MRP / Trib. Geelong MRO & Tribunal decisions 2023

[cats_09]

So by definition you cannot pin the arms if there is any risk of the player going to ground.

So you tackle standing up, and / or concede the handball.

That's pretty much how it's playing out at the moment - the Ward tackle from a couple of weeks ago generated a lot of discussion online, and while bulk of it seemed to lean towards "Neale needed to do better than be a limp noodle looking for a free kick", while others said Ward needed to do better and I agree that the way he wrapped his legs around Neale likely didn't help things

BUT, the umpire also should have done better in this situation as there was no need to allow things to go this long & have Ward believe he had to take Neale to ground to get a whistle blown

The more I watch this one, the more it feels like it's in slow motion and a different outcome could easily have presented itself - including the umpire & both players doing better to minimise the chance of Neale's head hitting the ground

 

[Cataholic]

That's pretty much how it's playing out at the moment - the Ward tackle from a couple of weeks ago generated a lot of discussion online, and while bulk of it seemed to lean towards "Neale needed to do better than be a limp noodle looking for a free kick", while others said Ward needed to do better and I agree that the way he wrapped his legs around Neale likely didn't help things

BUT, the umpire also should have done better in this situation as there was no need to allow things to go this long & have Ward believe he had to take Neale to ground to get a whistle blown

The more I watch this one, the more it feels like it's in slow motion and a different outcome could easily have presented itself - including the umpire & both players doing better to minimise the chance of Neale's head hitting the ground

Sensible and firm adjudication from a long way out would've seen the game avoid the stupidity and confusion we have now.

The Tribunal shouldn't be allowed to view slo-mo in my opinion.....they should only get the split second to make their decision, just like the player. It's all he has.

Slo-mo always makes it look worse, and sub-consciously lulls the viewer into thinking there is far more time, space and awareness than there is in reality.

 

[petrolium]

Well, the JVR ban WAS upheld, and yes, it prompts serious questions about where the game is heading.

They justified it by saying 'a reasonable player would foresee the contact'.......

So a 'reasonable player' will now avoid punching the ball away to avoid contacting his opponent's head, he'll avoid flying high into a pack because he'll foresee possible contact to a player's head, and he won't take a player down after foreseeing the player's head hit the ground.

What are we left with?

A hybrid version of soccer essentially.

Melbourne have appealed the decision by the tribunal.

 

[lionbear]

As soon as both arms are pinned blow the whistle, pretty simple, worried the player might get a handball out is meaning these players are getting suspended.

 

[CharacterFirst]

1 Tim 6:10

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

 

[lionbear]

Melbourne have appealed the decision by the tribunal.

I don't think it deserved a suspension, but in saying that regardless of whether he made contact with he ball or not the best possible result for him was a missed free kick, he's gone back with the flight of the ball and jumped into a player who has ended up concussed, it was always a interference free kick regardless of what happened because there is no way he wasn't going to contact the player.

I think this changing the fabric of the game calls are a little over the top.

He should have turned his body and didn't.

 

[Cataholic]

Melbourne have appealed the decision by the tribunal.

Good......not just for them, but for the game itself.

 

[standupand]

That's pretty much how it's playing out at the moment - the Ward tackle from a couple of weeks ago generated a lot of discussion online, and while bulk of it seemed to lean towards "Neale needed to do better than be a limp noodle looking for a free kick", while others said Ward needed to do better and I agree that the way he wrapped his legs around Neale likely didn't help things

BUT, the umpire also should have done better in this situation as there was no need to allow things to go this long & have Ward believe he had to take Neale to ground to get a whistle blown

The more I watch this one, the more it feels like it's in slow motion and a different outcome could easily have presented itself - including the umpire & both players doing better to minimise the chance of Neale's head hitting the ground

It's a good example of the problem at the moment is that the rules are so unclear about what constitutes a legitimate and a dangerous tackle.

I think the AFL just need to step back, consider all the evidence, and arrive at a set of rules that are easy for umpires to adjudicate and that actually reduces the risk of head injuries.

I've mentioned it before elsewhere but I do think that there needs to be more of an encouragement to play the ball rather than the man. In Gaelic you can't rugby tackle someone, but you can win the ball in other ways. Imo a tackle should have the intent to win possession, not just to wrap them up and hold onto them and ultimately bring them to ground.

To me tackles that are a highlight in AFL are those run-down tackles which are executed with speed and efficiency, dispossessing the player who had clear prior op straightaway. The free-kick for htb is paid automatically.

On the other hand, what happens a lot now is that a tackler wants more to hold a player up than win the ball themselves. An ump fairly wants to give a player an opportunity to dispose of the ball, but the tackler must find a way to prevent it. Pinning the arms and taking the player to ground is actually the most effective and hence most frequent way of doing that. And the fact that one player hits their head and another doesn't is a total lottery.

The AFL just need to stop making the rules up on the go and having these mid-season "crack-downs" that are then forgotten by finals. Actually address the issue of head injuries with some sensible rule changes for once.

 

[MarcMaverick]

Melbourne have appealed the decision by the tribunal.

Good......not just for them, but for the game itself.

You guys should do the same with Close.

 

[Cataholic]

You guys should do the same with Close.

I actually think so too, but I doubt they will.

Just as p*ss poor a decision as the JVR one. There's a total disconnect between the footy public and the MRO / Tribunal.

 

[allrighty]

No idea what Fiduciary is but totally agree with everything after that.

Ha, sorry. It's basically director's liability. So if the company (club or league) defaults, or is sued for example, director's personal assets are potentially on the line. So if the club got sued for 50 mill and could not pay the directors may have to cough up the rest.

 

[Cataholic]

It's a good example of the problem at the moment is that the rules are so unclear about what constitutes a legitimate and a dangerous tackle.

I think the AFL just need to step back, consider all the evidence, and arrive at a set of rules that are easy for umpires to adjudicate and that actually reduces the risk of head injuries.

I've mentioned it before elsewhere but I do think that there needs to be more of an encouragement to play the ball rather than the man. In Gaelic you can't rugby tackle someone, but you can win the ball in other ways. Imo a tackle should have the intent to win possession, not just to wrap them up and hold onto them and ultimately bring them to ground.

To me tackles that are a highlight in AFL are those run-down tackles which are executed with speed and efficiency, dispossessing the player who had clear prior op straightaway. The free-kick for htb is paid automatically.

On the other hand, what happens a lot now is that a tackler wants more to hold a player up than win the ball themselves. An ump fairly wants to give a player an opportunity to dispose of the ball, but the tackler must find a way to prevent it. Pinning the arms and taking the player to ground is actually the most effective and hence most frequent way of doing that. And the fact that one player hits their head and another doesn't is a total lottery.

The AFL just need to stop making the rules up on the go and having these mid-season "crack-downs" that are then forgotten by finals. Actually address the issue of head injuries with some sensible rule changes for once.

I'd wager a 'run down tackle' is one of the things that people enjoy most about the game.

That act is one of the most fundamental components of the game, and it should remain so. For that to happen, the AFL simply has to understand that incidental head contact will occur.

Hell, they have to understand it's a contact game in the first instance, but that seems to be escaping them.......

They've rightfully banned the sling tackle, and punish any tackle that is excessive in force, but if they essentially ban clean tackles (which they've done with the Close decision) then the game is in serious danger....... it's already in a perilous position with the farcical JVR decision.

 

[Cataholic]

1 Tim 6:10

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

It is.

 

[Cataholic]

I don't think it deserved a suspension, but in saying that regardless of whether he made contact with he ball or not the best possible result for him was a missed free kick, he's gone back with the flight of the ball and jumped into a player who has ended up concussed, it was always a interference free kick regardless of what happened because there is no way he wasn't going to contact the player.

I think this changing the fabric of the game calls are a little over the top.

He should have turned his body and didn't.

Correction: the player was NOT concussed.

 

[gogeelongcats]

It is simple.

If you touch someone and they hit their head you get rubbed out.

They could hit the ground, your body anything at all.

Will be interesting to see how many get rubbed out from now on.

 

[you pick one]

Ha, sorry. It's basically director's liability. So if the company (club or league) defaults, or is sued for example, director's personal assets are potentially on the line. So if the club got sued for 50 mill and could not pay the directors may have to cough up the rest.

Yeah that would put the wind up them.

 

[lionbear]

Correction: the player was NOT concussed.

Sorry Neck Injury

 

[Cataholic]

Sorry Neck Injury

Which he'd reported earlier in the game, so even that wasn't the result of Dawson's contact.

 

[you pick one]

Starting to look like the Cats are an easy kill,doesn't appear we are taking the Close reaming any further.

 

[lionbear]

Which he'd reported earlier in the game, so even that wasn't the result of Dawson's contact.

Did you even read my post?

I said he shouldn't have been suspended. But it was a poor play by him regardless, free kick and no more, but those saying it changes the fabric of the game I dont agree with, because he shouldn't have been spoiling like that.

 

[Cataholic]

Did you even read my post?

I said he shouldn't have been suspended. But it was a poor play by him regardless, free kick and no more, but those saying it changes the fabric of the game I dont agree with, because he shouldn't have been spoiling like that.

Wasn't having a go at you? Not sure how you might've interpreted that, but my apology if so.

We're in agreement. I was only pointing out the pettiness of the report and consequent punishment. The player in question wasn't injured by the contact at all.

But I do disagree with you re: fabric of the game , and the motion in question, but no problem. We're allowed to see things differently

 

[Kitcat]

Did you even read my post?

I said he shouldn't have been suspended. But it was a poor play by him regardless, free kick and no more, but those saying it changes the fabric of the game I dont agree with, because he shouldn't have been spoiling like that.

I agree with you that he shouldn’t have been spoiling like that and he took the risk of hitting the player in the head/neck.

 

[Cataholic]

I agree with you that he shouldn’t have been spoiling like that and he took the risk of hitting the player in the head/neck.

So what should a player in his situation do, going forward?

The only alternative option I can see is for him to stand back and concede the mark.......

 

[And_ROOS]

Thats bloody soccer.

As someone who gets smashed by keepers and defenders on corners, its absolutely not soccer.

And I might have to stick with it if the AFL keep ******* the sport.

Putting responsibility on the tackler, and removing it from the player with the ball who invites the pressure. If they are worried about Close tackling Dawson because he isn't fast enough to get away, or skilled enough to dispose of the ball, why not encourage him not to take possession of the ball.
That sounds really stupid, in fact thats AS STUPID as what they are suggesting players do in Close's position in future.

Might as well just play indoor footy rules the way this is ******* going. If you drop the ball, its a free kick. If you have the ball and go to ground, free kick.

 

[lionbear]

So what should a player in his situation do, going forward?

The only alternative option I can see is for him to stand back and concede the mark.......

I hate to say it, but yes he needed to concede the mark, instead of going with a fist turn and try and spoil with his back to the player, reality is if you are running with the flight of the ball you have to protect the player under the ball, we have seen players rotate and spoil the ball with no sufficient contact to the player under the ball, but once you go in with an arm like happened it is always a free kick.

The action was incorrect, but it shouldn't warrant a suspension.