Tom Hawkins dangerous tackle, Darragh Joyce concussed

[Sttew]

That is the point that all these Geelong supporters cant grasp.

We have players getting suspended / fined for actions that are no worse than the Hawkins one.

The fact that the same bloke who makes all of the decisions can grade the Hawkins tackle as lower than any of the others he chose to fine / suspend is just farcical.

I have no issue with the Hawkins tackle not being a fine or suspension, but if that is the case none of these other tackles should be penalised.

Robbie Tarrant was fined this weekend for a dangerous tackle that showed it was the shoulder that contacts the ground.

You have no argument from most if not all Geelong supporters. Why do we have to grasp anything? Surely this is for the AFL and MRO?

 

[Roosurgence]

You cannot suspend a player for a perfect tackle. Hawkins did nothing wrong.

What was perfect about it?

The AFL has made it pretty clear that tackling with a force that slams an opponents head into the ground is not a perfect tackle at all.

What makes matters worse in this case is that the St Kilda player in this instance doesn’t even have the ball when the tackle is executed.

I have no issue with Hawkins not getting cited. I take issue with virtually every other player in the league being cited for tackles of the same nature.

If Christen does his job he makes the same call he has on other incidents and let’s the tribunal make the call, just like every other case.

If this is the road we are going to take things then it’s an absolute sham that Toby Greene was suspended because he executed a fend off that caused injury, just like Hawkins executed a tackle that cause injury.

 

[Roosurgence]

You have no argument from most if not all Geelong supporters. Why do we have to grasp anything? Surely this is for the AFL and MRO?

It’s probably got off topic.

My initial response was to the post that claims the ball was knocked out in the tackle, which was factually incorrect.

 

[Duskfire]

I think it is simply a matter of the Match Review Panel saw that the Holman tackle got thrown out at the Tribunal, so they adjusted their views based on that. Even if Hawkins got suspended, the exact same thing would have happened and he would have gotten off anyway.

Regardless, the lack of inconsistency sucks, but that tackle is not worth a ban (and neither was the Holman one.) The whole system needs a serious overhaul because you have players elbowing other players in the head and getting off, but accidental head clashes and whatnot getting suspended.

 

[Generalissimo]

Pretty sure most of ‘these Geelong supporters’ recognise there is inconsistency. That’s not our fault. Just because they get others wrong, doesnt mean they should get all of the mro decisions wrong does it? The Hawkins tackle was perfectly legit- end of story. Fix the other ones they got wrong rather than insisting he be punished too.

This. Just because the MRO has gotten other things wrong doesn't obligate them to get the Hawkins one wrong as well.

 

[Maddo11]

Here's how it seemed to work. Within the rules that he follows Redman was cited but Essendon took it to the tribunal and the charge was dropped. In other words, Redman got off.

The MRO probably would have done the same with Hawkins but he decided not to waste everyone's money and time knowing the Holman precedent would see the charge dropped.

This is a dumb take because it now gives ammo to every other "both arms pinned" tackle that DOES get suspended to use as ammo to get off.

 

[Roosurgence]

This. Just because the MRO has gotten other things wrong doesn't obligate them to get the Hawkins one wrong as well.

That is actually incorrect.

The MRO is actually obligated to apply the same process that it did to all the similar incidents that it actually found worthy of fines and suspensions.

Unless they make a change they can’t just decide that the Hawkins decision is correct and all the others are wrong.

It’s the tribunals job to make the correction if it doesn’t see the incident worthy of the MRO’s grading.

If we are using this as the example it’s an admission that the MRO has pretty much got every dangerous tackle ruling wrong.

 

[Generalissimo]

The MRO is actually obligated to apply the same process that it did to all the similar incidents that it actually found worthy of fines and suspensions.

So when Holman was cleared it set the precedent that Hawkins had to be cleared too.

It's all academic anyway. Even if Christian had given Hawkins a week off, we'd have taken it to the Tribunal and been certain of success- because the tackle was perfectly fine.

 

[Sttew]

This is a dumb take because it now gives ammo to every other "both arms pinned" tackle that DOES get suspended to use as ammo to get off.

Currently that is the reality

 

[Sttew]

It’s probably got off topic.

My initial response was to the post that claims the ball was knocked out in the tackle, which was factually incorrect.

No Joyce was handballing just as he was tackled

 

[Stealth69]

Pinned both arms fine, but then you have taken any chance the tackled player has from defending injury, so then the tackler has taken responsibility and in this case Hawkins body goes down driving Joyce down with him and unluckily Joyce’s head smashes into the turf and subbed out due to concussion

2 weeks minimum

It was always the perfect tackle until the players head is unprotected and impacted

 

[Chocoholic]

Surprised he got off with no suspension honestly but I feel the Tribunal over ruling all dangerous tackles this year made the MRO just give up.

We got 2 weeks, one week, a fine, no suspension or fine. It is waaaay too inconsistent.

 

[hawkman]

So when Holman was cleared it set the precedent that Hawkins had to be cleared too.

It's all academic anyway. Even if Christian had given Hawkins a week off, we'd have taken it to the Tribunal and been certain of success- because the tackle was perfectly fine.

Except he followed his own ruling on the Fritsch fend last week in charging Greene
The MRO is in the biggest mess it has ever been

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Not sure i see much difference between the Cordy and Hawkins tackles except Koschitzke played out the game and Joyce didn't

I see no difference in the Hawkins and Holman tackles. Both treated the exact same by the MRO.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Better luck next time btw, Chewy.
You might get something right, at some stage.

 

[hawkman]

I see no difference in the Hawkins and Holman tackles. Both treated the exact same by the MRO.

The MRO charged Holman and he got off at the tribunal.

 

[Sttew]

The MRO charged Holman and he got off at the tribunal.

And the MRO said he’d honour the precedent set in the Holman case. Why waste money and time.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

The MRO charged Holman and he got off at the tribunal.

You know what I mean. Same outcome.
You think Holman's deserved a week?

 

[STPer18]

Not even a fine? Hocking already paying dividends.

 

[hawkman]

You know what I mean. Same outcome.
You think Holman's deserved a week?

No and i don't think Hawkins deserved a week either. However, if Hawkins gets off Cordy has to get off as well

 

[Sttew]

Here’s the official MRO statement:

‘The tackle laid by Geelong Cats’ Tom Hawkins

26

Tom Hawkins

Age

35

Ht

197cm

Wt

105kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.2

3star

K

7.9

3star

HB

4.4

3star

M

5.5

5star

T

1.9

4star

G

2.1

5star

D

12.7

3star

K

8.6

3star

HB

4.1

3star

M

5.1

5star

T

2.1

3star

G

1.6

5star

D

7.8

2star

K

5.6

3star

HB

2.2

2star

M

4.2

4star

T

1.0

3star

G

2.2

5star

on St Kilda’s Darragh Joyce

41

Darragh Joyce

Age

26

Ht

195cm

Wt

96kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.4

3star

K

6.8

3star

HB

4.6

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

1.4

3star

MG

207.6

3star

No current season stats available

D

11.4

3star

K

6.8

3star

HB

4.6

4star

M

1.8

2star

T

1.4

4star

MG

207.6

4star

from the fourth quarter of Saturday’s match between the Geelong Cats and St Kilda was assessed. Joyce takes possession of the ball in St Kilda’s defensive 50 and runs towards the centre of the ground before handballing to a teammate. While Joyce is disposing of the football, Hawkins runs from behind and applies a tackle – in one motion – on Joyce which carries both players forward. The momentum of the tackle results in Joyce’s left shoulder and then head making contact with the playing surface. It was the view of the Match Review Officer that Hawkins’ actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.’

 

[Back One Out]

 

[HairyO]

I see no difference in the Hawkins and Holman tackles. Both treated the exact same by the MRO.

Holman pinned one arm. Hawkins pinned 2.

Your eyes are so bad? Or you just cant count ?

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Really don’t understand how the MRO came to this decision. It’s his role to follow the guidelines set but the AfL and not make subjective decisions on his views of the incident.

I cannot see how this is not:

A- Careless (pinned both arms and therefor has the onus of care on himself and drove Joyce forward in the tackle)
B- High impact (concussion and out of the game)
C - High contact (see above as hit head)

It’s the MROs role to apply those guidelines and if they disagree it’s for the tribunal to determine further.

However on those guidelines alone, I cannot see how this is not 2 weeks or 1 if assessed medium impact

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Holman pinned one arm. Hawkins pinned 2.

Your eyes are so bad? Or you just cant count ?

Well done on your arguments in this thread. You have correctly identified the issues and distinguished the differences between the various tackles referred to in this thread. You have also gone above and beyond keeping your cool with the Geelong mafia coming at you from all angles, making little sense as usual whilst trying to pretend your perfectly reasoned and supported arguments are not rational.

Geelong supporters asking what Hawkins could have done in the alternative should be asking what chance was Joyce given to avoid having his head slammed into the turf. The answer is the tackle gave Joyce no possible chance to protect himself and therefore the tackle was properly dangerous by any reasonable definition. Players with at least one arm free have at least some chance to stop their head being smashed into the ground.

Yet another player badly concussed or having serious facial injuries inflicted against Geelong, yet another no case to answer.

Let’s see.

Dangerfield on Vlastuin.

Duncan on Hall.

Hawkins on May.

Henderson on Marshall.

Hawkins on Joyce.

Selwood on Mansell.

Plus:

Selwood’s various line ball suspendable indiscretions.

Those are just the ones I recall. Not all of those should have been suspended but imo Dangerfield v Vlastuin, Hawkins v May, Hawkins v Joyce certainly should have been suspended to be tested at the Tribunal as a bare minimum.

And in that period only two suspensions, both so obvious even the strangely Geelong friendly establishment could not overlook them:

Rohan hooking Neal from behind

Dangerfield shocking top speed head first late bump smashing Jake Kelly’s face beyond recognition.

When you then look at the MRO treatment of Nick Holman, David McKay, Taryn Thomas, James Worpel, Marlion Pickett and sundry others it just isn’t adding up.

It is a mess this whole process, but that is saying nothing, everyone who follows the AFL knows it.