Chicken wing tackle

[kingswood71]

Cyril pinned the arm. He didnt pin the arm then push the hand/wrist up in a dangerous second action.

Thats why he never got charged.

2013 GF against Barlow?
2 weeks reduced to one.

Lake, Rioli banned, Suban to Tribunal

Lake and Rioli face late starts to 2014 while Docker faces Tribunal

www.afl.com.au

 

[HairyO]

2013 GF against Barlow?
2 weeks reduced to one.

Lake, Rioli banned, Suban to Tribunal

Lake and Rioli face late starts to 2014 while Docker faces Tribunal

www.afl.com.au

Fair enough, so the time he did it he got pinged. Meaning he didnt get away with it.

I suspect we will see 1 week applied in this case too.

 

[Thuggee_Cult]

I’m actually of the opinion that arm tackles are a blight in the game and should be banned altogether, and that any tackle made should be around the body.

These tackles where bought in by the coaches as a loophole because of the worst catch phrase in AFL history - ‘prior opportunity’, which has consistently penalised the ball winners of this game.

These tackles are dangerous, and mark
my words, one day a player will lose the use of their arm because of them.

Making the tackler take the body instead of the arm gives the ball winner more time to
dispose of the ball and keeps the ball in motion and the game moving , as well as give a better spectacle around the stoppage.

Anyway, this has been a bugbear of mine for a while , end rant

 

[Purple Suit]

I’m actually of the opinion that arm tackles are a blight in the game and should be banned altogether, and that any tackle made should be around the body.

These tackles where bought in by the coaches as a loophole because of the worst catch phrase in AFL history - ‘prior opportunity’, which has consistently penalised the ball winners of this game.

These tackles are dangerous, and mark
my words, one day a player will lose the use of their arm because of them.

Making the tackler take the body instead of the arm gives the ball winner more time to
dispose of the ball and keeps the ball in motion and the game moving , as well as give a better spectacle around the stoppage.

Anyway, this has been a bugbear of mine for a while , end rant

The AFL have brought this on themselves by paying holding the ball if one arm is free. Now grabbing the wrist is considered a good tackle as it can be holding the ball.

It's the second motion that will get Switta. He was well within his rights to do everything and grabbed the arm in the tackle but once he had it in the position, he then bent it up. Ginivana hasn't done anything at the tribunal yet so will be getting the full protection of the panel but his stereotypical player type suggests he might be there himself in the future and they let small things slide.

I recon 1-2 weeks as no injury so clearly he didn't go too far. Cyril only got 1, down from 2 weeks as it was the 2013 GF and penalties were doubled at the time.

 

[BarbieITFC]

What does being a players buddy actually entail?

For me it has involved following him home to make sure he is safe, taking lots of photos of him, leaving countless voicemails of support, sending him flowers every week and building a shrine in my garage to him. I assume that's what all the other buddies are doing.

 

[MickG88]

I’m actually of the opinion that arm tackles are a blight in the game and should be banned altogether, and that any tackle made should be around the body.

Grabbing the wrist of a player to stop them from handballing is a blight? So leaping in the air and kneeing a guy in the back of the head is all good but allowing a tackler to have another way of safely tackling someone is a blight. When you pin the arm, you don't need to take them to the ground so their isn't any danger of driving a players head into the ground. If a p-layer chooses to wrench the other players arm then that is the blight and needs to be taken out of the game not tackling some body by the arm.

These tackles are dangerous, and mark
my words, one day a player will lose the use of their arm because of them.

That's gonna be one strong guy to damage someone's arm to the point of not working anymore.

Making the tackler take the body instead of the arm gives the ball winner more time to
dispose of the ball and keeps the ball in motion and the game moving , as well as give a better spectacle around the stoppage.

There is an art form of good tackling, my bugbear is that tackling is being taken out of the game so the game can move quicker. This is AFL not basketball.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Absolute minor end of the scale this one, though it should definitely not be scot free. More than 1 week would be a travesty. Small fine for me, down to a smaller fine after the Ginnivan discount is applied.

The AFL needs to urgently inform all clubs…..that the use of unnecessary violence in any contest against Jack Ginnivan, has been approved.

 

[Has No Rules]

dog act
lucky only to get 2...probably because the AFL media didn't get all sanctimonious about it

 

[HairyO]

I’m actually of the opinion that arm tackles are a blight in the game and should be banned altogether, and that any tackle made should be around the body.

The easiest way to stop a fend-off is to grab the arm and drop down and drag the player down with you.

Its pretty hard to grab a player in a tackle around their waist if they have an arm out to push you away.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

I'm not sure what aspect of this loosens my tenuous grip on sanity more: that the tribunal sounded like they were the Hague accusing Switkowski of committing a war crime - and then gave him two weeks - or that everyone is perfectly comfortable calling what he did a 'tackle'.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I'm not sure what aspect of this loosens my tenuous grip on sanity more: that the tribunal sounded like they were the Hague accusing Switkowski of committing a war crime - and then gave him two weeks - or that everyone is perfectly comfortable calling what he did a 'tackle'.

To me this is pretty easy. You put yourself in the “victims” shoes. If you were put through what Ginnivan was put through, how troubled would you be by that? He has only bent his arm up his back to the natural point of resistance is how it appeared. Ginnivan showed no signs of discomfort whatsoever.

It is a prohibited action and should be. It deserves a penalty. But the penalty should be in line with the danger, damage and trauma or anxiety caused. $1k fine, don’t do it again. Very different if he puts more pressure on for longer or causes injury or substantial discomfort. Therefore, I think 2 weeks it outrageous. And moreso because players are getting their faces smashed in avoidable incidents without penalty.

Same tribunal gives Dangerfield 3 weeks for this horrendously executed unnecessary and extremely dangerous hit on Kelly that both smashed Kelly’s face and concussed him badly:



Now I would happily be subjected to what happened to Ginnivan 10,000 times before I would want to go through what Kelly did once. Yet 3 weeks v 2 weeks from the same Tribunal, one year later. Remember, concussion a massive issue for the sport. I am not sure gently applied hammer locks are anywhere within the same stratosphere.

It should be 6 weeks + v a fine, that would give a much better proportion to the penalties versus the wrongness of the actions and the results.

The madness of the MRO over recent seasons seems to have finally gotten to the Tribunal.

 

[Thuggee_Cult]

Grabbing the wrist of a player to stop them from handballing is a blight? So leaping in the air and kneeing a guy in the back of the head is all good but allowing a tackler to have another way of safely tackling someone is a blight. When you pin the arm, you don't need to take them to the ground so their isn't any danger of driving a players head into the ground. If a p-layer chooses to wrench the other players arm then that is the blight and needs to be taken out of the game not tackling some body by the arm.

That's gonna be one strong guy to damage someone's arm to the point of not working anymore.

There is an art form of good tackling, my bugbear is that tackling is being taken out of the game so the game can move quicker. This is AFL not basketball.

Yes, players tackling the arm is a blight on the game for the reasons I mentioned.

Pinning the arm denies the player the chance to dispose of the ball properly and we end up having a game with inferior ball movement.

Put it this way:

Do you reward the player who is first the ball or the player who is second to the ball?

This is where the game is right now.

We have umpires who umpire to the letter of the law, not in the spirit of the game and the end result of all of this will be that we end up with a technical, stagnant game like gridiron.

 

[Thuggee_Cult]

The easiest way to stop a fend-off is to grab the arm and drop down and drag the player down with you.

Its pretty hard to grab a player in a tackle around their waist if they have an arm out to push you away.

Not that many AFL players do the fend off.

And of those who do, not many do it well.

Brisbane’s Jarryd Lyons kung fu move was pretty effective against Dusty’s fend off though

 

[MickG88]

Yes, players tackling the arm is a blight on the game for the reasons I mentioned.

Pinning the arm denies the player the chance to dispose of the ball properly and we end up having a game with inferior ball movement.

Put it this way:

Do you reward the player who is first the ball or the player who is second to the ball?

This is where the game is right now.

We have umpires who umpire to the letter of the law, not in the spirit of the game and the end result of all of this will be that we end up with a technical, stagnant game like gridiron.

If the umpires reward the tackler properly then it's not stagnant.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

To me this is pretty easy. You put yourself in the “victims” shoes. If you were put through what Ginnivan was put through, how troubled would you be by that? He has only bent his arm up his back to the natural point of resistance is how it appeared. Ginnivan showed no signs of discomfort whatsoever.

It is a prohibited action and should be. It deserves a penalty. But the penalty should be in line with the danger, damage and trauma or anxiety caused. $1k fine, don’t do it again. Very different if he puts more pressure on for longer or causes injury or substantial discomfort. Therefore, I think 2 weeks it outrageous. And moreso because players are getting their faces smashed in avoidable incidents without penalty.

Same tribunal gives Dangerfield 3 weeks for this horrendously executed unnecessary and extremely dangerous hit on Kelly that both smashed Kelly’s face and concussed him badly:



Now I would happily be subjected to what happened to Ginnivan 10,000 times before I would want to go through what Kelly did once. Yet 3 weeks v 2 weeks from the same Tribunal, one year later. Remember, concussion a massive issue for the sport. I am not sure gently applied hammer locks are anywhere within the same stratosphere.

It should be 6 weeks + v a fine, that would give a much better proportion to the penalties versus the wrongness of the actions and the results.

The madness of the MRO over recent seasons seems to have finally gotten to the Tribunal.

I disagree, but that is forgiven because you are the first person to accurately characterize it is as a hammerlock, so kudos for that.

Certain actions need to be punished, not just outcomes, because effective deterrence can't be achieved by only punishing outcomes. It was a cowardly, intentional act that we don't want in the game. Hammerlocks could genuinely cause career compromising injuries and there is no ambiguity like there often is with bumps and tackles, which are necessary parts of the game. 2 weeks is a mild punishment to be used as a deterrent. I would have given him 3 weeks, but 2 is ok.

Danger is a protected species and has no relevance to this discussion. Getting a decision wrong with him doesn't justify getting a decision wrong with someone else.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I disagree, but that is forgiven because you are the first person to accurately characterize it is as a hammerlock, so kudos for that.

Certain actions need to be punished, not just outcomes, because effective deterrence can't be achieved by only punishing outcomes. It was a cowardly, intentional act that we don't want in the game. Hammerlocks could genuinely cause career compromising injuries and there is no ambiguity like there often is with bumps and tackles, which are necessary parts of the game. 2 weeks is a mild punishment to be used as a deterrent. I would have given him 3 weeks, but 2 is ok.

Danger is a protected species and has no relevance to this discussion. Getting a decision wrong with him doesn't justify getting a decision wrong with someone else.

I agree we don’t generally want this sort of thing in the game but cowardly and intentional is a strong description to put to an action that would have come with no great amount of malice aforethought.

Switkowski probably thought to himself in rapid progression this campaigner is ducking again trying to draw another free kick, I will try to grab his arm...ah now I have his arm, f*ck him I’ll just let him know stand up in a tackle like a man and don’t try to stooge a free kick out of me campaigner, that comes with a cost. Switkowski quickly realised he probably shouldn’t be doing it so he released without any real damage. Nothing especially cowardly about that, reckon I would have done the exact same thing in all honesty. Or just smash the idiot in the head with a hard swinging arm tackle and say I was trying to tackle his body but he has lowered his head into my tackle what am I supposed to do? Players are going to get fed up with Ginnivan dropping at the knees into every tackle and two players have been reported against him now, I am sure there will be more. IMO the AFL should de-register Ginnivan(or any player who does this) for having an unsafe technique until he can establish he can keep his head out of harm’s way when faced with an approaching tackle. I must have seen Ginnivan do this 4 times in that match and he certainly isn’t going to stop while the umpires are rewarding him and the AFL is protecting him. It needs to be rehabilitated and even moreso due to the current concussion conscious environment.

In any event in all cases questions of degree need to be considered. The degree to which the illicit manoeuvre was applied here was just not strong enough to warrant a 2 game suspension. I would not have any trouble with a severe suspension if there was any real force applied or if he was placing Ginnivan in real danger or great distress. But clearly none of those things were present. Fine him for the action, if you particularly don’t like this type of action, double the fine, but it just doesn’t warrant a suspension. Save the suspensions for illegal actions that could or do actually humiliate, endanger or injure people.

Two weeks for that while players get off scott free for smashing people’s faces with voluntarily raised elbows just shows how far out of balance things have gotten with the AFL.

 

[theyellowsash]

The AFL have brought this on themselves by paying holding the ball if one arm is free. Now grabbing the wrist is considered a good tackle as it can be holding the ball.

what on earth are you talking about? whats the alternative, only pay holding the ball if both arms were free to dis-incentivise players tackling the arms? then all youre going to get is players tuck one arm into the body before being tackled so that they can either not be tackled, or one-arm throw the ball without being penalised.

the only reason players do this is because umpires give the ball player an eternity to dispose of the ball, so the tackler has to do everything they can to pin the arm and if one comes loose of course theyre going to try to grab it. look at videos of the reiwoldt one, he tackles fritsch to the ground holding the arm to stop him disposing it, and then sits there looking at the umpire for a decision one way or the other. and of course he's going to put some force into it to stop fritsch getting loose. pay the free or call a ball up before it gets to that stage and no problem.

the 'he tried' & 'knocked out in the tackle' rules dont help either, as they encourage the player with the ball to not get his arms free if hes about to get tackled so that he can at least win a ball up, unless theres an obviously favourable option. emphasis should be on making the player dispose of the ball before being tackled or else give away holding the ball, which will also keep the game flowing and lessen the likelihood of tackle injuries.

the chris judd one though, thats not an afl rule issue. thats just judd being the dirty player that he was. cant legislate against that kind of dirty play except with suspensions. But most of the incidents are just attempts at legit footy actions gone wrong.

 

[PhatBoy]

I disagree, but that is forgiven because you are the first person to accurately characterize it is as a hammerlock, so kudos for that.

Certain actions need to be punished, not just outcomes, because effective deterrence can't be achieved by only punishing outcomes. It was a cowardly, intentional act that we don't want in the game. Hammerlocks could genuinely cause career compromising injuries and there is no ambiguity like there often is with bumps and tackles, which are necessary parts of the game. 2 weeks is a mild punishment to be used as a deterrent. I would have given him 3 weeks, but 2 is ok.

Danger is a protected species and has no relevance to this discussion. Getting a decision wrong with him doesn't justify getting a decision wrong with someone else.

You’ve literally just been shown an example of Dangerfield getting 3 weeks for a clumsy but head on head contact incident - how does that make him protected? I’d have thought if they loved him that much, when Burgoyne slammed him headfirst into the turf Burgoyne himself would have been rubbed out. He wasn’t.

 

[Partridge]

Now I would happily be subjected to what happened to Ginnivan 10,000 times before I would want to go through what Kelly did once. Yet 3 weeks v 2 weeks from the same Tribunal, one year later. Remember, concussion a massive issue for the sport. I am not sure gently applied hammer locks are anywhere within the same stratosphere.

It should be 6 weeks + v a fine, that would give a much better proportion to the penalties versus the wrongness of the actions and the results.

The madness of the MRO over recent seasons seems to have finally gotten to the Tribunal.

Someone else beat me to it. Nice to see someone actually call it by the correct term.

 

[theyellowsash]

To me this is pretty easy. You put yourself in the “victims” shoes. If you were put through what Ginnivan was put through, how troubled would you be by that? He has only bent his arm up his back to the natural point of resistance is how it appeared. Ginnivan showed no signs of discomfort whatsoever.

It is a prohibited action and should be. It deserves a penalty. But the penalty should be in line with the danger, damage and trauma or anxiety caused. $1k fine, don’t do it again. Very different if he puts more pressure on for longer or causes injury or substantial discomfort. Therefore, I think 2 weeks it outrageous. And moreso because players are getting their faces smashed in avoidable incidents without penalty.

Same tribunal gives Dangerfield 3 weeks for this horrendously executed unnecessary and extremely dangerous hit on Kelly that both smashed Kelly’s face and concussed him badly:



Now I would happily be subjected to what happened to Ginnivan 10,000 times before I would want to go through what Kelly did once. Yet 3 weeks v 2 weeks from the same Tribunal, one year later. Remember, concussion a massive issue for the sport. I am not sure gently applied hammer locks are anywhere within the same stratosphere.

It should be 6 weeks + v a fine, that would give a much better proportion to the penalties versus the wrongness of the actions and the results.

The madness of the MRO over recent seasons seems to have finally gotten to the Tribunal.

you might go through a well performed hammer lock in controlled conditions by someone who knows what theyre doing 10000 times, but its very different if youre talking about a lock being done by someone who doesnt really know what theyre doing, flopping around on a possibly slippery ground, with potentially other blokes also on top of you and the potential for others to come barreling in and knock you both around. could easily wrench the arm out of its socket and long term could be worse than a concussion once.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

you might go through a well performed hammer lock in controlled conditions by someone who knows what theyre doing 10000 times, but its very different if youre talking about a lock being done by someone who doesnt really know what theyre doing, flopping around on a possibly slippery ground, with potentially other blokes also on top of you and the potential for others to come barreling in and knock you both around. could easily wrench the arm out of its socket and long term could be worse than a concussion once.

Can you show somewhere in the history of mankind where this has occurred? The hammer lock as far as I know is a fairly safe hold in terms of injury. It can be uncomfortable if too much pressure is applied. This incident didn’t get near that level.

 

[theyellowsash]

Can you show somewhere in the history of mankind where this has occurred? The hammer lock as far as I know is a fairly safe hold in terms of injury. It can be uncomfortable if too much pressure is applied. This incident didn’t get near that level.

im sure its prefectly safe when its being done in a wrestling/martial arts etc setting.

done during a stacks on of 90kg+ bodies, with other diving in off a runup of a few meters? absolutely it can cause dislocation injuries. it already has

Kangaroos lose Harvey to injury

North Melbourne skipper Brent Harvey is facing up to three months on the sidelines after dislocating his elbow in the Kangaroos' shock 36-point AFL loss to Richmond.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Purple Suit]

what on earth are you talking about? whats the alternative, only pay holding the ball if both arms were free to dis-incentivise players tackling the arms? then all youre going to get is players tuck one arm into the body before being tackled so that they can either not be tackled, or one-arm throw the ball without being penalised.

the only reason players do this is because umpires give the ball player an eternity to dispose of the ball, so the tackler has to do everything they can to pin the arm and if one comes loose of course theyre going to try to grab it. look at videos of the reiwoldt one, he tackles fritsch to the ground holding the arm to stop him disposing it, and then sits there looking at the umpire for a decision one way or the other. and of course he's going to put some force into it to stop fritsch getting loose. pay the free or call a ball up before it gets to that stage and no problem.

the 'he tried' & 'knocked out in the tackle' rules dont help either, as they encourage the player with the ball to not get his arms free if hes about to get tackled so that he can at least win a ball up, unless theres an obviously favourable option. emphasis should be on making the player dispose of the ball before being tackled or else give away holding the ball, which will also keep the game flowing and lessen the likelihood of tackle injuries.

the chris judd one though, thats not an afl rule issue. thats just judd being the dirty player that he was. cant legislate against that kind of dirty play except with suspensions. But most of the incidents are just attempts at legit footy actions gone wrong.

Go back to paying holding the ball if the player had a prior opportunity to dispose of the ball. Getting instantly tackled to the ground but one wrist held shouldn't be htb in my opinion. I see wrists grabbed all the time now as a tackling technique from a lot of players when previously it was just a few players like Cyril who made it their signature move.

That doesn't excuse what Switta did, just that more people are going to be exposed to arm injuries if they are grabbing arms deliberately and then a bunch of extra tacklers pile on and arm's get bent the wrong way by accident.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

im sure its prefectly safe when its being done in a wrestling/martial arts etc setting.

done during a stacks on of 90kg+ bodies, with other diving in off a runup of a few meters? absolutely it can cause dislocation injuries. it already has

Kangaroos lose Harvey to injury

North Melbourne skipper Brent Harvey is facing up to three months on the sidelines after dislocating his elbow in the Kangaroos' shock 36-point AFL loss to Richmond.

www.abc.net.au

Where is the evidence that resulted from a hammer lock being applied?

 

[Unique Name]

2 weeks?