Cam McCarthy on GIlbert

[The Falcon Strike]

Interesting there is not thread on it.

Wouldn't be surprised to see him get a couple of weeks. Not sure it'll actually be any detriment to the Dockers mind you.

However the ball was gone and he drove him head first into the turf.

Not sure where the rule stands as there was no "sling" - but may fall under some other dangerous tackle defiinition.

 

[HairyO]

Interesting there is not thread on it.

Wouldn't be surprised to see him get a couple of weeks. Not sure it'll actually be any detriment to the Dockers mind you.

However the ball was gone and he drove him head first into the turf.

Not sure where the rule stands as there was no "sling" - but may fall under some other dangerous tackle defiinition.

Waite copped a week when he hurt someone in a tackle where there was no sling, no 2nd motion, no driving of the body or head, and no elevating the legs above horizontal.

He got a week simply for unfortunately hurting someone.

So in this case McCarthy should get a couple of weeks. Because he drove the head in to the turf.

 

[SterlingArcher]

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 (ie arms pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself;
» An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force

I'd say Gilbert was in a vulnerable position, and the last could be subjectively applied (driven into the ground, got knocked out so excessive force then applies).

Careless (wasn't intentional, was running from behind and momentum carried forwards)
High contact

Then comes down to high impact v medium impact. Hard to know without a medical report. Is there leeway given for the likely impact of a careless tackle still likely to be greater than the impact of a deliberate punch?

I'd say high impact if not, 3 down to 2.
If they do recognise that, 2 down to 1.

 

[kingswood71]

I'd say Gilbert was in a vulnerable position, and the last could be subjectively applied (driven into the ground, got knocked out so excessive force then applies).

Careless (wasn't intentional, was running from behind and momentum carried forwards)
High contact

Then comes down to high impact v medium impact. Hard to know without a medical report. Is there leeway given for the likely impact of a careless tackle still likely to be greater than the impact of a deliberate punch?

I'd say high impact if not, 3 down to 2.
If they do recognise that, 2 down to 1.

Pretty fair assessment. Looks worse in slow motion.
Still likely to get 2 down to 1.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I think 2 down to 1 is probably fair.

Truthfully - not sure he should get anything - I don't think it was overly malicious - but someone gets hurt, then someone gets penalised.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

He's been offered two weeks, which is fair. There was literally no need to tackle and drill him into the ground, he got rid of the ball seconds before McCarthy even arrived

 

[The Falcon Strike]

He's been offered two weeks, which is fair. There was literally no need to tackle and drill him into the ground, he got rid of the ball seconds before McCarthy even arrived

Is it wrong I was hoping he'd be available to play WC.....

 

[vanders]

He shouldn't be suspended for that. He didn't do anything wrong in the tackle. It's unfortunate that Gilbert got knocked out but there wasn't anything wrong with the tackle

 

[Johnny_Dogg4]

surely thats a joke???

 

[JeffDunne]

Two weeks is one too many.

 

[kingswood71]

He's been offered two weeks, which is fair. There was literally no need to tackle and drill him into the ground, he got rid of the ball seconds before McCarthy even arrived

Seconds before??...Really?....Milliseconds maybe....

 

[THECHIEFTON]

Seconds before??...Really?....Milliseconds maybe....

Even so there was no need to continue with the tackle and purposely ram his head into the ground.

 

[kingswood71]

Even so there was no need to continue with the tackle and purposely ram his head into the ground.

Absolutely agree. No argument from me there.

 

[estibador]

That's more than I was expecting, they must be in a bad mood this week. Doesn't bode well for Bugg.

 

[The Joker]

Even so there was no need to continue with the tackle and purposely ram his head into the ground.

How do you know he "purposely" rammed his head into the ground?

2 weeks really is 1 to many. The line between a good tackle and a dangerous tackle is if the player gets up and walks away, nothing else really!

 

[largebus]

Worst part of all this means Taberner or Kersten coem back in...

 

[Plugger Mcnally]

Is it wrong I was hoping he'd be available to play WC.....

That's just nasty mate.

 

[THECHIEFTON]

How do you know he "purposely" rammed his head into the ground?

2 weeks really is 1 to many. The line between a good tackle and a dangerous tackle is if the player gets up and walks away, nothing else really!

Why did he continue with the tackle? He knew the ball was gone. Looks pretty obvious to me. You are right with your last point. Dixon can consider himself lucky Cotchin walked away fine from his tackle.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Worst part of all this means Taberner or Kersten coem back in...

Not as if McCarthy did much anyway. He needs a rest

 

[Whiskers]

Bit harsh, same as Houli got originally.
1 week only as it was late and caused concussion.
Wouldn't of even been looked at if he wasn't hurt. There is a fine line with injury.

 

[Paratus78]

Good tough tackle. Game is becoming a joke if he's suspended for that.

 

[JyeDye]

So people are suspended for tackling nowadays...
There was nothing wrong with the tackle, he brought him to the ground like every tackle tries to, unfortunate that Gilbert got hurt but what was McCarthy meant to do? He didn't deliberately slam his head into the ground, it was just a solid tackle.

 

[masai]

The result of the tackle is looked at, not the intent.

I could run at a player, full pace with intent all over my face to plaster my opponent into the fence, take him full on shirtfront, he gets hit hard, but bounces up pretty quickly. According to the MRP it would be seen as an ok tackle.

Or in another scenario, I could run into a contest on the ball and collect a player with my shoulder, whilst bending down to attempt getting the ball. The opponent goes down and suffers concussion, even though there was no malice. I could easily get a 2 - 4 week holiday, because the player doesn't return to the ground.

MRP should take intent as the first thing they look at.

In relation to McCarthy, I'll take the two on the chin, although the MRP do seem to be a bad mood.

 

[Freo16]

What an absolute joke

He's tackling a player for christ sake, the result was unfortunate but Cam has done nothing other than just tackle a bloke from behind (and I wanted him playing WAFL this week)

Schofield throws an elbow into an opponents face after the siren and gets off (not to mention Selwood dropping a forearm into the back of Mitchell's head)

How the hell can we take the mrp seriously anyway when even the AFL had to appeal their decision last week

 

[The Joker]

Why did he continue with the tackle? He knew the ball was gone. Looks pretty obvious to me. You are right with your last point. Dixon can consider himself lucky Cotchin walked away fine from his tackle.

He releases him before they get to ground and looks away and there was only one motion, clearly a free kick but it wasnt malicious in any way.


I thought he was given 2 week without the chance to go down but it was 3 weeks down to 2, well thats ridiculous!