MRP / Trib. James Sicily tackle on Hugh McCluggage

[perplexed]

Perplexed - you were pointing out 'It just seems that some people are desperate not to understand the rules', it seems as though 'kicking in danger' is a rule the tribunal feels desperate to 'not understand' when Liam Jones looks like he'll miss the rest of the season. This isn't a Hawthorn v North thing, it's pointing out how your witty observations are directed towards the wrong parties.

Ferball - 'Dive us back our coach'......enough said

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2023/03/01/9c9bdc05-2377-4ffb-a8a0-885835edcaf1/2023-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

Please read this

 

[ferball]

corrected to "live us our coach back"??

Yes. Have you got a problem with that?

 

[Roby]

He won't be playing for 3 weeks. He'll learn and won't do a tackle like that again and will be fine.

Regarding the free - the umpires were wrong, Hawthorn got away with one. It happens.

He's not going to change that tackle, he will still try the same action. Next time he'll win possession again for holding the ball.

Mcluggage on the other hand will think he may get a free kick but he won't.

Try again.

 

[candyapple]

View attachment 1717356

Alright so letting go midway through tackles without knowing if the player has disposed of the ball yet is where we are at?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Yes. Have you got a problem with that?

no, just found it hard to follow.. give us our coach I could understand, live us...

maybe I'm just stupid

 

[Roby]

Alright so letting go midway through tackles without knowing if the player has disposed of the ball yet is where we are at?

maddo and perplexed, Whateley and Roboo, and the AFL have backed themselves into a corner and they don't know how to get out it.

I showed the tackle to my wife who has only watched AFL this year, she thinks it's a very rough sport, particularly when there is collisions.

When I showed her a collage of all the suspended tackles, she just said they looked like normal tackles. This is someone that has watched AFL less than 12 months. That goes to show some people think they are experts because they've been watching the game for a long time.

 

[perplexed]

maddo and perplexed, Whateley and Roboo, and the AFL have backed themselves into a corner and they don't know how to get out it.

I showed the tackle to my wife who has only watched AFL this year, she thinks it's a very rough sport, particularly when there is collisions.

When I showed her a collage of all the suspended tackles, she just said they looked like normal tackles. This is someone that has watched AFL less than 12 months. That goes to show some people think they are experts because they've been watching the game for a long time.

Not sure what your point is. Your wife seems very tolerant to sit through that. But I'm not sure she is a better judge of what constitutes a dangerous tackle than the ex-players on the tribunal who understand the current rules and guidelines.
I don't think the AFL have backed themselves into a corner at all. Players now have a duty of care to the player they are tackling. If their head hits the ground as a result of the tackle and they get knocked out, it's likely to lead to a suspension. It won't always seem fair, but we all should get used to it.

 

[Ashman23]

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2023/03/01/9c9bdc05-2377-4ffb-a8a0-885835edcaf1/2023-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

Please read this

OK, so I read it and find that the AFL did not follow their own guidelines.

Thanks for that.

Interesting that kicking is specifically mentioned.

 

[perplexed]

OK, so I read it and find that the AFL did not follow their own guidelines.

Thanks for that.

Interesting that kicking is specifically mentioned.

Good that you read it. Most on here clearly haven't.

You were talking about the Curtis incident going to the tribunal. It only goes there if the MRO refers it. He didn't. He clearly didn't think a reportable offence had been committed, so it ends there.

 

[SSSSSS]

Geeze you pricks are ****ed.

The solution to one stupid decision is more stupid decisions?

No wonder your club made such a balls up of the racism report.

I'm just comparing the ridiculousness of the decision.

I'm not hoping for Curtis to get banned you numbnut. It's clear he had no intent to go and break an arm. But he did... And we are seeing players getting rubbed out for accidents based on what happens in the medical report.

There's no consistency. We are still none the wiser whether intent or outcomes are what determines punishment.

 

[Maddo11]

Good that you read it. Most on here clearly haven't.

You were talking about the Curtis incident going to the tribunal. It only goes there if the MRO refers it. He didn't. He clearly didn't think a reportable offence had been committed, so it ends there.

What i want to know is how 4 umps missed the kicking in danger?!? Ticked it off as okay when he broke his arm. AFL = DEAD, SMH

 

[perplexed]

What i want to know is how 4 umps missed the kicking in danger?!? Ticked it off as okay when he broke his arm. AFL = DEAD, SMH

Same way they missed the Sicily dangerous tackle. At first glance, with stuff going on all around them, it looked like nothing unusual.

 

[Maddo11]

maddo and perplexed, Whateley and Roboo, and the AFL have backed themselves into a corner and they don't know how to get out it.

I showed the tackle to my wife who has only watched AFL this year, she thinks it's a very rough sport, particularly when there is collisions.

When I showed her a collage of all the suspended tackles, she just said they looked like normal tackles. This is someone that has watched AFL less than 12 months. That goes to show some people think they are experts because they've been watching the game for a long time.

Hang on, so your argument is that someone who doesn't know much about the game can't distinguish minutiae about legal tackles or not?

But also, this is a relatively new rule, which is why dinosaurs like Duuurmie and BT don't understand it. Because despite their years of experience the game has changed.

One thing I definitely don't understand is how you thought that was a good argument

 

[perplexed]

I'm just comparing the ridiculousness of the decision.

I'm not hoping for Curtis to get banned you numbnut. It's clear he had no intent to go and break an arm. But he did... And we are seeing players getting rubbed out for accidents based on what happens in the medical report.

There's no consistency. We are still none the wiser whether intent or outcomes are what determines punishment.

Acts are graded as either intentional or careless. Tackles are almost always graded careless, as Sicily's was. Then it goes to impact. This is all clearly outlined in the guidelines I linked to earlier on this page. There is no mystery here.

 

[Roby]

Hang on, so your argument is that someone who doesn't know much about the game can't distinguish minutiae about legal tackles or not?

But also, this is a relatively new rule, which is why dinosaurs like Duuurmie and BT don't understand it. Because despite their years of experience the game has changed.

One thing I definitely don't understand is how you thought that was a good argument

It's your issue not mine if you don't understand it.

It's quite simple really.

People who watch the game for 40 years like Demie understand what is going on. Dermie won't agree with the suspensions, just like Jordan Lewis didn't, but understand what's going on.

My wife has been watching AFL for a minute, does not know about CTE, concussions or players getting suspended. She doesn't understand why players are suspended for doing something they do all the time.

The point is that she sees it with fresh eyes and no bias. She has no skin in the game.

Understood?

 

[naysayer]

Beyond the unequal penalties, I think the most frustrating part is that when you watch games back, the Hawks V Brisbane game for example, you see multiple tackles per quarter where the player is brought to ground with a lot of force, especially in the last quarter. Dunkley on Newcombe, Moore on Payne. So many tackles in a game have the potential to cause a head injury. This MRO crusade is just pointless. If they want to reduce the number of head injuries from tackles, they'll have to reduce the number of tackles

 

[CarterS]

We'll see if you feel the same way when someone like Dunkley is cited for the same thing in the finals shall we

Fair statement, but easy to accuse me of being bias because a Lion was injured but I think the fact remains if you pin an arm and they hit the ground head/shoulder first and they're concussed, then you're going to get suspended this year - I did say in another post that I thought 1 week was more appropriate.
Maybe a wider issue is that in the past and growing up we were all taught that pinning the arm is a good way to tackle because they drop it and you get HTB decisions, I think the point the tribunal is trying to make though is if you pin an arm you have to make sure they don't hit the ground head/shoulder first, that's the duty of care the tackler has.

 

[Bugs1977]

Fair statement, but easy to accuse me of being bias because a Lion was injured but I think the fact remains if you pin an arm and they hit the ground head/shoulder first and they're concussed, then you're going to get suspended this year - I did say in another post that I thought 1 week was more appropriate.
Maybe a wider issue is that in the past and growing up we were all taught that pinning the arm is a good way to tackle because they drop it and you get HTB decisions, I think the point the tribunal is trying to make though is if you pin an arm you have to make sure they don't hit the ground head/shoulder first, that's the duty of care the tackler has.

A serious question to you then. Do you think 3 weeks is deserved for that tackle and would you be content with that type of punishment if it was a Lions player that did the same thing to someone else?

 

[CarterS]

A serious question to you then. Do you think 3 weeks is deserved for that tackle and would you be content with that type of punishment if it was a Lions player that did the same thing to someone else?

I said in the post you quoted "I thought 1 week was more appropriate."

 

[Bugs1977]

I said in the post you quoted "I thought 1 week was more appropriate."

I know you said 1 week but do you or do you not find it a little extraordinary that he was given 3 weeks? Let’s not just brush off the extra 2 weeks like it’s chopped liver that you believe was a fair punishment.

Seriously what else do you think he should’ve done differently in the 1.04 seconds that the tackle took?

3 week or more penalties should be reserved for incidents that are intentionally to mame opponents not the ones where you’re tackling a player around the waist and on one arm.

Finally you say he deserves 1 week for that tackle but the majority of people don’t think it deserves anything because the incident was an unavoidable accident and the only other thing he could’ve done was chose not to tackle or done a pea hearted one that would’ve resulted in the Lions maybe winning that game.

Without sounding mean if you guys had a player like Sicily then you guys would’ve won a GF or 2 but and I’ve said before that is not about him but rather where the game is headed. We do not want to be punishing incidents that are accidental in our game because it takes away the desperation that makes it so great.

 

[Maddo11]

Without sounding mean if you guys had a player like Sicily then you guys would’ve won a GF or 2 but and I’ve said before that is not about him but rather where the game is headed. We do not want to be punishing incidents that are accidental in our game because it takes away the desperation that makes it so great.

Pretty bold claim that the lions would have won a flag or two if they had a player that has never won a final

 

[CarterS]

I know you said 1 week but do you or do you not find it a little extraordinary that he was given 3 weeks? Let’s not just brush off the extra 2 weeks like it’s chopped liver that you believe was a fair punishment.

Seriously what else do you think he should’ve done differently in the 1.04 seconds that the tackle took?

3 week or more penalties should be reserved for incidents that are intentionally to mame opponents not the ones where you’re tackling a player around the waist and on one arm.

Finally you say he deserves 1 week for that tackle but the majority of people don’t think it deserves anything because the incident was an unavoidable accident and the only other thing he could’ve done was chose not to tackle or done a pea hearted one that would’ve resulted in the Lions maybe winning that game.

Without sounding mean if you guys had a player like Sicily then you guys would’ve won a GF or 2 but and I’ve said before that is not about him but rather where the game is headed. We do not want to be punishing incidents that are accidental in our game because it takes away the desperation that makes it so great.

I know I'm in the minority and whatever I say will be chalked off as Lion fan bias but here's what I think - that's how he hit the ground, left arm is pinned so he can't break his own fall really, the tribunal said that in their decision, I'm not disputing that it was an accident but lots of people have been charged with accidents over the years, that's not a huge factor for me. As I already said I'd go 1 over 3 so yes I do think 3 is too excessive. I fully agree it was an accident but i disagree that it was unavoidable that's how I arrived at my 1 week opinion.

The tribunal are restricted by their own system that says if the tackle meets X and Y criteria it MUST be Z weeks - that system needs to be changed and there needs to be more flexibility.

I think there's an extra half rotation there resulting in him going down head first.

I'm not challenging Sicily's character or intent or anything, you can see in the footage he notices he is injured and asks to stop the game, he obviously didn't intend for the injury to happen.

 

[Bugs1977]

Pretty bold claim that the lions would have won a flag or two if they had a player that has never won a final

View attachment 1717980

Did you read the part where I said 'a player like Sicily'? It was more about the player having the intent at the ball the way that he does rather than just him. FWIW the would also apply to the Swans who put in pea hearted performances on GF day. Seriously though I'm sure we can all agree that we don't want the game punishing players that severe for an accident.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

This 'ruining the fabric of the game' stuff, please.

How many tackles got laid on the weekend and how many were taken to the tribunal? The tackle isn't being outlawed.

Fact 1 - He pinned his arm.
Fact 2 - He hit the ground head first.

Always gone based on those two facts. It's been made clear that if you pin an arm you have a duty to make sure the player doesn't hit the ground head first and considering what we know about concussions it's fair enough.

Saying all of that I think 1 or 2 weeks would have been appropriate, 3 seems a touch excessive.

He pinned an arm.

A arm.

He had an arm free and it was the arm in which was most important.

His head hitting the ground is a fact but you have to look at the facts that Sicily followed the code given by the AFL. Pulling McCluggage toward himself, however his momentum being forward and down aswell as the other many involvements make it what it was. A freak football incident.

The thing for others is a genuine explanation of what he could’ve done, I’ve seen someone try say he should’ve went against his momentum as pulling him toward himself with his momentum going that way was always going to mean his head would go forward, and it’d take his head hitting Sicily not the ground.

However with this it is not possible. In 1.04 seconds he can’t create and generate enough force to do that, it is also more dangerous because it would be a genuine sling unlike this.

Sicily can’t do anything more, and that’s what is important, Football accidents happen.

 

[Bugs1977]

I know I'm in the minority and whatever I say will be chalked off as Lion fan bias but here's what I think - that's how he hit the ground, left arm is pinned so he can't break his own fall really, the tribunal said that in their decision, I'm not disputing that it was an accident but lots of people have been charged with accidents over the years, that's not a huge factor for me. As I already said I'd go 1 over 3 so yes I do think 3 is too excessive. I fully agree it was an accident but i disagree that it was unavoidable that's how I arrived at my 1 week opinion.

The tribunal are restricted by their own system that says if the tackle meets X and Y criteria it MUST be Z weeks - that system needs to be changed and there needs to be more flexibility.

I think there's an extra half rotation there resulting in him going down head first.

I'm not challenging Sicily's character or intent or anything, you can see in the footage he notices he is injured and asks to stop the game, he obviously didn't intend for the injury to happen.

View attachment 1717979

In the freeze frame that you show you do realise that Sicily has about 1 second to change what he decides to do from the start yeah? He tackles him around the waste and his arm at the elbow and then pulls downwards which you assume he was going to try to pull him on top of himself which is what players are now aiming to do in in tackles. Clugg still doesn't dispose of the ball because Sicily has got him in a perfect tackle and is trying to stand up but then the ball comes out and his head makes contact with turf.

The resolution in all of this is that umpires should be calling holding the ball sooner and also police how players dispose of the ball. This would see players not try to stand up in tackles as often as they do and in turn unfortunate incidents like that wouldn't happen as often. Player know that umps rarely call holding the ball so push the limits as much as they can.