MRP / Trib. Higgins - 3 weeks for Aliir tackle

[tiger_tough]

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.

Toby Greene got suspend a week ago didn't he?

Tigers fans are always keen to jump on an AFL conspiracy, but this is a reach even for us.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

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.

Yep and if anything he was lucky to only get 7 there

 

[Sttew]

I don't understand people that voted 'no penalty'. it's a clear sling, with force, that resulted in an injury. such an easy decision. All of this talk about contributing is nonsense. The onus is on the tackler to not sling, bottom line.

Agree, but Allir definitely contributed to the injury by attempting to kick the ball while being tackled. Had Allir not tried kicking the ball how would this have ended up?

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Toby Greene got suspend a week ago didn't he?

Tigers fans are always keen to jump on an AFL conspiracy, but this is a reach even for us.

Toby Greene got off scot free the previous week for a dump tackle (potential to cause injury clause ... out the window) ..... he also is serial offender and as much as it pained the AFL to give him a week off they were put in a corner ... he also won't be winning the Brownlow

DF is right .... if that was Naicos the AFL would have found a way to get him off

All fans are asking for is consistency with AFL Tribunal decisions .... and we ain't getting it .... a million miles from it

 

[tiger_tough]

Toby Greene got off scot free the previous week for a dump tackle (potential to cause injury clause ... out the window) ..... he also is serial offender and as much as it pained the AFL to give him a week off they were put in a corner ... he also won't be winning the Brownlow

DF is right .... if that was Naicos the AFL would have found a way to get him off

All fans are asking for is consistency with AFL Tribunal decisions .... and we ain't getting it .... a million miles from it

I'm with you there. But as I said earlier if you pin an arm in a dangerous tackle and concuss a bloke, it will be assessed as severe you'll getting 3 weeks. That is one that has been consistent for a while now.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

I don't understand people that voted 'no penalty'. it's a clear sling, with force, that resulted in an injury. such an easy decision. All of this talk about contributing is nonsense. The onus is on the tackler to not sling, bottom line.

Higgins pulled Allir down to the ground ... if Allir doesn't choose to kick the ball no injury would have occurred

Allir had one arm free hence the tackle wasn't as dangerous as a tackle where both arms are pinned ..... Allir had the ability to protect himself but didn't

Yes Allir has the right to choose to kick but that decision in the middle of a perfectly legal tackle which 99% of the time wouldn't cause injury and added to the fact Allir could have protected himself with one arm free ended up being a defining factor .... which the AFL chose to ignore when handing down its verdict

Yet the AFL happily chose to take into account Brayshaw slightly moving off line into a dangerous flying bump tackle by Maynard which ended his career and allowed Maynard to play in a GF

Rules for some ..... rules for others

Point is .... it wasn't worth anywhere near 3 weeks ...... 0 zero weeks if you bring in the Maynard rule of the other player's action being part of the problem

Wake up people and smell the rotting stinking shite pile of a corpse that is the AFL Tribunal

 

[danster168]

Higgins pulled Allir down to the ground ... if Allir doesn't choose to kick the ball no injury would have occurred

Allir had one arm free hence the tackle wasn't as dangerous as a tackle where both arms are pinned ..... Allir had the ability to protect himself but didn't

Yes Allir has the right to choose to kick but that decision in the middle of a perfectly legal tackle which 99% of the time wouldn't cause injury and added to the fact Allir could have protected himself with one arm free ended up being a defining factor .... which the AFL chose to ignore when handing down its verdict

Yet the AFL happily chose to take into account Brayshaw slightly moving off line into a dangerous flying bump tackle by Maynard which ended his career and allowed Maynard to play in a GF

Rules for some ..... rules for others

Point is .... it wasn't worth anywhere near 3 weeks ...... 0 zero weeks if you bring in the Maynard rule of the other player's action being part of the problem

Wake up people and smell the rotting stinking shite pile of a corpse that is the AFL Tribunal

Brayshaw didn't move off his line. That's an absolute myth. people just love saying it to fit a narrative. It also makes no sense, so Maynard didn't have enough time to put his arms out but Brayshaw had time to move his whole body sideways lol. The Maynard thing was a joke. We can't use that as a precedent.

Higgins chose to pull his arm using his full body weight. Higgins didn't have to pull him down. 3 weeks is fair in today's climate. Hell Jack Trengove got 3 weeks for EXACTLY the same tackle on Dangerfield a decade ago.

 

[PerthBoy86]

I dont know if Higgins couldve reacted in the heat of the moment with the momentum. I've noticed this situation is not uncommon when a smaller bloke tackles a bigger one. They generally have less strength/control of the bigger player falls. Unfortunate all round, but I think we have to accept Aussie rules is a rough, contact sport, and as dopey as they may look, we should be looking at making head protection mandatory. It won't eliminate concussion/head injury but it would help.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I dont know if Higgins couldve reacted in the heat of the moment with the momentum. I've noticed this situation is not uncommon when a smaller bloke tackles a bigger one. They generally have less strength/control of the bigger player falls. Unfortunate all round, but I think we have to accept Aussie rules is a rough, contact sport, and as dopey as they may look, we should be looking at making head protection mandatory. It won't eliminate concussion/head injury but it would help.

Helmets don’t do anything players are welcome to wear them but they don’t do a lot

 

[Makka]

Agree, but Allir definitely contributed to the injury by attempting to kick the ball while being tackled. Had Allir not tried kicking the ball how would this have ended up?

Yeah I agree with you. I at least thought the penalty may of been reduced on appeal. If Alliir hadn't tried to kick the ball the outcome could of been completely different. Just my opinion.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Brayshaw didn't move off his line. That's an absolute myth. people just love saying it to fit a narrative. It also makes no sense, so Maynard didn't have enough time to put his arms out but Brayshaw had time to move his whole body sideways lol. The Maynard thing was a joke. We can't use that as a precedent.

Higgins chose to pull his arm using his full body weight. Higgins didn't have to pull him down. 3 weeks is fair in today's climate. Hell Jack Trengove got 3 weeks for EXACTLY the same tackle on Dangerfield a decade ago.

Even if you personally dont think Brayshaw moved off his line the fact is Collingwood used the defence that Brayshaw moved off his line and the Tribunal considered it and agreed with it saying Brayshaw's action contributed to the outcome ..... zero weeks .... free pass into a GF

In Higgins case the Tribunal also agreed that Allir's electing to kick also contributed to the outcome but chose to ignore it in the end ..... 3 weeks

Consistency out the window

Rules for some ...... rules for others

 

[danster168]

Even if you personally dont think Brayshaw moved off his line the fact is Collingwood used the defence that Brayshaw moved off his line and the Tribunal considered it and agreed with it saying Brayshaw's action contributed to the outcome ..... zero weeks .... free pass into a GF

In Higgins case the Tribunal also agreed that Allir's electing to kick also contributed to the outcome but chose to ignore it in the end ..... 3 weeks

Consistency out the window

Rules for some ...... rules for others

thoughts on the Trengove video that I posted?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

thoughts on the Trengove video that I posted?

It was 13 years ago.

 

[marcus1232]

Its just another reason why I hate punishing the outcome first and foremost.

If that's 3 weeks then so be it is what it is.

But there will probably be half a dozen instances over the next month of the same sought of incident that will barely get looked at because the player gets straight up.

 

[danster168]

It was 13 years ago.

correct. and the rules have only tightened since then...so Higgins should've got more. is that what you're saying?

 

[danster168]

I looked at this and said straight away to a friend. that's 3 weeks in today's climate. Got it spot on. literally every single sling tackle people run out the cliche answer of 'the player contributed to the sling' yada yada yada. This was an easy case.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

I looked at this and said straight away to a friend. that's 3 weeks in today's climate. Got it spot on. literally every single sling tackle people run out the cliche answer of 'the player contributed to the sling' yada yada yada. This was an easy case.

But not every "dangerous" tackle ... and there are worse ones than Higgins .... don't get 3 weeks.

We are only asking for consistency in the way the Tribunal hands out suspensions

BTW ... Higgins wasn't a sling tackle by definition .... he just pulled him down ... by one arm .... with the other arm free

 

[Sttew]

I looked at this and said straight away to a friend. that's 3 weeks in today's climate. Got it spot on. literally every single sling tackle people run out the cliche answer of 'the player contributed to the sling' yada yada yada. This was an easy case.

Did you phone a friend?

 

[danster168]

But not every "dangerous" tackle ... and there are worse ones than Higgins .... don't get 3 weeks.

We are only asking for consistency in the way the Tribunal hands out suspensions

BTW ... Higgins wasn't a sling tackle by definition .... he just pulled him down ... by one arm .... with the other arm free

I'm not surprised that people still can't get their head around the rule. Sometimes we need to simplify it. Higgins tackled Aliir. Higgins didn't carefully place Aliir on the ground like the rules want the players to do. Aliir concussed. Higgins gone.

 

[Plugger35]

I'm not surprised that people still can't get their head around the rule. Sometimes we need to simplify it. Higgins tackled Aliir. Higgins didn't carefully place Aliir on the ground like the rules want the players to do. Aliir concussed. Higgins gone.

Did Kosi Pickett show any care to the players he has recklessly bumped with head high hits?

This bump on Bailey Smith last year remarkably only got 2 weeks, one week less than Higgins got for a tackle, make sense of that

 

[Sarcoidevo]

I'm not surprised that people still can't get their head around the rule. Sometimes we need to simplify it. Higgins tackled Aliir. Higgins didn't carefully place Aliir on the ground like the rules want the players to do. Aliir concussed. Higgins gone.

Cameron tackles Lever

Cameron doesn't carefully place Lever on the ground like the rules want the players to do

Lever's head smashes into the turf but very luckily he is not concussed (by luck maybe he has a harder head than Allir)

Cameron 1 week down to zero weeks because ...... hey ..... he's a good bloke

Tribunal are punishing the outcome .....not the action ..... by complete luck Lever wasn't concussed or unlucky for Higgins that Allir has a fragile brain

Then there is the "potential to injure" furphy ..... used at the discretion of the Tribunal ..... with no transparency or consistency ... just when and how it pleases

Like a bouncer at a nightclub door .... sorry mate don't like the shoes & jacket you are wearing ... you ain't getting in ....... guy behind him with the same shoes & jacket but with a decent looking chick .... welcome enjoy your night

Rules for some .... rules for others

 

[maskmcgee]

Tribunal are punishing the outcome .....not the action

Real world legal system punishes the outcome not the action. If you punch two people in the head, and one dies and one is fine, you don't get off the murder charge for the one who died because the other one was fine.

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

2 for the action and 1 for making Aliir miss the Showdown. Or the other way round.

 

[danster168]

Did Kosi Pickett show any care to the players he has recklessly bumped with head high hits?

This bump on Bailey Smith last year remarkably only got 2 weeks, one week less than Higgins got for a tackle, make sense of that

because the afl factor in the injury sustained to the player. you know that. I know that. Bailey Smith got up fine. Aliir got subbed out. There I explained it. easy

 

[danster168]

Cameron tackles Lever

Cameron doesn't carefully place Lever on the ground like the rules want the players to do

Lever's head smashes into the turf but very luckily he is not concussed (by luck maybe he has a harder head than Allir)

Cameron 1 week down to zero weeks because ...... hey ..... he's a good bloke

Tribunal are punishing the outcome .....not the action ..... by complete luck Lever wasn't concussed or unlucky for Higgins that Allir has a fragile brain

Then there is the "potential to injure" furphy ..... used at the discretion of the Tribunal ..... with no transparency or consistency ... just when and how it pleases

Like a bouncer at a nightclub door .... sorry mate don't like the shoes & jacket you are wearing ... you ain't getting in ....... guy behind him with the same shoes & jacket but with a decent looking chick .... welcome enjoy your night

Rules for some .... rules for others

Correct, now you finally get it. the injury sustained by the player is a major factor. We don't have to agree with it but we've known it's been this way for a couple years.

Lever didn't hit his head very hard at all on the turf. I disagree on the impact on that one.