MRP “medium impact” my ass!

[John Who]

The latest Crows slap by the MRP comes in the form of a 1 week suspension for Laird in a swing tackle.

MATCH REVIEW: Crows gun, Lions veteran cop one-game bans

The Match Review findings for Sunday's round 11 games are in

www.afl.com.au

“The tackle was graded as careless conduct, medium impact and high contact.”

I want to talk specifically around the use of terms by the MRP of “medium impact”.

If a player who is tackled and then gets up looking undisturbed, plays on immediately, and finishing out the game ok, isn’t that simply a free kick for? At most, you would think it was “minor impact”, not “medium impact”?

Ok fine, we’re now about protecting the head. But how is abusing and misusing the definitions by the MRP going to help with players to protect the heads better? Lastly, are we causing more head protection or more player/fan confusion?

 

[GameofSloanes]

We should challenge the grading absolutely

 

[cAsEy_18]

The latest Crows slap by the MRP comes in the form of a 1 week suspension for Laird in a swing tackle.

MATCH REVIEW: Crows gun, Lions veteran cop one-game bans

The Match Review findings for Sunday's round 11 games are in

www.afl.com.au

“The tackle was graded as careless conduct, medium impact and high contact.”

I want to talk specifically around the use of terms by the MRP of “medium impact”.

If a player who is tackled and then gets up looking undisturbed, plays on immediately, and finishing out the game ok, isn’t that simply a free kick for? At most, you would think it was “minor impact”, not “medium impact”?

Ok fine, we’re now about protecting the head. But how is abusing and misusing the definitions by the MRP going to help with players to protect the heads better? Lastly, are we causing more head protection or more player/fan confusion?

Only jumping in because we had almost the word-for-word debate on the Essendon board earlier in the year.

Whether a good idea or not, the AFL have been fairly consistent since early in the year about any sling tackle like that being graded as "medium impact" due to "potential to cause injury". Laird's is almost identical to Merrett's, who missed anzac day for it - the Melbourne guy he tackled got up straight away, took his kick, no concussion, no injury etc.. and we couldn't believe it could be graded as 'medium impact'.

 

[Bob Neil]

Only jumping in because we had almost the word-for-word debate on the Essendon board earlier in the year.

Whether a good idea or not, the AFL have been fairly consistent since early in the year about any sling tackle like that being graded as "medium impact" due to "potential to cause injury". Laird's is almost identical to Merrett's, who missed anzac day for it - the Melbourne guy he tackled got up straight away, took his kick, no concussion, no injury etc.. and we couldn't believe it could be graded as 'medium impact'.

It's a fair point - if the AFL want to include a 'potential to cause injury' dimension then they should separate that out from the actual impact assessment and rate both to come up with an overall determination.

 

[Smoooothy]

i would say challenge - however dangerous tackles have been 0/16 for tribunal challenges this year (with 3 already confirmed for the tribunal tonight - with laird hopefully joining them). its probably a giant waste of time

 

[jbanger]

Medium schmedium.

OTOH Neale should be fined for staging. You can see he angles his head down towards the ground just before impact (which he braces for with his free arm anyway. Not the first time he's gone "limp" in a tackle either.

 

[croweater 41]

i would say challenge - however dangerous tackles have been 0/16 for tribunal challenges this year (with 3 already confirmed for the tribunal tonight - with laird hopefully joining them). its probably a giant waste of time

Yes and no on the waste of time.

Hopefully it gets looked at from the beginning of the process and why there is always a tribunal sitting or four. Some common sense (******* hard task with the AFL I know) gets applied to the situation and then we (I say we as a whole AFL following community) can all accept why things are the way they are.

As someone said above the "potential to cause injury" is a load of s**t. Potential to cause injury is every ruck contest marking contest and making a bloke chase you down the field when you have the ball. The game unfortunately isn't a bruise free game. And the sooner the players start taking care of themselves again and not leave the fate into the hands of an opposition player who doesn't necessarily want to hurt them but don't want to lose the ball/game/his spot in the team the better off we will be again. Neale had two free arms and instead of bracing for impact decides it's a great idea to go head first into the turf to win a free kick, had he put his hands out he still likely gets the free kick but we aren't here talking about Laird getting a week.

I think the more its challenged and not accepted (whilst we have to accept the two motion sling I'm not saying there isn't a place for protection of players safety) the more chance of some actual change happening to the interpretation.

 

[jo172]

This "potential to cause injury" clause is a blight on the game.

It's a contact sport, every act, legal and illegal has the potential to cause injury.

Invites fantasising about the worst case scenario for every incident.

 

[BRL121]

Medium schmedium.

OTOH Neale should be fined for staging. You can see he angles his head down towards the ground just before impact (which he braces for with his free arm anyway. Not the first time he's gone "limp" in a tackle either.

I think we should challenge and go for a different outcome by attacking Neale for his contributing behaviour.

 

[BRL121]

With regard to the thread title, it depends how big your ass is.

 

[Moonwatcher]

The AFL have decided the head should not hit the ground with any force. Just accept the 1 week and move on.

 

[FR0GGY]

Suspending players for a“football act” where a player gets straight up is not where we want to be as a sport.
Buckley called neale out this morning and good on him.

 

[SugarShane]

I cringed as soon as I saw it that it was probably getting looked at. I don't like that it's a week, but it's more or less consistent with what we've seen cop a week this year. There have been countless other 1 weeker tackles this year that I've looked at and thought were ridiculous.

 

[El Doederino]

I don't even think the "potential to cause injury" exists in this one

Laird doesn't sling him to the ground. Its more of a careful rolling motion.

Neale's arms are free. He can put out his arms to protect his head. He doesn't do this.

It's debateable whether his head even hits the ground, so therefore the "high contact" grading could be challenged as well, if there is no contact.

 

[PeterSalt]

 

[cmndstab]

I've watched that tackle a few times now and I'm not convinced Neale's head even hits the ground.

 

[ams4crows]

Does that mean 4 players are now challenging their dangerous tackle suspensions this week??

The Laird and O'Meara ones are the most likely to get off but the Parker and Carlton one definitely won't get off

 

[StonesThrow]

I've watched that tackle a few times now and I'm not convinced Neale's head even hits the ground.

It touches the ground. Pretty obvious. Doesn't touch it with any force though.

Surely he gets done though given all the others? There have been loads of really poor examples of this so far. Soon we won't have many eligible for the Brownlow.

 

[Smoooothy]

I've watched that tackle a few times now and I'm not convinced Neale's head even hits the ground.

don't think that even matters anymore

 

[Mr_Moogle]

This "potential to cause injury" clause is a blight on the game.

It's a contact sport, every act, legal and illegal has the potential to cause injury.

Invites fantasising about the worst case scenario for every incident.

The league has an identity crises. It simultaneously wants to be able to market itself as a contact sport for hard cases, but also wants a safety record akin to tennis or some other non-contact sport. They need to pick a lane.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

You choose to bump your gone, you choose to tackle your gone. Does anyone know what the correct play is.
In Laird's case Neale couldn't get up quick enough for the free. Christian takes the easy way out as he knows there will be a challenge.

 

[ABAB]

I've watched that tackle a few times now and I'm not convinced Neale's head even hits the ground.

Maybe because his arm was free and used part of it to brace for the impact and draw the free........

 

[GameofSloanes]

don't think that even matters anymore

See macadam's suspension. Hit a bloke in the chest

 

[xjamescleanx]

You choose to bump your gone, you choose to tackle your gone. Does anyone know what the correct play is.
In Laird's case Neale couldn't get up quick enough for the free. Christian takes the easy way out as he knows there will be a challenge.

This... is an alternative to players ball watching for fear of missing a week, MUCH quicker whistles? Encouraging players to go the bear hug and quickly receive a free kick for HTB to beat defensive running. Rugby style?! I honestly don't know any more.

I hate being the boomer that's like "the game has gone soft" but Laird's tackle was even more solid than Pedlar's suspension.

 

[Jirkago75]

As if the AFL doesn’t have enough grey areas in the game, they come up with a new term “potential to injure” absolutely stupid. Now they can use that term and get away with anything. At least 2 years ago you knew if he was concussed, you are suspended. Now they have made new rules again that no one understands.
aFL should focus their energies on fixing this diabolical umpiring and work out what the hell holding the ball is instead of this s**t


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com