bumsonseats
Premiership Player
Also Kreuzer did not play further part in the game after Danger's tackle
Comments from the super coach
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Also Kreuzer did not play further part in the game after Danger's tackle
Oops, I remember Kreuzer sat up so I assumed he carried on with the game. Nevertheless, it's a moot point and not the main gist of this thread.? was in response to OP dribbling this "Kreuzer appeared dazed, but able to carry on with the game"
It's not a glitch it's an epidemic.
The cause?
Basing suspensions on injur and not actions. Players perform the same action 100 times in a game and get rewarded for it because it's perfectly legal. Comes out later that the player got injured and it's a suspension for the same action that was rewarded 100 times previously.
Players don't know what they can and can't do.
And no the Dangerfield incident wasn't the same. It wasn a legal tackle because the ball was well and truly gone and Dangerfield held on and drove him in to the ground needlessly.
Ben brown wasn't driven head first into the ground though. He was taken from behind and placed on his side. Both arms were pinned. Brown was still trying to dispose of the ball on the way down. The tackle was a good tackle imo. The injury was unfortunate.Players know exactly what they can and cant do. They know the risks. They know that if they choose to bump and hit high they are potentially in a lot of trouble. They know that if they sling or pin both arms or raise above horizontal or spear tackle and hurt the player they are potentially in a lot of trouble.
Everything you hear from players and coaches different to this is them trying to reduce the risk of being suspended. They know that pinning both arms and driving head first in to the ground is not a perfect tackle. And if it was actually what the coaches were teaching then the AFL should investigate and fine/suspend the coaches.
There is a problem if Grundy gets suspended. The umpire made the only decision he could under the laws of the game, there is no possible free kick that could go against him, it was classic htb.
The game of AFL has come a long way since the increased efforts of player welfare, protection of the head, in-depth analysis regarding concussion etc. On the flip side, the game of AFL remains one of the most brutal team sports known to mankind, and therefore accidents and serious injuries are likely to occur in any given year.
It has to come to the point now where I have observed an ever-increasing flaw in our attempts to reach a perfect "safety" zone installed in an AFL game. By that, I mean in recent weeks the MRP (Match Review Panel) has come into significant question on their calling regarding player penalties for accidental/wreckless injuries caused upon another player. Rightly or wrongly, there is an increasing amount of MRP calls which is going against the calling of the umpires in-game. That is, there is a glitch in the system!
Here are a few examples which highlight the divergent calls between umpires and MRP:
1. Round 7 St Kilda vs GWS - Koby Stevens sling-tackled Nathan Wilson, dropping the ball and landed heavily on his head. Stevens received a free kick by the umpire, but later got 1 week suspension for a wreckless tackle.
2. Round 19 Geelong vs Carlton - Dangerfield sling-tackled Matthew Kreuzer in a similar fashion to the Stevens tackle, resulted in a no-call by the umpires (ie. 'play-on'). Kreuzer appeared dazed, but able to carry on with the game. Later during the week, the MRP gave Dangerfield 1 week off for a wreckless tackle.
3. Game last night Collingwood vs Kangaroos - Grundy tackled Brown from behind; Brown landed head-first to the ground and was significantly concussed, whilst 'illegally disposing of the ball', and was called a free kick to Grundy. More than likely Grundy is likely to face some MRP calls later next week.
The AFL are starting to create a game whereby in-game, umpires are awarding free kick to players, and then a few days later, the MRP goes a full reversal and penalises said player who originally has a free-kick paid for! Anyone noticing these "glitches"? More importantly, what should be done about this paradoxical situation?
Absolutely bullshit.
The tackler is trying to win HTB, or force the ball from the carrier.
As long as they dont get the player over the shoulder, if the ball carrier tries to stand up in the tackle and dish off to his mates, you drive that mofo in to the ground with absolute malice.
If they get hurt that's bad luck.
Stop talking about netball, and the responsibility of the tackler. If you're worried about your arms being pinned because you're a slow s**t truck, then dish it off before you get tackled, and if you're tackled without the ball that's a free.
Netball campaigners like Barrett who's never even played footy s**t me
EDIT: to be relevant to this thread - mpire made a call, no doubt he MRP will make a poo decision.
There is a problem if Grundy gets suspended. The umpire made the only decision he could under the laws of the game, there is no possible free kick that could go against him, it was classic htb.
Dangerfield was a poor decision by the umpire, but you can't penalise the protected species
if you truely believe that then you should give up watching football.
You still have to effect the tackle correctly. If a player gets run down from behind but the tackler gets in his back, then in the back should get paid....not htb.
No different here....the tackle was not executed correctly.....refer to the dangerous tackle laws.
The umpire made an incorrect decision (shock horro) and you need to get your head around that.
Nothing weird about it.
Umpires dont have a perfect view, dont have multiple angles and have to judge it in real time, he probably didn't even realize Brown was concussed when he gave the free. And if there is no concussion then there is no suspension either.
MRP has all the views, all the time to judge it from every angle and look for different things that the umpires do.
Put another way, the AFL is too gutless to make rule changes that would have the effect they are seeking because they know the public would never accept them. Instead, they choose to put the onus on players by allowing them to do things which they consider dangerous but punishing them when they result in an injury. Now you just can't help wondering what the hell Gillon gets paid the big bucks for?I just want to put another spin on the point of this thread. The point is based around 2 separate issues regarding the rules for Umpires and MRP:
1. Umpires - they are to call in the "spirit of the game", and understand that dangerous tackles should be penalised, but in the heat of the moment and allowing for "accidents", umpires have the right to call holding the ball, despite there be concussions being a by-product of a bump/tackle.
2. MRP - they are to focus on "dangerous/wreckless acts", and the end results of these acts. So unfortunately, what we're seeing more of is the medical reports from head injuries (dizziness, headache, concussion, faint or coma) being the main factor in formulating the penalties for the accused.
So what is happening is that there is a growing clash between "spirit of the game" (unintentional acts are accepted) vs "medical reports from dangerous acts" (unintentional acts are being penalised). This is causing a mismatch between the Umpire calls versus MRP calls. That is why I termed this "a glitch in the system". The AFL controls both the umpiring and MRP rules, and needs to seriously consider how they can help reduce such "glitches".
No there's not. Umpires make wrong calls all the time, you can't expect them to see the same the MRP see from a single angle, ground veiw, looking between players and in real time.There is plenty wrong with incidents that can be considered frees and reports. It's an absolute ludicrous position to be in.
The umpire had been living under a rock after the Dangerfield incident.
Surely he could've fixed his incorrect call knowing the tackle would be deemed a suspension.
The game is a mess.
No there's not. Umpires make wrong calls all the time, you can't expect them to see the same the MRP see from a single angle, ground veiw, looking between players and in real time.
Let me start by stating it is the MRP's remit to penalise players for conduct that endangers other players' health. The AFL's umpiring interpretations and MRP guidelines makes this bloody hard to be consistant. So let's analyse a possible cause:Put another way, the AFL is too gutless to make rule changes that would have the effect they are seeking because they know the public would never accept them
Because the veiw of each is world's apart.You're kidding.
Interpretation can be blurred but free kicks/suspensions are world's apart.
Umpire decisions in this thread discussion, are making the "wrong call" according to hindsight and MRP rules. However, they're making decent calls according to "the spirit of our game", from 100+ years of AFL/VFL existence.No there's not. Umpires make wrong calls all the time, you can't expect them to see the same the MRP see from a single angle, ground veiw, looking between players and in real time.
I just want to put another spin on the point of this thread. The point is based around 2 separate issues regarding the rules for Umpires and MRP:
1. Umpires - they are to call in the "spirit of the game", and understand that dangerous tackles should be penalised, but in the heat of the moment and allowing for "accidents", umpires have the right to call holding the ball, despite there be concussions being a by-product of a bump/tackle.
2. MRP - they are to focus on "dangerous/wreckless acts", and the end results of these acts. So unfortunately, what we're seeing more of is the medical reports from head injuries (dizziness, headache, concussion, faint or coma) being the main factor in formulating the penalties for the accused.
So what is happening is that there is a growing clash between "spirit of the game" (unintentional acts are accepted) vs "medical reports from dangerous acts" (unintentional acts are being penalised). This is causing a mismatch between the Umpire calls versus MRP calls. That is why I termed this "a glitch in the system". The AFL controls both the umpiring and MRP rules, and needs to seriously consider how they can help reduce such "glitches".
Put another way, the AFL is too gutless to make rule changes that would have the effect they are seeking because they know the public would never accept them. Instead, they choose to put the onus on players by allowing them to do things which they consider dangerous but punishing them when they result in an injury. Now you just can't help wondering what the hell Gillon gets paid the big bucks for?