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

[swoop42]

If we want to look for a positive out of all this it's that Cox will get an opportunity to be our No.1 ruck and in a week where one of the opposition rucks greatest strength is his leap his extra height might help negate that advantage.

 

[mattys123]

We are not at the appeal stage, which you are correct in saying is almost impossible to overturn. It would be a trip to the tribunal to hear the charge heard that is the next step and if the MRP makes a mistake in the eyes of the tribunal there is clear scope for reversing the decision.

Yeah appeal is the wrong word, it's a challenge really for the first step, but the system deters you from even doing that.

 

[mattys123]

If we want to look for a positive out of all this it's that Cox will get an opportunity to be our No.1 ruck and in a week where one of the opposition rucks greatest strength is his leap his extra height might help negate that advantage.

And if Cox plays well the next 2 weeks his trade value goes up.

 

[unplugged]

No appeal. I wish they'd at least say whether we strongly considered it.

 

[mattys123]

No appeal. I wish they'd at least say whether we strongly considered it.

Similar to the Dangerfield case we would have consulted our legal team (Galbally) and obviously their advice has been that taking it to the tribunal most likely would have resulted in a third week for Grundy.

 

[BoxMatrix]

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2017-08-08/grundy-suspension-stands

 

[Gone Critical]

Yeah appeal is the wrong word, it's a challenge really for the first step, but the system deters you from even doing that.

Yep the deterrent is you lose the sentence reduction but that's in line with how courts generally view these things. Discounts are had for guilty pleas. That's fair enough for mine. Still if the decision is wrong it can be overturned. i reckon it's a good system and an improvement over the old one.

 

[Apex36]

Weak as piss Collingwood.

 

[swoop42]

With 3 games left and no chance at finals we should have challenged unless Grundy was adamant he didn't want to.

 

[Gone Critical]

With 3 games left and no chance at finals we should have challenged unless Grundy was adamant he didn't want to.

If we believe there is little chance of success and dont want Grundy to get the 3 weeks then correct decision. Grundy probably wants the last game so he can do as well as possible for the season. Been a big step up for him this year and he would be unlikely to want to see it end now.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

With 3 games left and no chance at finals we should have challenged unless Grundy was adamant he didn't want to.

And on his form and aptitude to the task at hand I'd say he deserves figure it a red hot go in the last game

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Fair call would be one week for a great tackle that unfortunately injured the opposition.
Two weeks very harsh

Three weeks would be dreadful.

It's done. We move on

 

[Gone Critical]

Fair call would be one week for a great tackle that unfortunately injured the opposition.
Two weeks very harsh

Three weeks would be dreadful.

It's done. We move on

On how its judged it can only be 3 weeks down to two. Dangerous tackle, careless (the lesser charge), high contact (a given) and high impact (couldn't be judged otherwise) leaves 3 weeks down to 2 unless you can downgrade the impact from high to medium.

 

[sr36]

Cox has been slaying it in the reserves. It's actually a great opportunity for him at a time when his confidence should be high.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

On how its judged it can only be 3 weeks down to two. Dangerous tackle, careless (the lesser charge), high contact (a given) and high impact (couldn't be judged otherwise) leaves 3 weeks down to 2 unless you can downgrade the impact from high to medium.

That's correct.

Just doesn't feel right where one week makes sense.

No malicious intent, Brown contributing somewhat, brown had ball.

But it is what it is, it's done, we move on

 

[Gone Critical]

Cox has been slaying it in the reserves. It's actually a great opportunity for him at a time when his confidence should be high.

Agree, great for him to know he gets 2 weeks to state his case also. His numbers in the VFL are excellent, especially the contested marks, hopefully can translate some of that to the AFL.

 

[biggiemediums]

The AFL are legitimately pieces of s**t. What kind of sport punishes someone for the perfect technique?

It's a ******* contact sport, people will get hurt. Bunch of absolute pussies.

 

[Gone Critical]

That's correct.

Just doesn't feel right where one week makes sense.

No malicious intent, Brown contributing somewhat, brown had ball.

But it is what it is, it's done, we move on

Agree with the sentiment. When I saw it on Sunday I felt Grundy was safe but that was before understanding the current tribunal guidelines. Once you read them it was a pretty foregone conclusion he would get the 3 down to 2. They don't leave much wriggle room re how it feels unfortunately.

 

[Gone Critical]

The AFL are legitimately pieces of s**t. What kind of sport punishes someone for the perfect technique?

It's a ******* contact sport, people will get hurt. Bunch of absolute pussies.

Not sure you should blame the AFL. The long term effects of these head injuries are more known now and in todays climate no organisation can ignore that. What would you have the AFL do?

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Not sure you should blame the AFL. The long term effects of these head injuries are more known now and in todays climate no organisation can ignore that. What would you have the AFL do?

I do think at the season's conclusion the AFL should clearly communicate to the rules:

• If you tackle and the result is head trauma, regardless of technique or intent, suspension will be applied. The full onus is on the tackling player.
• Set out the penalties clearly and concisely.
• Set out clearer guidelines and penalties on intended head leading play, and tackles using head as spear etc. Ziebel tackle on Treloar should have been cited as an example.

 

[biggiemediums]

Not sure you should blame the AFL. The long term effects of these head injuries are more known now and in todays climate no organisation can ignore that. What would you have the AFL do?

Leave the game as it is. Athletes know what they're getting into when they decide to play a contact sport. The sport has been fine for 100+ years.

Ban the Ziebell tackles and that's it. A regular pinned tackle regardless of outcome has always been fine. Those just can't be helped.

Not only that, these are the ******* pros. The rules are the same all the way from under 9s -under 28s why the hell should the adults have a different set?

How many old footy players become mushrooms? Sweet * all. Leave the *ing game as it is. Contact happens, incidents happen, injuries happen.

Ask any player if they want all this circus around tackles. 99.9% will give an emphatic"no".

 

[barrackers]

If we want to look for a positive out of all this it's that Cox will get an opportunity to be our No.1 ruck and in a week where one of the opposition rucks greatest strength is his leap his extra height might help negate that advantage.

It's a great opportunity that Witts unfortunately never got last season. Looking forward to seeing how Cox goes as he's been putting together some terrific VFL games; it will at least tell us whether Cox is capable or if we need to improve our ruck depth for 2018.

 

[loki04]

We're on very different pages with this discussion and despite your views being extremely misguided, IMO, they are yours to express. Therefore I have to emphasise that my post had nothing to do with the overall philosophy. It's about practicality.

I think labelling it ridiculous is a pretty OTT statement because it's a better system than anything we've had previously. The problem is it isn't applied with any great consistency because we don't use precedence. Whether you or I think it's ridiculous or not is irrelevant anyway because you have to work within the rules.

Given the MRP adjudicate on both intent and contact what other option do we have when challenging than on the basis of severity of contact? The only grading below careless AFAIK is accidental and it wasn't an accident.

The more I ponder it the more I wonder if having the contact downgraded will even matter? Like it or lump it the decision to suspend Grundy was absolutely correct. The severity maybe not so let's see what we can do around that. It's how the club would be approaching their decision making.

I think if you look at the research being that only a minority of people have adverse long term effects from concussion and even then it is from repetitive hits in the head and repetitive concussions causing it (not the one offs like Browns case), I think you will find your views are extremely misguided and using your own personal experience as anecdotal evidence while completely ignoring the numbers on the other side is misguided.

Concussion and being knocked out are 2 separate issues you can have a KO without concussion after effects.

Currently the AFL is treating them almost the same because it "looks" bad to some.

If you read the articles in the other thread which is from one of the southern hemispheres leading brain specialist he has even stated that there is no evidence to even suggest that once the initial effects wear off that the player couldn't retake the field (which previously they did).

To use outcome based assessments to determine ones eligibility for suspension in incidents is going to kill the physicality from the game.

To put "liability" and "duty of care" riders on the tackle like they did to the bump will all but kill it, do you really want to see every rough element wiped from the game?

Next they will take aim at the high mark with a rule, like you can go for the mark make contact with the shoulders but if you make contact with the head and injure the opponent you will be suspended or similar effect.
What detriment do you think this will have on the game? Kill the bump and kill the speccy great work but I guess at least you wont have to see once in a blue moon accidental injuries...

There has been a wave of bad press ever since the NFL incident and finding which the movie concussion blew out of proportion only 4% of NFL players have been diagnosed with CTE alive and deceased.

It is a chemical release that they are learning some people are predisposed to more then others but don't know why yet.

You claim its a better system based off what consistency? well in the same breath you have said that is an issue. So what exactly is improved over the old system?

I tell whats worse hanging fair and clean players for tackles like Grundys and Dangers, and in the same breath allowing an actual deliberate and dangerous sling from Zebeill go scott free due to not KO'ing Treloar.

5 examples of almost identical tackles to Grundys across the weekend were shown on Talking Footy last night not 1 of them concussed the opponents and none of them got sighted.

So why is it a "correct decision" for the minority player yet even in "review" they let 5 players off from the same tackle? Is the action suspendable or not?

So is it the action or the outcome? quite clearly it is outcome of the action because it looks bad to some viewers seeing people get hurt.

The AFL want our once great and physical game to resemble the Gealic hybrid, which severely dampens the physicality of the game effectively making it a game of mark and kick.

Do you out of interest enjoy watching martial arts or boxing? Could you imagine if they reacted the same way to the hysteria of CTE and started outlawing and giving suspensions on how bad you beat your opponent? or if they identified that the right cross was causing to many knock outs so put in duty of care?

Don't tell me its the same thing as its not, both sports originally had elements in it that could cause physical harm to the opponent including concussions and knock outs. It is a by product of playing contact sports.
Now AFL have done a very good job in raining in the dirty hits or malicious acts (or even acts that belong in the previously mentioned sports), and great all power to that but now they have taken aim at key parts of the game watering the bump down to near extinction and now putting the same riders on the tackle.

We are one of the only sports the make rules up on the fly continually changing things based off media perception.

Outcome based suspensions on incidental or accidental contact is pure stupidity in a game with so many variables. The ONLY time it should come into effect is in the cases of deliberate acts of violence outside the codes parameters of fair play. Like a punch or an elbow off the ball etc.

The MRP grading is an issue and so too is the new rules around tackling/bumping. Due to the wording of the new rules he will be suspended with no wiggle room but that RULE has to be reversed.

 

[JB1975]

Not sure you should blame the AFL. The long term effects of these head injuries are more known now and in todays climate no organisation can ignore that. What would you have the AFL do?

There are some legitimate issues that need to be addressed by the clubs, the AFL, and the AFLPA, all of which have a duty of care to the players who make the game what it is. The increasing evidence of the effects of head trauma upon NFL players is something our own sport can't ignore.

I suppose the question then becomes, 'How do we perform that duty of care?' Your reading of the guidelines is right, but what bothers me a bit is that too much of this duty of care falls upon players who are instructed, encouraged, and indeed obligated to tackle in the way that Grundy tackled. That such players are only deemed to have breached a duty of care when the person being tackled suffers an injury seems somewhat awkward and more than slightly unjust.

Maybe the AFL should assume the duty of care by being more specific in its guidelines of what is/isn't a legitimate tackle. If pinning the arms creates too much danger, then maybe the rules need to clearly stipulate that pinning the arms is not allowed. Such a rule would help to ensure clarity, the safety of the players, and it might also lessen the number of stoppages.

 

[biggiemediums]

So many wannabe lawyers on BigFooty. Jesus Christ.

The game is fine. It's a fast paced contact sport. Players sign up for it, they know exactly what can happen regarding injuries, concussion etc.

MMA is far more dangerous and even then how many MMA guys are falling off like veggies or dying? The answer is 'not many'. That is a sport where concussions can be a daily, weekly occurrence to them. Not a 2-3 times a career like AFL players.

If you're worried about concussions don't play a sport that involves tackling at a fast pace. Leave the ******* sport as it is. There's nothing wrong with it. Let's not turn it into soccer where all touching is illegal. We already have that sport. Leave this one alone.

'Duty of Care' is the big buzzword this week and I laugh every time I see it said. It's ******* ridiculous. Duty of Care in a sport where you have half a second to react sometimes. Best way to make it obvious you've never played the sport.

Don't get me wrong. Sling tackles have to go. Ziebell should have been rubbed out for two. Not Grundy. A textbook tackle that ends up with an injury. Get f**ked punishing that, and anyone defending it... You are going to help ruin the sport.