AFL Player 27: Mason Redman 🐕 - Goes whack

[Lore]

Contract Status: Free Agent 2028
My Boy Draft 2024: Pick 24, ghostdog

 

[Call Me Cake]

We should have a 2's for umpires and make them keep their spots through doing their jobs well just as we do for players. They should fear for their spot being taken by up and coming umps who will gladly work to be better.

If you're shit at your job and couldn't care less about consenquences, you'd be demoted or sacked, why should the case be any different for umpires.

Fair enough it's a tough job but so are a lot of jobs and it isn't an excuse to be lazy. If you can't take that on then the job just isn't made for you. There are tons of people who will gladly slide into position if given a chance, spare me the endangered species talk.

 

[nylexbandit]

You only need one arm pinned to tick that box.

You need to be in a vulnerable position + have little opportunity to protect yourself - otherwise it would just say 'the player being tackled is in a vulnerable position'. I see this as, for example, having 1 armed pinned and being driven forward. I can't accept that you automatically have little opportunity to protect yourself as soon as you have an arm pinned, particularly where your other arm is capable of protecting in the context of the tackle.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Well Phone called it (no pun intended). I'd need to look again, but pretty sure Bont's shoulder hit the ground and not his head. Also, I'd love to know how they determine 'intent'.

 

[boncer34]

He had opportunity to protect himself, he just chose to hold on to the football over cushioning his fall with his free arm.

Edit: what @nylexbandit earlier

So if he dropped it play on?

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Pinned the arm so Bont couldn't protect himself, head bounced into the turf.

Pretty clear cut dangerous tackle under the letter of the law. Impact makes no sense.

No, he pinned the arm so he could not dispose of the ball, with the contact to the ground incidental. I'd argue careless and not intentional, as in Redman intentionally pinned the arm which was careless in the sense that there was a risk for Bont to hit th ground awkwardly.

 

[boncer34]

You need to be in a vulnerable position + have little opportunity to protect yourself - otherwise it would just say 'the player being tackled is in a vulnerable position'. I see this as, for example, having 1 armed pinned and being driven forward. I can't accept that you automatically have little opportunity to protect yourself as soon as you have an arm pinned, particularly where your other arm is capable of protecting in the context of the tackle.

If he drops the ball to protect himself what's your ruling?

 

[boncer34]

No, he pinned the arm so he could not dispose of the ball, with the contact to the ground incidental. I'd argue careless and not intentional, as in Redman intentionally pinned the arm which was careless in the sense that there was a risk for Bont to hit th ground awkwardly.

It was graded careless

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

It was graded careless

Haha, sorry should have actually read what the charge was.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

What a ****ing joke

 

[boncer34]

Haha, sorry should have actually read what the charge was.

You're absolutely spot on with what you said for mine. It was certainly not his intention.

 

[Squeaky]

It's the shit umpiring that leads to lingering tackles and you get these situations or the ankle injuries- syndismosis and the like.
Pay htb faster ya dimwits.

 

[Zach Package]

To be honest, it's the amount of time that umpires are allowing for player with the ball to dispose of it that caused this.

Bont grabs the ball and tries to break the tackle to kick. His arm is pinned, so can't handball, with the angle of his body making it impossible to originate a kick without throwing the ball to his foot. At the time of the tackle ******ing any ability to dispose, it should hav ebeen a simple ball up or HTB.

The fact that umpires are "letting the play go for the sake of optics" (my quote) meant the play continued and the action was made. With all the collisions being removed from the game, I half suspect that the rules like this might come into question when players start suing the comp for concussions. It's a practice that could be managed much better by the rules.

Yeah I think that’s a really great take.

Bont elected not to break his fall with his free arm because he’s still thinking ‘I can get boot to ball here’.

It is a hard one because an element of it is purely ‘little bloke trying to bring down big bloke’ and eventually Redman’s weight has to land somewhere, the only real way not to end up in that position is for Redman to kinda sling or roll himself over the top and smack his own head onto the turf back first with nothing to protect himself.

It’s a football action and I don’t see a feasible alternative in that position given Bont continues to pump his legs and doesn’t give up.

 

[nylexbandit]

If he drops the ball to protect himself what's your ruling?

My ruling is that we're not having this conversation because he would have braced with his arm because he hadn't been twisted/thrown in a matter that prevented him doing so.

I come back to the point that while we can obviously argue the force should not/cannot be medium, we need to properly argue against the primary classing of this as rough conduct. Otherwise the AFL just needs to make the rule that your cannot bring a player to ground in a tackle at all.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

Yeah Nah.

Holding the ball for me.

... but can see what the AFL are trying do. Protect head and player even though the player that is getting tackled is part of the problem by not releasing the ball and protecting themselves.

Even though I almost threw a beer through the TV, my sporting ethos is always to give the benefit of doubt to the attacking team and in this case the ball winner, so I can sort of accept it....

It's just the hypocrisy in relation to elbows and punches and the non-football incidents which cause so much angst.

In relation to everything else, a fine at most. Not sure if the rules allow for this.

 

[boncer34]

My ruling is that we're not having this conversation because he would have braced with his arm because he hadn't been twisted/thrown in a matter that prevented him doing so.

I come back to the point that while we can obviously argue the force should not/cannot be medium, we need to properly argue against the primary classing of this as rough conduct. Otherwise the AFL just needs to make the rule that your cannot bring a player to ground in a tackle at all.

Do you pay a free kick against Bont for dropping or is it play on is what I'm asking.

 

[Dave]

So if he dropped it play on?

No, incorrect disposal. Why should the tackling player be penalised for the ball carriers choice?

 

[Big Slam]

... but can see what the AFL are trying do. Protect head…

If the AFL was actually serious about wanting to protect the head they would mandate the wearing of helmets.

It’s less to do with the AFL wanting to protect the head as it is them protecting themselves against future liable cases related to concussion by providing an optic that they “tried” to protect the head.

 

[84859300]

Did his head meet the ground?

"Hi ground. I'm head"

 

[boncer34]

No, incorrect disposal. Why should the tackling player be penalised for the ball carriers choice?

I agree.

But put the AFL hat on. Onus is on the tackler to protect the player being tackled. If Bonts only choices are give away a kick or be thrown to the ground the AFL is always going to blame the bloke who has the "duty of care" which is Redman in this case.

 

[Dave]

I agree.

But put the AFL hat on. Onus is on the tackler to protect the player being tackled. If Bonts only choices are give away a kick or be thrown to the ground the AFL is always going to blame the bloke who has the "duty of care" which is Redman in this case.

Which would be great if they were consistent about it. They didn't care about the duty of care to Merrett in the third quarter when he was dumped on his head, nor Buddy's doc two weeks ago when he threw an elbow at an opponents head. How that could be rated medium impact when Bontempelli got up, played on and wasn't attended to by the trainers beggars belief. Unless he suffered delayed symptoms, in which case I'd expect he doesn't play this week given the 12 days and all and how much the AFL care about protecting players.

And lets get real, the AFL don't give two shits about protecting players. They care about not getting sued NFL style.

 

[Mercurial89]

I agree.

But put the AFL hat on. Onus is on the tackler to protect the player being tackled. If Bonts only choices are give away a kick or be thrown to the ground the AFL is always going to blame the bloke who has the "duty of care" which is Redman in this case.

I think most reasonable people agree with the whole protect the head mandate.

The AFL don't do it though. They are inconsistent, have their pets and are pretty much downright terrible at enforcing anything consistently.
If they think what they are doing is gonna some how Dave them they are in for a ride shock.

I've given them a lot of kudos for keeping the game running during covid, but they are doing a shocking job of looking after the game which is their charge.

 

[boncer34]

Which would be great if they were consistent about it. They didn't care about the duty of care to Merrett in the third quarter when he was dumped on his head, nor Buddy's doc two weeks ago when he threw an elbow at an opponents head. How that could be rated medium impact when Bontempelli got up, played on and wasn't attended to by the trainers beggars belief. Unless he suffered delayed symptoms, in which case I'd expect he doesn't play this week given the 12 days and all and how much the AFL care about protecting players.

And lets get real, the AFL don't give two shits about protecting players. They care about not getting sued NFL style.

Well Buddy did get a week before it got downgraded, which I suspect Redman will get too. Dont know which Merrett one you're talking about.

 

[boncer34]

I think most reasonable people agree with the whole protect the head mandate.

The AFL don't do it though. They are inconsistent, have their pets and are pretty much downright terrible at enforcing anything consistently.
If they think what they are doing is gonna some how Dave them they are in for a ride shock.

I've given them a lot of kudos for keeping the game running during covid, but they are doing a shocking job of looking after the game which is their charge.

I don't disagree at all. AFL change rules week to week when it suits.

 

[Summer Nights]

I would argue the ridiculous grading of it as medium impact should be challenged, and we should also challenge the suggestion it meets the criteria for dangerous tackle:
“3. Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackles)
The application of a tackle may be considered Rough Conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence and whether the offence is Careless or Intentional, without limitation, regard may be had to the following factors, whether:
» The tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether the Player being tackled is in possession of the ball;
» The tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle or a tackle where a Player is lifted off the ground;
» The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (e.g. arm(s) pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself;
» An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force"

While the list above suggests it is 'without limitation' it clearly identifies the type of actions that should constitute rough conduct for a tackle. In this case:
1) there is a single action;
2) the tackle is not inherently dangerous - there is no spearing or lifting;
3) Bontempelli is not in a vulnerable position as intended by the purpose of the rules (being arm's pinned or no opportunity to protect). Any vulnerability or lack of protection is created by Bontempelli, not by the tackler. He has every opportunity to use his free hand to brace any impact, but chooses to hold the ball instead. This should be no different to if a player had both hands free when tackled and chose not to brace, whether holding on to the ball or otherwise. I can't see any way that scenario should be treated as a player in a vulnerable position, and likewise Bontempelli's choice to hold on to the ball to try and avoid a free kick against him should not give rise to a conclusion that he was in a vulnerable position. Otherwise any player tackled is by definition in a vulnerable position and the use of this example/category is redundant.
4) the only question is whether there is a 'sling' in the way he is brought to ground. In this case, even if you could say there is a slight sling (as every tackle almost has to have to avoid an in the back or a spear tackle), in no way should this be considered 'excessive'. The force looks to be the basic amount to bring him down, and nothing more.

In summary, no suspension, retrospective free kick to the Dons and a home final.

This is the correct answer. Also, the Laws of the Game make no mention of “head hitting the ground first” so anyone claiming that by copying and pasting from some extraneous source is objectively wrong.

 

[Dave]

Well Buddy did get a week before it got downgraded, which I suspect Redman will get too. Dont know which Merrett one you're talking about.

He was tackled by one of the Baileys on the 50 at the city end and spun into the ground. 11:50 odd in the following video:

R21: Bulldogs v Bombers Q3

Watch the full replay of the third quarter

www.afl.com.au

one arm pinned, slung, head hits the ground.