A Glitch in the System: MRP vs Umpiring Frees

bumsonseats

Premiership Player
Oct 8, 2009
3,933
4,757
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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.
Now let me make it clear, the spirit of the game is not about causing people to end up in hospital with 3 day comas, but it's about playing tough and acknowledging that injuries and accidents can occur. All AFL players know this.
The game has changed.
We dont accept players being taken out off the ball.
We dont accept jumper punches and tummy taps.
And certain tackles are now considered dangerous.....and they are defined in the laws of the game.

Concussion wouldnt have been considered an issued 15 years ago, but a lot more is known about brain injuries now.
Look at the NFL and the effect knocks to the head are having on players long term health.
The AFL would be negligent if they did not do something. There will always be accidents, but you can mitigate the risk and send a signal that this type of tackle is not acceptable. The laws of the game provide the basis, and the umpires and the MRP are there to enforce it.

Do I think that Grundy should have got suspended....probably not.
But as per the laws of the game, it is pretty black and white and so the MRP have made the only decision they can as per the laws.
 

bumsonseats

Premiership Player
Oct 8, 2009
3,933
4,757
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Tackled him around the waist, put him on his side, Brown dropped the ball, htb every day of the week, not a dangerous tackle. Otherwise there were at least 3 or 4 in the same game that should have been dangerous tackles under your ridiculous interpretation.

If we continue on the path some think we will be ******. No one will want to tackle and no one will want to win the ball because others want htb to br paid as soon as a player is touched...
It's not my interpretation, it the dangerous tackle laws.
It is pretty clear if you can be bothered to read it
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

liz

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 14, 2001
5,407
1,836
AFL Club
Sydney
I watched half of the lives games on the weekend and saw 15 tackles very similar to Grundy's.

The result of those tackles - some were paid a free kick for holding the ball, others were paid a free against for a dangerous tackle, whilst others were called play on. Interestingly, there were no other suspensions because there were no other concussions.

Is this inconsistency not a problem? I reckon it is...
Can you give any particular examples?
 

John Who

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 16, 2017
6,345
4,364
AFL Club
Adelaide
You seriously have no clue.
The umpires are there to umpire in accordance with the laws of the game.....
You obviously havent been watching to much football lately. How many times have you seen free kicks awarded for a Dangerous tackle this season.
I can recall at least 3 or 4 - most of them for slings. And the head of the player being tackled did not necessarily hit the ground.
The umpire had every right to pay a dangerous tackle against Grundy as per the laws of the game, but saw it differently.
In the same game, Adam Trelor was awarded a free kick for a dangerous tackle against Jack Ziebell - arms pinned and brought (perhaps even slung) to ground - hit hit the ground but force was not as significant.
The dangerous tackle law is pretty straight forward - I know you might not like it and that is your right - but that is the law as it is adjudicated.
The umps have the same ability as the MRP to adjudicate on a dangerous tackle. Its the MRPs role to determine if further action needs to be taken.
As I have stated previously, if you pin the arms and bring the player to ground (vulnerable position), you bear responsibility for the consequence if the player is injured. The vulnerable position is the pre-cursor.



No......the dangerous tackle law has been there for at least the last 2 or 3 years.
Think Bryce Gibbs tackle on Robbie Grey. That is how the MRP pinned Gibbs.
There is definitely an increased focus on umpires calling dangerous tackles now, which perhaps was not there even last year.
But the dangerous tackle law has been there during that period.
I think you should take a few minutes to read my original post, and let it sink in a little. You continually make out as though I have no clue with what I'm saying, and as though this thread topic seems pointless. Just look at the Grundy thread with 30+ pages of responses, that alone tells us there's much conjecture and inconsistencies between the Umpire calls and MRP calls.
We are not talking about the difference in vantage points between the 2 sides (umpires, MRP), but the difference in the reward vs penalty between the two. No sports I can think of, has there been a free paid by an Umpire and then that player gets suspended by the same action which was initially rewarded. It's an illogical setup and confuses the players/fans and leads to frustrations more than anything else.
 

PieNSauce

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 22, 2007
8,246
5,397
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
are jealous!
No......the dangerous tackle law has been there for at least the last 2 or 3 years.
Think Bryce Gibbs tackle on Robbie Grey. That is how the MRP pinned Gibbs.
There is definitely an increased focus on umpires calling dangerous tackles now, which perhaps was not there even last year.
But the dangerous tackle law has been there during that period.
Not sure what you're disagreeing with. It makes no difference whatsoever how long the rule has been there if is it is illogical. If tackling is intrinsically dangerous then it should either be outlawed altogether or the unintended consequences accepted as a natural consequence of a contact sport where tackling is not only allowed but encouraged. When I question what Gil gets paid for I'm basically saying that he and his cohort are too gutless to make a call because removing the inconsistency in the rule will either liken the game to netball or accept that accidental injury has always been an accepted part of our game. The pansies at AFL house want to remove the physical aspect from the game without actually having the conviction or the balls to come out and say so.
 

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
5,162
3,896
AFL Club
Collingwood
I think you should take a few minutes to read my original post, and let it sink in a little. You continually make out as though I have no clue with what I'm saying, and as though this thread topic seems pointless. Just look at the Grundy thread with 30+ pages of responses, that alone tells us there's much conjecture and inconsistencies between the Umpire calls and MRP calls.
We are not talking about the difference in vantage points between the 2 sides (umpires, MRP), but the difference in the reward vs penalty between the two. No sports I can think of, has there been a free paid by an Umpire and then that player gets suspended by the same action which was initially rewarded. It's an illogical setup and confuses the players/fans and leads to frustrations more than anything else.
Suggest you don't waste your time. The fellow strikes me as someone who is always right, and you'll just keep banging your head against the proverbial brick wall.

Your arguments are balanced and your points are valid.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
20,095
21,177
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Because the veiw of each is world's apart.

Which part of this don't you get?
Here's a question, did he umpire call the free before he knew Brown was knocked out? I'm guessing no.
Could he tell if Grundy slung him? Probably not.
Could he even see Brown head hit the ground? Probably not.
The umpire also didn't see Grundy land on Brown's back.

He was awarding that free to Grundy as soon as the tackle was laid. Terribly umpired and should go back to the VFL for a couple of weeks.
 

TiggerMan22

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2012
11,651
20,214
AFL Club
Richmond
The umpire also didn't see Grundy land on Brown's back.

He was awarding that free to Grundy as soon as the tackle was laid. Terribly umpired and should go back to the VFL for a couple of weeks.
He didnt really. His head was half way up Browns back, so most of his body fell lower than Browns back.
 

TiggerMan22

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2012
11,651
20,214
AFL Club
Richmond
I watched half of the lives games on the weekend and saw 15 tackles very similar to Grundy's.

The result of those tackles - some were paid a free kick for holding the ball, others were paid a free against for a dangerous tackle, whilst others were called play on. Interestingly, there were no other suspensions because there were no other concussions.

Is this inconsistency not a problem? I reckon it is...
? Its already known that suspensions come from the outcome, not the actual tackle.
You are aloud to pin the arms, but you have to protect the head if you do. So if they are not knocked out then its fine.
Sling tackles are completely not aloud tho.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
20,095
21,177
AFL Club
Hawthorn
He didnt really. His head was half way up Browns back, so most of his body fell lower than Browns back.
8 seconds in, Grundy is fully on Brown's back as they hit the ground. In the back free kick 100% of the time. Ignoring the dangerous pinning, the umpire completely screwed up. Not to mention where was Brown's prior opportunity?

 

TiggerMan22

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2012
11,651
20,214
AFL Club
Richmond
8 seconds in, Grundy is fully on Brown's back as they hit the ground. In the back free kick 100% of the time. Ignoring the dangerous pinning, the umpire completely screwed up. Not to mention where was Brown's prior opportunity?

Watch where the umpire comes from, directly behind the 3 collingwood players about 20m away. You think he had a perfect view?
Grundy also didnt fall flat into his back, he was side on pulling him down and only went over the top on the end. Not really falling in his back, which they call.
They let players go if they end up on the back during a tackle, just not falling directly down onto a back.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
5,162
3,896
AFL Club
Collingwood
? Its already known that suspensions come from the outcome, not the actual tackle.
You are aloud to pin the arms, but you have to protect the head if you do. So if they are not knocked out then its fine.
Sling tackles are completely not aloud tho.
My point was, 15 tackles identical to Grundy's, where the tackler had little regard for protection of the head and the arms were pinned, and were just fortunate their opponent didn't land on their head.

And three different interpretations by the umpires.

BTW, it's 'allowed'...
 

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
5,162
3,896
AFL Club
Collingwood
I didn't see much of The Footy Show last night, but I thought Eddie McGuire summed up this situation well when he had in one hand the Laws of Australian Football 2017 and in another hand the guidelines for the MRP. The directive for the MRP has been quoted as nauseum in this thread and others, but little has been said about what is documented in the Laws of the Game.

Here is what is stated:
15.4.1 Correct Tackle or Correctly Tackled
(a) For the purpose of these laws, a Player executes a Correct Tackle or a Player is Correctly Tackled if:
(i) the Player being tackled is in possession of the football; and
(ii) that Player is tackled below the shoulders and above the knees.
(b) For the avoidance of doubt, a Correct Tackle may be executed by holding (either by the body or playing uniform) a Player from the front, side or behind, provided that a Player held from behind is not pushed in the back.

So whilst this is the extent of the Law of the Game in relation to tackling, the umpires can correctly apply this one way with the MRP adjudicating the polar opposite finding...
 

John Who

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 16, 2017
6,345
4,364
AFL Club
Adelaide
I didn't see much of The Footy Show last night, but I thought Eddie McGuire summed up this situation well when he had in one hand the Laws of Australian Football 2017 and in another hand the guidelines for the MRP. The directive for the MRP has been quoted as nauseum in this thread and others, but little has been said about what is documented in the Laws of the Game.

Here is what is stated:
15.4.1 Correct Tackle or Correctly Tackled
(a) For the purpose of these laws, a Player executes a Correct Tackle or a Player is Correctly Tackled if:
(i) the Player being tackled is in possession of the football; and
(ii) that Player is tackled below the shoulders and above the knees.
(b) For the avoidance of doubt, a Correct Tackle may be executed by holding (either by the body or playing uniform) a Player from the front, side or behind, provided that a Player held from behind is not pushed in the back.

So whilst this is the extent of the Law of the Game in relation to tackling, the umpires can correctly apply this one way with the MRP adjudicating the polar opposite finding...
Thanks for digging up this "Laws of the Game". I keep saying "Spirit of the game", which is me speaking in terms of the laws of the game, without knowing specifically its laws. :)
The umpires are adjudicating it right in terms of Umpiring laws, and MRP are adjudicating it right in terms of MRP laws. Just the 2 laws are heading in different directions.
 

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
5,162
3,896
AFL Club
Collingwood
Bontempelli on Ward, first minute of the third quarter.

Dangerous tackle, at minimum a free kick under the recent application of the rule.

Just lucky there was no harder head knock to the ground.

We can't have luck having so much influence on the outcome being anywhere between a free kick to the tackler and a three week spell on the sidelines...
 

John Who

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 16, 2017
6,345
4,364
AFL Club
Adelaide
Bontempelli on Ward, first minute of the third quarter.

Dangerous tackle, at minimum a free kick under the recent application of the rule.

Just lucky there was no harder head knock to the ground.

We can't have luck having so much influence on the outcome being anywhere between a free kick to the tackler and a three week spell on the sidelines...
I saw this and thought the same. If Ward was concussed, the Bont would have got a week off according to the MRP rulings of late. Flip of a coin between a "good tackle" and a 1 week suspension!
 

im_a_lazy_sod

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 27, 2007
11,214
8,680
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Everton-EFFC-PGFC-Tranmere-Atalanta
Greene got reported but still took the kick. Unless he get reported after the incident?
 

maskmcgee

Club Legend
Feb 25, 2017
2,924
2,902
AFL Club
Essendon
When the umpire saw the result of the tackle he should have stopped the play and reversed the free kick. He wasn't strong enough to use his authority to correct his own decision and shouldn't be umping this week.
 

John Who

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 16, 2017
6,345
4,364
AFL Club
Adelaide
When the umpire saw the result of the tackle he should have stopped the play and reversed the free kick. He wasn't strong enough to use his authority to correct his own decision and shouldn't be umping this week.
If you're talking about the Grundy/Brown incident, then yes, the umpire should have recalled his original decision. Unfortunately, there's no rule in the AFL to enforce the Umpire to have a change of heart, even if an accident causing a concussion has occurred. Though the umpire should have called "stop play" once Brown is seen lying motionless like a ragdoll.
 

Top Bottom