Fraser

Thankfully, they got rid of the douchebag.

The problem is the MRP is just bad as ever in 2015. Some truly disgraceful decisions and woeful inconsistency.
It's just mystifying how the AFL's MRP can continue to f**k things up, year after year


We've now got these buffoons stinking up the joint...

Clown no.1: Luke Ball

Clown no.2: Brad Sewell

Clown no.3: Nathan Burke

Clown no.4: Michael Christian


Please AFL. Just get rid of them. Get another four people on the panel. And if they stuff it up, get rid of them. Just keep turning it over until we find four competent people to do the job properly. No more "jobs for the boys". These current guys have suffered too many concussions and it's effected their brain function.

Problems is they're dictated by the AFL and lawyers. Change them as many times as you like. You're gonna get the same result. These guys are just puppets

 

[RobbieGray17]

I think there's a definite difference between the Gibbs and Schulz tackles but I think it's a 1 week difference as opposed to 2.

I think 1 week for both was suitable; its just bullshit that Franklin gets one week in comparison.