MRP / Trib. Heavyweight Champion Nic Naitanui def. Welterweight Champion Karl Amon (KO)

Remove this Banner Ad

'Duty of care'
'Football action'
'It was the view of the MRO that...'

So many weasel words when it comes to this s**t.

Codify the ******* game so that what is legal is legal and what is not legal is not legal and do away with this wishy washy bullshit.

The thing is, once the AFL goes down this road of suspending players for doing something 'dangerous' it'll never end. It is (has been) a dangerous game. People get hurt. They know they'll get hurt. We admire the courage players show in this game because they often do things knowing they can get hurt. You can take that out of the game if you like to win over the soccer mums but there's only so much you can do trying to be all things to all people before you dilute the product so much that no one even knows what it is anymore. That's kind of where we are now. Yes it's still a tough game for now, but with increasing lip-service to capture those who might otherwise play. Just hand out random bans every now and then to make them think we're serious. All things to all people.

And the worst thing is Gil is a ******* pirate who probably knows exactly what he is doing but doesn't care because he and his bonus will be long by the time it starts to really ruin the game.

/rant
 
I love that the eagles social media team put the tackle up for the "were ready to tackle the giants this week". Kinda like an Fu to the AFL.
 
Yeo being awarded the free kick, rather than conceding it will hopefully protect him from any sanction. It's unusual for the AFL to come out and admit one of their own officials made a mistake, and they can't suspend Yeo without doing so.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Shmiddy15 said:
Yeo being awarded the free kick, rather than conceding it will hopefully protect him from any sanction. It's unusual for the AFL to come out and admit one of their own officials made a mistake, and they can't suspend Yeo without doing so.
Click to expand...
Also he actually let go of Shiel before he was 'flipped' so he didn't drive him. Plus Shiel played out the game without concussion.
 
swannies said:
That's the thing HoneyBadger35 I don't see it as a crusade, becasuse he's not being consistent on it. I am not exactly sure why he chose Nic's tackle, but I don't get the feeling of crusade, because he'd be pinging everything if he was on a crusade, and he's not.
Click to expand...
I think it was targeted at NN. Someone has complained, either a Chris Scott, or someone at AFL house. Don't like the fact he is legally doing what Mummy was lauded for and crunching players.

So they waited for a free kick and went after him. It's the huge problem with the MRO. No longer independant and also just one person. Perfect for AFL intervention. Which they love to do, as evidenced by their famous and denied, rule of the week decrees to the umpires.
 
InTheWings said:
As far as I can tell, the only difference in Nic Nat's tackle and Yeo's from today on Dylan Shiel, is size differential. Yeo's was awesome by the way, and not even thought of as a free kick.

So does Nic Nat's tackle being illegal mean the AFL has a new rule in tackling? Only tackle opponents the same size as you or get banned?

View attachment 496294

View attachment 496297
Click to expand...
It's the frames before and after that show a difference. Yeo came to his knees first, as did Shiel. Both of Shiels arms were free. Yeo rolls past Shiel. No min the back.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

InTheWings said:
As far as I can tell, the only difference in Nic Nat's tackle and Yeo's from today on Dylan Shiel, is size differential. Yeo's was awesome by the way, and not even thought of as a free kick.

So does Nic Nat's tackle being illegal mean the AFL has a new rule in tackling? Only tackle opponents the same size as you or get banned?
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, they have shot themselves in the foot here. Elliot 'King of Calculus' Yeo has clearly identified that Shiel is of a similar weight to himself, and that he is allowed to tackle in this instance. They would have to completely change their 'duty of care', 'size differential' narrative from literally four days prior to give Yeo any sort of suspension.
 
Think darling could be in trouble. Think he was negligent when he went for that mark as he didn’t account for phil Davis’ height. When you watch the replay it’s clear that he intends to hurt him.
 
So does Nic Nat's tackle being illegal mean the AFL has a new rule in tackling? Only tackle opponents the same size as you or get banned?
=============================

The AFL has messed up with their NEW Nic Nat Rule.
We are seeing similar tackles each week, the only difference being the power and the weight of the tackler.
Simmo's comments after the 1 week ban were spot on. Christian should not be advocating outcomes of his decisions. He should state why an incident is cited or why it has not been cited. His "easiest decision" comments are out of line, that is the role of the tibunal. Looking back after a week, I reckon "the look of the game" won out. Nic's tackle was too powerful, too strong, and too dangerous. I have no argument with that fact. But to rule it 1 week because we don't want mum's looking at it and say my child is not going to play that game, someone will get their neck broken, is a stuff up. I was more upset about the knee into Kennedy, which was a straight out get kennedy action, he was not going for the ball.

I think the solution is a long way off for the AFL. As a code we have no clear vision of the brand of game we want to promote. A few years ago the bump seemed clear, if you bump and the head is hit you suffer the consequences. This year has been all over the place. Does Nic stop tackling, while the rest of the afl tackle more. What a mess of a decision. Not thought through.

We have ex-footballers dominating the media and the jobs at the afl. Its a tough game, and they know it. But because the AFL has no clear vision on the future brand of the game, we get these dramatic inconsistencies.


So how do we clean it up, so the players and the supporters know whats going on. A few examples...
1. Protect the ball carrier.
The reward the tackler needs to be erradicated from the discussion. This has been promoted by Clarkson. We need to be very careful about coaches influencing the rules. Kevin Bartlett is right
always protect the ball carrier. Tackles must be legal. A free kick against Nic was as far as it should go.
2. Umpire the rules.
I can give heaps and heaps but examples here. but, Why are there different rules when you have got a pack on the ground. The third, or fourth or fifth man in who grabs hold of the tackler, is holding the man without the ball. Free kick. Lying on the ball carriers back, is in the back Free kick. Grabing the ball carrier on the ground around the neck is an incorrect tackle. Free kick. If these were paid players would think twice about just locking the ball in. Which is obviously the coaches instructions. I understand that makes it hard for the umps. But that is their job.
3. Establish a Brand Committee.
And bring in people from othe professions to balance the ex-players. We are dominated by what we see on tv. So this has to be tyaken into account.
And keep a balance between defence and attack. We want more close games. Like Hawks v Swans, and the SA derby. Which means more equalisation.
4. Any one of any size can play the game.
One of the beauties of our game we want to keep. But are in danger of losing it to bigger and faster bodies.

So Pay the penalties keep the game open. and adjudicate to keep the teams evenly matched
But stop getting into Nic Nat. He deserves natural justice to play the game fairly and with vigour.



View attachment 496294

View attachment 496297[/QUOTE]
 
What these cuks in glass houses need to remember is that they are not a law upon themselves. They are here to represent the clubs and funs.

They think their $hit doesn't stink.

One day yhe clubs will have a gutful and overthrow the muppets.
 
liam123 said:
Think darling could be in trouble. Think he was negligent when he went for that mark as he didn’t account for phil Davis’ height. When you watch the replay it’s clear that he intends to hurt him.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and JD weighs a LOT more than Phil Davis' cheek too. Could be a long stint on the sidelines.
 
liam123 said:
Think darling could be in trouble. Think he was negligent when he went for that mark as he didn’t account for phil Davis’ height. When you watch the replay it’s clear that he intends to hurt him.
Click to expand...
Darling's going to be fine, if you multiply his height by weight then divide by 3 you get a largeness quotient of 6048.3 (recurring), where as Davis has a largeness quotient of a whopping 6304. Now I'm assuming that Darling, like any good AFL player, would have factored that calculation into his mark attempt but I think where he went wrong was in miscalculating the drag coefficient created by Phil Davis' hair which caused an unexpected lag in his leap. Basically Darling would have expected his elbow to come into contact with Davis' upper arm. Darling should get off, all he has to do is explain that he forgot to carry the 1 which meant that he worked out Davis' hair drag coefficient was 0.42. I mean us plebs sitting in our couches at home all know that it's 0.73 but on the field in the heat of the moment it's an easy mistake to make. I think that as long as Darling shows Michael Christian his working out and where he went wrong he'll be fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Biggie
Nic Naitanui Retires
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
257
Views
10K
amazingjoshy
amazingjoshy
Mop
  • Poll
Has Nic Naitanui Underachieved?
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
3K
WCE_phil
WCE_phil
Truckosaurus
Opinion Ranking the team nicknames
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
dirtyratz
dirtyratz

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top