Burgoyne - sling tackle

[Bulldog1954]

This is exactly what is fundamentally wrong with the process.

It needs to be done based on the potential to cause damage, that is the only fair and reasonable way to apply rulings.

That’s a fair point. Not sure that what Crozier did was any more likely to cause damage than what Burgoyne or Hawkins did, yet one was suspended. If arms are pinned there is a large potential to cause injury, which wasn’t the case in any 3 of these instances.

 

[HairyO]

That’s a fair point. Not sure that what Crozier did was any more likely to cause damage than what Burgoyne or Hawkins did, yet one was suspended. If arms are pinned there is a large potential to cause injury, which wasn’t the case in any 3 of these instances.

Burgoyne didnt pin arms in the 1st one he did, and only pinned 1 arm in the 2nd.

But after the 1st the AFL changed the rule and said sling tackles are bad no matter how many arms are pinned.

 

[Pessimistic]

There would have been dozens of tackles worse than the second Burgoyne one

 

[Lampers]

Alex Neal-Bullen will get a couple of games suspension for his tackle on Hamill last night (which is actually likely to assist Melbourne’s chances when he’s out) but I think the AFL is missing some tricks with just penalties as the lever to manage this.

The ball was still on Hamill’s boot probably 0.1 of a second before his head hit the ground. The commentators, who were particularly clueless last night, suggested ANB should have “let go” of Hamill so to avoid the sling at the end... I don’t know how that works. Ironically ANB is notorious for not being able to stick tackles.

Hamill did almost zero to try and protect himself - because he was so busy trying to dispose of the ball. Instinct or coached into players? I suspect a bit of both. The whole “arms up high in a tackle” has become really prevalent in the last five years or so, which means there is clearly lots of “getting tackled” technique being taught with getting rid of the ball taking precedence over personal protection. Dangerfield is the master of doing zero to protect himself.

Umpires are giving players lots of time to get rid of the ball. Probably not a factor in this particular incident, but when umpires allow 360 spins while being tackled and don’t call holding the ball, the tacklers get more and more aggressive in an effort to prevent the player from disposing of the ball.

Players need to be taught and trained that protection is more important than a free kick against - maybe the AFL need to mandate and enforce each player does X minutes of prescribed training drills per week on protecting their head in a tackle over avoiding a free kick against.

Umpires need to reward a good tackle sooner. If the player had prior opportunity, as soon as the player with the ball’s motion is stopped in the tackle, free kick. I know that’s hard to judge for an umpire and mistakes will be made.

Those suggestions are imperfect, but I’m confident they will make a difference to instances of concussion. To not try them is the whole “But there will still be accidents if the speed limit is dropped to 40km in a residential area, so let’s have no speed limits” or “Let’s keep increasing and increasing fines to prevent this” argument. Silly or simplistic arguments that ignore that something is better than nothing, or ignore the “why does this happen” elements and focuses purely on punishing outcomes.

 

[Greenac]

Alex Neal-Bullen will get a couple of games suspension for his tackle on Hamill last night (which is actually likely to assist Melbourne’s chances when he’s out) but I think the AFL is missing some tricks with just penalties as the lever to manage this.

The ball was still on Hamill’s boot probably 0.1 of a second before his head hit the ground. The commentators, who were particularly clueless last night, suggested ANB should have “let go” of Hamill so to avoid the sling at the end... I don’t know how that works. Ironically ANB is notorious for not being able to stick tackles.

Hamill did almost zero to try and protect himself - because he was so busy trying to dispose of the ball. Instinct or coached into players? I suspect a bit of both. The whole “arms up high in a tackle” has become really prevalent in the last five years or so, which means there is clearly lots of “getting tackled” technique being taught with getting rid of the ball taking precedence over personal protection. Dangerfield is the master of doing zero to protect himself.

Umpires are giving players lots of time to get rid of the ball. Probably not a factor in this particular incident, but when umpires allow 360 spins while being tackled and don’t call holding the ball, the tacklers get more and more aggressive in an effort to prevent the player from disposing of the ball.

Players need to be taught and trained that protection is more important than a free kick against - maybe the AFL need to mandate and enforce each player does X minutes of prescribed training drills per week on protecting their head in a tackle over avoiding a free kick against.

Umpires need to reward a good tackle sooner. If the player had prior opportunity, as soon as the player with the ball’s motion is stopped in the tackle, free kick. I know that’s hard to judge for an umpire and mistakes will be made.

Those suggestions are imperfect, but I’m confident they will make a difference to instances of concussion. To not try them is the whole “But there will still be accidents if the speed limit is dropped to 40km in a residential area, so let’s have no speed limits” or “Let’s keep increasing and increasing fines to prevent this” argument. Silly or simplistic arguments that ignore that something is better than nothing, or ignore the “why does this happen” elements and focuses purely on punishing outcomes.

Blah blah blah victim blaming.

Duty of care is on the tackler. He grabbed a wrist and slung and when you do that, you are responsible for making sure you don't try to make pancakes with a head.

When you grab an arm or pin one, you are removing on their protections. To then suggest that Hamill could have protected himself with one arm unavailable and then ball in the other is ludicrous.

 

[Lampers]

Blah blah blah victim blaming.

Duty of care is on the tackler. He grabbed a wrist and slung and when you do that, you are responsible for making sure you don't try to make pancakes with a head.

When you grab an arm or pin one, you are removing on their protections. To then suggest that Hamill could have protected himself with one arm unavailable and then ball in the other is ludicrous.

Zero understanding of all the factors at play.

Limited comprehension skills.

You are the person I referred to in my last paragraph.

I’m comfortable you’ll never be in a position of decision making or influence if that’s all you can bring to the table.

A good thing for all of us.

I’m happy for ANB to get suspended given the messages from the AFL. I think the way the AFL is approaching this is simplistic, much like your response.

 

[Greenac]

Zero understanding of all the factors at play.

Limited comprehension skills.

You are the person I referred to in my last paragraph.

I’m comfortable you’ll never be in a position of decision making or influence if that’s all you can bring to the table.

A good thing for all of us.

I’m happy for ANB to get suspended given the messages from the AFL. I think the way the AFL is approaching this is simplistic, much like your response.

IM FAMOUS

 

[Hayes4PM]

This just in, Neal Bullen got 4