MRP / Trib. Higgins - 3 weeks for Aliir tackle

[Get_The_Gaff]

Neither of those incidents resulted in a concussion and a player being out for a minimum of 12 days. Concussion is very important these players have to live after they play, can we not have more with head injury symptoms after the play?

I didn't see this concern for the player when maynard was given zero weeks for a career ending bump .

It seems after Brayshaw had to retire the AFL have gone hard after any concussion to give the allusion they care .

As for Higgins I think allir contributes to the impact for sure but it was a sloppy sling tackle . The real suspension without the Maynard loading would probably be 1-2 weeks

 

[Mat Mann]

His other arm is around his back and rolls him around. Dragged downwards with the arm hold and body weight and the also the arm around the back as a second action.

Funny that many players kick when being tackled and don’t end up round housing themselves into the ground. One would think that’s maybe due to the actions of Higgins instead. Just maybe…

look how far that arm is extended around the waist, Allir is 18" taller and 15kg bigger, Higgo must be superhuman in strength to believe he could rotate Allir with so little control. Instead, I say it was Allir's kicking action that began the rotation, the same as that which lifted his feet off the ground.

there's no second action from Higgin's, mind-boggling that you think there is

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

They clearly don't.

Kennedy did it to Dangerfield on Saturday. Blakey did it to Chol on Sunday

Both hit their heads heavily on the ground. One was even a free kick to the tackler.


Only suspending players based on concussion does not act as a deterrent and clearly does not make the game safer.

It's just a really odd approach. I don't really understand the purpose it serves.

Absolutely nothing in the Kennedy one. That was a good/fair tackle.

Blakey's was also a good tackle but it was right on the edge. Chol looked a tad stunned but wasn't hurt.

To say that they both hit their heads heavily on the ground is a bit rich.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Some players get concussed more easily than others so if that is the only criteria for a suspension then it just becomes pot luck.

A player could make a sling tackle with equal force to the Higgins tackle and get no suspension due to there being no concussion.

How is that fair? it's just punishing the outcome rather than the action and it results in a lack of consistency and more confusion.

Outcome is always factored in whether it be at an AFL tribunal or an actual court case. Was Higgins unlucky maybe but he’s put the bloke out for at least a game and maybe 2. Did he mean to no but he’s contributed to it. Players need to stop the charade of “I didn’t mean it”, the game has changed and it’s for the better. As fans we have to remember these players have families and loved ones to go home to they don’t need to be dealing with head injuries during and post football.

 

[tiger_tough]

I don't see the issue with it. If you pin an arm in a dangerous tackle and the bloke gets knocked out it's always going to be 3 weeks.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

So Higgo gets 3 weeks all because Allir is an unco

A new precedent has been set

 

[Sentinel]

So Higgo gets 3 weeks all because Allir is an unco

A new precedent has been set

This isn't new, you just haven't caught up yet.

 

[HTPunter]

I reckon Aliir is entitled to try dispose of it.

Just like in marking contests ala Wright/Greene, the onus is on the player who is 2nd to the ball whether that be a spoil or a tackle to take all reasonable precautions to not injure the other player.

Higgins didn’t. 3 weeks seems harsh but at the end of the day St Kilda only argued for 2, not to get off entirely.

 

[HTPunter]

Also, I’ve been reading Scoops page “AFL trade rumours & information” on FB for a laugh - what people, particularly Saints fans, need to realise is that there is NO point using precedent from previous years, particularly any further than 3 years back.

Gaff on Brayshaw was not relevant (Scoops tried to use it on the Webster incident). The Maynard incident has been reviewed & rules changed because of it.

You may as well bring up Byron Pickett

Byron Pickett

Age

46

Ht

179cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.6

3star

K

9.2

4star

HB

3.4

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

2.8

4star

No current season stats available

D

12.2

3star

K

8.6

4star

HB

3.6

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

0.6

3star

.

From now on, if you pin an arm and cause a heavy head hit that results in an obvious concussion (no test actually required to rule him out via the guidelines - of course they still test to get medical data & baselines, but he was clearly going to enter concussion protocols) you will not be walking away with anything less than careless - severe impact - high contact for 3 weeks.

 

[Brian McGee]

My thoughts on this one are that I can’t see how people are blaming Allir. Would he have hit his head on the ground if there was no tackle just by his kicking action? Of course not, then the tackle has to be the cause of the head impact. Powell peppers bump in the pre season shows that they don’t take external factors into consideration when reporting people.

What I don’t like about it, and I have been consistent across the board with suspensions this year, is that severe impact is too high a grading for incidents like these that cause concussion but aren’t particularly excessive. Having to leave the ground with concussion should be graded high impact. Severe should be saved for catastrophic type impacts where the player is clearly knocked out or has something broken. There is just not enough scope for an incident like this to be 1-2 weeks. It’s 0 or 3+ and I think that is a flaw in the system.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

How about make a rule that if you tackle someone and they get concussed, then you sit out playing until they recover and play again. Then if he comes back in two weeks and not three then you've had a win.

 

[PJays]

But if they didn’t result in a concussion then they are practically irrelevant to this discussion.

The impact is a determining factor in the sanction whether we like it or not. It just is. A large factor for that matter.

The same "impact" can result in multiple different health outcomes dependent on other factors.

That's the issue.

 

[HairyO]

How about make a rule that if you tackle someone and they get concussed, then you sit out playing until they recover and play again. Then if he comes back in two weeks and not three then you've had a win.

And if thry retire your career ends as well...

 

[Plugger35]

Outcome is always factored in whether it be at an AFL tribunal or an actual court case. Was Higgins unlucky maybe but he’s put the bloke out for at least a game and maybe 2. Did he mean to no but he’s contributed to it. Players need to stop the charade of “I didn’t mean it”, the game has changed and it’s for the better. As fans we have to remember these players have families and loved ones to go home to they don’t need to be dealing with head injuries during and post football.

It's a contact sport so head injuries and concussions will happen regardless of how many of these suspensions the AFL hand out.

Unless the AFL decide to ban contact and tackling altogether there will always be a risk to players of head injuries and concussions so if players aren't prepared to take that risk then they shouldn't play AFL and play sports like tennis, golf or lawn bowls instead.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It's a contact sport so head injuries and concussions will happen regardless of how many of these suspensions the AFL hand out.

Unless the AFL decide to ban contact and tackling altogether there will always be a risk to players of head injuries and concussions so if players aren't prepared to take that risk then they shouldn't play AFL and play sports like tennis, golf or lawn bowls instead.

It may happen but if there's even a 10-15% reduction in concussions it's a good thing, game has never been safer and that's a good thing. Can't have players being concussed, with all the research on CTE.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

It may happen but if there's even a 10-15% reduction in concussions it's a good thing, game has never been safer and that's a good thing. Can't have players being concussed, with all the research on CTE.

Exactly and if people want to see people being carried off bleeding and concussed then they should have been around in the Roman Colosseum times. AFL is NOT a blood sport. It's a game and if a team loses because a player refused to give a head high tackle or punch someone in the head, then let be it.
And if every player plays the game the same way then it's a level playing field.
If a player gets concussed and is forced to retire then the tackler can disappear from the game forever as well.
Then you'll see that % of concussions come down even further.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

If a player gets concussed and is forced to retire then the tackler can disappear from the game forever as well.

I know you were slightly being cheeky but I like this idea- if you concuss a player, you have to sit out of the game until the player is able to come back on, and if not you sit out the game too.

 

[Chief]

HIGGINS TRIBUNAL FINDINGS

Jack Higgins will be unavailable for selection until Round 11, with the Tribunal electing to uphold the Match Review Officer's three-match sanction.

Higgins' tackle on Port Adelaide's Aliir Aliir

21

Aliir Aliir

Age

29

Ht

194cm

Wt

96kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

15.2

4star

K

9.3

4star

HB

5.9

4star

M

5.2

5star

T

1.9

4star

MG

240.9

4star

D

11.0

3star

K

6.0

2star

HB

5.0

3star

M

3.0

3star

T

2.0

3star

D

13.0

4star

K

6.4

3star

HB

6.6

4star

M

3.8

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

158.4

3star

was deemed as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact, with the Tribunal supporting all elements of the charge.

“Although disappointing to not have Jack's sanction overturned or downgraded, we respect the decision of the Tribunal and accept its findings,” EGM Football David Misson said.

“The head is sacrosanct, and we understand the importance placed on protecting the players."

Higgins said he accepted the Tribunal's decision.

"I understand and respectfully accept the Tribunal's decision," Higgins said.

"I wish Aliir all the best as he navigates his recovery and hope to see him back playing soon."

 

[Dogflogger]

really feels like you have to be a St Kilda player in this league to be made an example of.

 

[Plugger35]

really feels like you have to be a St Kilda player in this league to be made an example of.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Chook Lotto strikes again

3 weeks here ... no weeks there ..... a fine here .... good guy there .... bad guy here .... Brownlow prospect there .... potential to cause injury one week ..... out the next week ..... body mechanics relevant ..... body mechanics irrelevant

It's a hecking mess

 

[tiger_tough]

LOL 7 of them were for a horrific head high bump from Webster. No one else has come close to that level of offense. Terrible comparison by Timmy.

 

[Dogflogger]

do you think if it was Charlie Cameron

23

Charlie Cameron

Age

29

Ht

180cm

Wt

76kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.1

3star

K

8.4

3star

HB

3.7

3star

M

3.0

3star

T

3.2

5star

G

1.5

5star

D

9.6

2star

K

7.9

3star

HB

1.7

1star

M

3.6

4star

T

1.7

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

9.6

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

4.2

4star

M

1.4

2star

T

3.4

5star

G

1.2

4star

or Nick Daicos that did this tackle instead of Higgins would they get 3 weeks?

 

[tiger_tough]

do you think if it was Charlie Cameron or Nick Daicos that did this tackle instead of Higgins would they get 3 weeks?

Of course. Why would the AFL have it in for Jack Higgins?

 

[Dogflogger]

Of course. Why would the AFL have it in for Jack Higgins?

they wouldn't, they just don't make examples of players who might be finals bound or who might win a brownlow, never have never will.