MRP / Trib. Cockatoo cleared of sanction for tackle on Gore

[Mr Blicavs]

Clearly over my head - what are you implying?

If you don't get its obviousness then it's clearly above your head as you said

 

[James1970]

I'm struggling to see where the free-kick is, let alone a report and a friggin' 3-week suspension.

If he gets 3, I'm done with the game.

Or at least the one next week.

 

[catempire]

I'm struggling to see where the free-kick is, let alone a report and a friggin' 3-week suspension.

If he gets 3, I'm done with the game.

Or at least the one next week.

Haha. Thee down to one with good behaviour.

 

[Ray Donovan]

Everything today suggested 2-3 weeks possibly 2 with an early plea. Has a preexisting bad record so I expect the worst.

Congratulations on a rd 1 debut Mr parfitt

 

[Ray Donovan]

I'm struggling to see where the free-kick is, let alone a report and a friggin' 3-week suspension.

If he gets 3, I'm done with the game.

Or at least the one next week.

It's clearly a free kick just like in the back you can't tunnel someone off the ground and dump them onto back. And they have done a lot of work to eradicate that exact type of tackle. I don't agree with getting a week but looks likely. Hits most the the reckless tackle and not being able to protect yourself or brace for hitting ground similar to sling tackles with arms pinned.

Its a reckless tackle I don't think the intent was bad as he was not looking at the man.

 

[Ricketz]

If you don't get its obviousness then it's clearly above your head as you said

Helpful.

 

[Seeds]

And you're not supposed to crash tackle someone who doesn't have the ball either. Derp!
1 week......sorry if that's hard for you to swallow.

nice change of argument. Not about eyes now nor bumping vs tackling but tackling before a player has a ball. He tackled less then a second before gore got the ball. That is a free and nothing more. There is actually an argument for suspending him but you have missed it three times now. Want to try again?

 

[Ray Donovan]

You can't suspend base on a vibe though, it wasn't high, it wasn't illegal in anyway. I don't even think it was a free kick.

What do you mean of course its a free

At very least its in the back you cannot tackle someone with both feet off the ground from behind and drive them into the ground. When they never take clean possession on the ball especially duty of care

Reckless tackle is a free kick just like a kicking endanger rule when you don't make contact. Its a free kick he couldn't protect his head both feet of ground driven straight into ground he's lucky he didn't go head first

Its a reckless tackle and the grounds for suspensions are on AFL.com now
I don't like it but this is the definition of a sphere tackle which at very least is a free kick.

 

[Mr Blicavs]

nice change of argument. Not about eyes now nor bumping vs tackling but tackling before a player has a ball. He tackled less then a second before gore got the ball. That is a free and nothing more. There is actually an argument for suspending him but you have missed it three times now. Want to try again?

If I need to point out how not having eyes on the ball at any stage of tackling an opponent is relevant, then you have very little understanding of the game or the rules
Not surprising given the standard of your posting....
Gore didn't even have possession of the ball when Cocky decided to tackle him.....I mean really, are you that biased!!!

 

[Ray Donovan]

nice change of argument. Not about eyes now nor bumping vs tackling but tackling before a player has a ball. He tackled less then a second before gore got the ball. That is a free and nothing more. There is actually an argument for suspending him but you have missed it three times now. Want to try again?

Doesn't matter where your eyes are looking when it is a reckless charge mate the grounds for the mrp are on AFL.com now sphere tackle is highlighted which it definitely qualifies as. Reckless and he cannot protect his body and head when tackled in the air from behind duty of care it's 100% a reckless tackle

 

[STPer18]

Arms not pinned, one motion, no sling, but because the end result was a concussion in a contact sport means he should get 3 weeks? Sounds spot on with the current MRP setup we have going.

My money is on he cops a suspension, club comes out and says they disagree profusely but don't challenge it because it's too much of a 'risk', and then the MRP fails to rub out some other bloke a few weeks later for the exact same 'crime'. Reckon I've seen this all before but can't quite put my finger on it...

 

[Ray Donovan]

Haha. Thee down to one with good behaviour.

3 or 0 apparently because of his record an early plea is no good because of gores concussion which leaves the grading in high impact. And a reckless tackle charge and it seems 70% likely he gets rubbed out and I can't see Geelong challenging that unless no extra penalty was going to be awarded it ticks all the boxes unfortunately I don't like it but by the wording of the rule and seeing the vision we are pushing up hill especially with reckless charges throws out everything to do with intent and where he is looking

 

[Mr Blicavs]

Doesn't matter where your eyes are looking when it is a reckless charge mate the grounds for the mrp are on AFL.com now sphere tackle is highlighted which it definitely qualifies as. Reckless and he cannot protect his body and head when tackled in the air from behind duty of care it's 100% a reckless tackle

Thank you Ray.....sheesh!

 

[Ray Donovan]

Arms not pinned, one motion, no sling, but because the end result was a concussion in a contact sport means he should get 3 weeks? Sounds spot on with the current MRP setup we have going.

My money is on he cops a suspension, club comes out and says they disagree profusely but don't challenge it because it's too much of a 'risk', and then the MRP fails to rub out some other bloke a few weeks later for the exact same 'crime'. Reckon I've seen this all before but can't quite put my finger on it...

Doesn't matter if arms are not pinned or not you have to be able to protect yourself especially head. Its a sphere tackle that was reckless and the result caused injury he had two feet off ground

 

[catempire]

3 or 0 apparently because of his record an early plea is no good because of gores concussion which leaves the grading in high impact. And a reckless tackle charge and it seems 70% likely he gets rubbed out and I can't see Geelong challenging that unless no extra penalty was going to be awarded it ticks all the boxes unfortunately I don't like it but by the wording of the rule and seeing the vision we are pushing up hill especially with reckless charges throws out everything to do with intent and where he is looking

You missed the gag mate.

 

[Ray Donovan]

You missed the gag mate.

I was in serious mode my satirical side gets lost when I can't see a face

 

[STPer18]

Doesn't matter if arms are not pinned or not you have to be able to protect yourself especially head. Its a sphere tackle that was reckless and the result caused injury he had two feet off ground

Should he have not tackled or elected to bump instead though? Gore jumped to receive the handball and Cockatoo was already running towards him to lay a tackle. You're probably correct in how the MRP are going to adjudicate it, but for me it's a clear case of sometimes shit happens in contact sport and people get hurt due to a combination of circumstances, and the current MRP look at a resulting injury and just assume someone did something wrong to lead up to the injury, when that's not always the case.

 

[dazbroncos]

Should he have not tackled or elected to bump instead though? Gore jumped to receive the handball and Cockatoo was already running towards him to lay a tackle. You're probably correct in how the MRP are going to adjudicate it, but for me it's a clear case of sometimes shit happens in contact sport and people get hurt due to a combination of circumstances, and the current MRP look at a resulting injury and just assume someone did something wrong to lead up to the injury, when that's not always the case.

Shit no longer happens in the AFL. Only the MRP happens.

See the knee suspension from last week as case in point.

GO Catters

 

[Ray Donovan]

Should he have not tackled or elected to bump instead though? Gore jumped to receive the handball and Cockatoo was already running towards him to lay a tackle. You're probably correct in how the MRP are going to adjudicate it, but for me it's a clear case of sometimes shit happens in contact sport and people get hurt due to a combination of circumstances, and the current MRP look at a resulting injury and just assume someone did something wrong to lead up to the injury, when that's not always the case.

He's probably unlucky that's the way he plays he is a maniac tackler and if he landed on his shoulder its probably just a free kick.

He also leaves the ground the player which is cockys only real defence. I think the AFL has made it pretty clear tackles with excessive force and driving into ground especially from a getting low vantage point is putting the Adelaide player gore at risk. He can be wrapped up without getting low and driving into the ground. I view this as more of a skill error that cocky needs to work on. Just like bumps grey area but we know when you hit your in trouble. Similar to this caught him off ground couldn't protect head head contacts ground not good.

 

[Daniel McL]

What do you mean of course its a free

At very least its in the back you cannot tackle someone with both feet off the ground from behind and drive them into the ground. When they never take clean possession on the ball especially duty of care

Reckless tackle is a free kick just like a kicking endanger rule when you don't make contact. Its a free kick he couldn't protect his head both feet of ground driven straight into ground he's lucky he didn't go head first

Its a reckless tackle and the grounds for suspensions are on AFL.com now
I don't like it but this is the definition of a sphere tackle which at very least is a free kick.

 

[Sticksman]

Maybe Cocky should have let Gore take the ball and run toward goal without any effort to stop him. If that becomes the norm together with the no third man up rule it's getting closer to basketball every year.

 

[dazbroncos]

He's probably unlucky that's the way he plays he is a maniac tackler and if he landed on his shoulder its probably just a free kick.

He also leaves the ground the player which is cockys only real defence. I think the AFL has made it pretty clear tackles with excessive force and driving into ground especially from a getting low vantage point is putting the Adelaide player gore at risk. He can be wrapped up without getting low and driving into the ground. I view this as more of a skill error that cocky needs to work on. Just like bumps grey area but we know when you hit your in trouble. Similar to this caught him off ground couldn't protect head head contacts ground not good.

good explanation. the issue I have is that he landed on his back ( Gore did) and his head then contacts the ground. If he want head first id write Cocky the ticket myself. I agree however its the outcome almost regardless of how you get there now.

The AFL are so shitscared of litigation like the NFL are facing in the US that this is their way, in part, of trying to protect themselves later on.

Of course, a little consistency in the delivery of said protection wold be nice....

Shiels Im looking at you.

Go Catters

 

[dazbroncos]

Maybe Cocky should have let Gore take the ball and run toward goal without any effort to stop him. If that becomes the norm together with the no third man up rule it's getting closer to basketball every year.

he need to grab his flag from his waist to make sure he stopped running forward..

GO Catters

 

[Ray Donovan]

View attachment 342924

 

[catempire]

Cleared.