Brodie Grundy's tackle- what's the verdict?

[ArielZ]

Personally don't think Grundy's tackle on Ben Brown deserves a suspension. Brown tried to release himself mid tackle, causing him to be unbalanced and go crashing forwards due to momentum. Interested in hearing other peoples thoughts however.

 

[Geelong_Bisons_#36]

1 week for sure.
Not going to get off after Danger last week

 

[Frank Gallagher]

Definately 1 week at least, could be 2, if it's 2 there's probably no point bringing him back for the last game.

 

[Carringbush2010]

FWIW Grundy will get at least 1 week for the perfect tackle

HQ will have no room to move on this; at some point something will have to give. A free kick was given to Grundy for I believe illegal disposal from Brown or the umpire rewarded a free for the perfect tackle

So the mrp will give a suspension; if they don't there'll be noise around the Danger tackle and why Grundy did not get a suspension. If they do give a suspension then that would go against the umpire giving a free kick - a conflict of opinion from the mrp v the umpire; HQ will not like this and it seems they've painted themselves in a corner on this.

The reasons this has come about:

1/ Deciding on the result rather than the intent. I'm the first to support the safety of the players particularly above the shoulders, however you could safely say that the participants know full well the dangers of Australian football. This is a contact sport high speed game with big bodies constantly colliding so you have to expect injuries

2/ The inconsistency of the mrp - we've seen this regularly with consistent similar scenarios with different results. This is in itself a product of being reactionary and bringing rules and "gradings" and previous records to determine different outcomes rather than just judge solely on the intent.

So in the end the AFL will have to make a decision on whether or not to take out the contact element of the game altogether and play AFL 9's. Of course this will not happen but if they continue the same path then conflicts of interest like these will happen again.

If you're listening AFL (sure you're not) - rule on intent NOT the result

 

[david addison]

Have any of our trusted journos or commentators mentioned the Etihad surface yet? It seems to be the common denominator.

 

[Matthew_13]

If Grundy goes then so should Ziebell and Mumford. Both of which had the opponents arms pinned and thrown to the ground with head making contact with the ground. Only difference is Brown was knocked out where the other 2 opponents where dazed and played on. All 3 tacklers had no intention to hurt anyone, you can't just give one of them a suspension cause the player on the receiving end was knocked out when all 3 had the same action. I actually Think Ziebells tackle on Treloar was worse as Treloar had cleary disposed of the ball and was tackled late.

 

[PieBeast]

Will be lucky to get away with one week in the current climate.

 

[Dynamics]

Says a lot more about the current state of affairs than it does about the tackle if he gets suspended.

He did nothing wrong.

 

[Thefly38]

Ziebell's was worse : slung treloar.
Cunnington made reckless high contact (chose to bump)
Grundy technical perfect tackles: Rewarded with free kick.

If he gets suspended the other 2 have to as well , but it is the AFL so who really knows

 

[Apex36]

If Grundy goes then so should Ziebell and Mumford. Both of which had the opponents arms pinned and thrown to the ground with head making contact with the ground. Only difference is Brown was knocked out where the other 2 opponents where dazed and played on. All 3 tacklers had no intention to hurt anyone, you can't just give one of them a suspension cause the player on the receiving end was knocked out when all 3 had the same action. I actually Think Ziebells tackle on Treloar was worse as Treloar had cleary disposed of the ball and was tackled late.

Zeibells was actually way worse. Genuine sling tackle (which is the type of tackle the rule was originally implemented from) that had Treloar going head first in to the ground, the intent to hurt was there. He was just lucky that Treloar's shoulder made contact with the ground first and he didn't get knocked out or worse. That was a potential neck breaker if it had been a few inches different.

 

[Quicky]

The difference between the Grundy tackle and the Danger and Zeibell tackles is that Brown still had possession of the ball and was fighting the tackle. I'm not sure if that will be considered by the mrp but I think it should.

 

[10571z]

If you pin the arms you have a duty of care not to whack their head on the ground. Simple. He will get a week or 2 and rightly so.

 

[Dead Eye Didak]

In the context of the game and the way it should be played, that was a perfect tackle. Unfortunately for Brodie he will get two weeks, down to one with a guilty plea.
This is due to the fact the AFL and the MRP have backed themselves into a corner with the Dangerfield verdict, which l also thought was the perfect tackle and didnt derserve suspension.

 

[Dead Eye Didak]

If you pin the arms you have a duty of care not to whack their head on the ground. Simple. He will get a week or 2 and rightly so.

I dont think Grundie wanted to smack Brown's head into the ground, he was just laying a tackle and the momentum of two big men going to ground. A bit rough to say he deserves to be suspended.

 

[partypie]

If you pin the arms you have a duty of care not to whack their head on the ground. Simple. He will get a week or 2 and rightly so.

You can spout "duty of care" all you want but in the end raw physics comes into play if they're trying to push and fight through the tackle because then the option of turning the player's body basically goes out the window.

Can any of you overly hysterical types tell us exactly what Grundy was expected to do there, given that Brown was trying to fight through the tackle and held onto the ball virtually all the way down?

 

[FIGJAM]

If he gets suspended, I'm all for the club taking the AFL to task for making up rules on the fly ala. Maxwell's bump a few years back.

I can understand why the Cats wimped out.

 

[Sco80]

Says a lot more about the current state of affairs than it does about the tackle if he gets suspended.

He did nothing wrong.

You would almost challenge it. I would.

 

[spartan-magpie]

If he's suspended the tackle is on its way out. No malice, perfect execution.

You can't penalize grundy for executing a great tackle. Browns actions in the tackle contributed to the result.

 

[Scodog10]

I'm completely torn on this.

On the one hand I think it's extremely important for the MRP as the representative of the AFL to be consistent when deliberating on these types of incidents. With that in mind he is gone.

On the other the tackle was text book from my perspective. Brown's a big guy so it takes a degree of effort to take him to ground and in doing so contact with the turf has occurred. There was no slinging action, IMO, which by the letter of the law could see him get off.

I don't have a solution because I feel like the MRP have been painted into a corner with the leagues "the head is sacrosanct" stance. As admiral as that stance is there should still be a place for accidents in the game, but in this instance I'm almost certain the MRP will be forced to suspend him.

 

[Sco80]

In the context of the game and the way it should be played, that was a perfect tackle. Unfortunately for Brodie he will get two weeks, down to one with a guilty plea.
This is due to the fact the AFL and the MRP have backed themselves into a corner with the Dangerfield verdict, which l also thought was the perfect tackle and didnt derserve suspension.

This is the perfect one to challenge imo. If the challenge fails then it's not a huge loss. Grundy gets a well deserved break and we get to see mason play in the ruck. If the challenge is successful then it will make the AFL rethink its stance on it. It's a contact sport and sometimes these things happen.

 

[Sco80]

If he's suspended the tackle is on its way out. No malice, perfect execution.

You can't penalize grundy for executing a great tackle. Browns actions in the tackle contributed to the result.

Exactly. May as well put donkey tails on the back of jumpers and snatch those for a tackle

 

[jonbe54]

gotta love the absolutists 'pin the arms, duty of care' LOL.
So . . . a player can't pin the arms unless he has a mattress and pillow to lay down for the 'victim'??
Give me a break.
If Grundy had of let loose those arms you are the same people who would have been howling for his blood for being soft.
It is a contact sport and despite the best of intentions and all the rules and hand wringing in the world these types of injuries will continue to happen.

However

In the current hysterical climate Grundy will go for at least a week.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

He's definitely getting a week.

Treloar's tackler will get off of course because Treloar played out the game and was arguably best on. Also, because Collingwood.

 

[10571z]

You can spout "duty of care" all you want but in the end raw physics comes into play if they're trying to push and fight through the tackle because then the option of turning the player's body basically goes out the window.

Can any of you overly hysterical types tell us exactly what Grundy was expected to do there, given that Brown was trying to fight through the tackle and held onto the ball virtually all the way down?

Pin his arms and Grundy drop his weight. He would collapse to the ground

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Afl And media feeding frenzy... so who knows.

But I'll take a punt go on a limb and say won't be sighted, won't be suspended.

North guy should be for the sling ....