MRP “medium impact” my ass!

[dplggr47]

Great decision. If you demonstrate a duty of care to your opponent in the tackle then you get off. If you don’t you rightly get pinged.

Hope this sends a message to all players in all grades

Yup. Don't pin the arm.
The player being tackled also has some responsibilty to themselves. If they have an arm free, they can brace for contact with the ground. Neale could've also let the ball go or dispose of it.

Previously, players were ducking and dropping their bodies to get head high frees. Umpires stopped paying those frees and majority of players have stopped doing it (intentionally). If umpires started paying these tackles as free kicks for the tackler, then maybe players would try harder to dispose of it, rather than hold onto the ball and hope for the free kick of head high.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Great decision. If you demonstrate a duty of care to your opponent in the tackle then you get off. If you don’t you rightly get pinged.

Hope this sends a message to all players in all grades

Hope it sends a message to the MRO!

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

View attachment 1700870

Christian, take note next time you are assessing incidents.

 

[BRL121]

Great decision. If you demonstrate a duty of care to your opponent in the tackle then you get off. If you don’t you rightly get pinged.

Hope this sends a message to all players in all grades

Next, we need the umps to take this on board and not give knee-jerk frees in weak cases.

 

[Redleg Crow]

For me the crucial bit is arms pinned when slung. Neale clearly had the ability to use his arm to lessen impact

 

[Stepover]

F***ing Americanisms. We have arses. They have asses.

On SM-A115F using BigFooty.com mobile app

An ass is a donkey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chrisso crow]

I'm pretty sure that rule the ball needed to be on the ground but this ball was mid air when kicked? I was pretty confused by it

I think it applies to anytime a player kicks the ball when not in possession, whether it be off the ground or in mid-air.

The point is the player 'in danger' is not anticipating the 'kicker' kicking it so is in a vulnerable position and not in self preservation mode, hence it's dangerous.

That's my take on it anyway.

 

[Rotayjay]

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

There is a very old saying: volenti non fit injuria ('to one who is willing, no harm is done').

 

[MarcusP2]

There is a very old saying: volenti non fit injuria ('to one who is willing, no harm is done').

So long as it's within the typical playing of the game. There is a limit.

 

[ftmch]

Well done crows for challenging. Not just this one but the others this year regardless of results.
Finally sticking up for ourselves instead of just taking it from the AFL

Still reckon we should have challenged Peds' suspension. That was unadulterated bollocks.

 

[baldandbroke]

Surely the base they need to start referring to is the HIA.

The doctor decides if there is potential to cause injury on the day. They look at everything and make the call.

If they tackled player had no HIA done, then develops concussion symptoms … they should be fined.

Really want to show you care about concussions … don’t be scared to do HIAs because they take a player out of action for 20 minutes!!

Increase the bench, 6 players active on the bench would be great. Would extend players careers.

 

[FR0GGY]

Surely the outcome has to dictate the suspension (or no suspension) then multiply it if the action is a non football action such a as a punch or a (now defunct) bump
Players getting suspended for another player bouncing up with a smile on his face is peak stupidity.

 

[baldandbroke]

Surely the outcome has to dictate the suspension (or no suspension) then multiply it if the action is a non football action such a as a punch or a (now defunct) bump
Players getting suspended for another player bouncing up with a smile on his face is peak stupidity.

Like it.

 

[FR0GGY]

Like it.

Something like this was what I came up with a year ago
Not sure it still works with this tackling thing they’ve brought in.

Solve it all by a simple table
0 for accident
1 for wreckless
2 for intentional

Multiply it by

1 Uninjured
2 Injured

Something like that
Means that football accidents can’t get weeks but stupid acts get something (might need to fix up the intentional punch bit down to 1 week)

 

[Punchy Bassett]

Now that he's rightly got off, can we focus on Neale and how often he's doing this at the moment?

 

[Crow till I die]

Something like this was what I came up with a year ago
Not sure it still works with this tackling thing they’ve brought in.

Solve it all by a simple table
0 for accident
1 for wreckless
2 for intentional

Multiply it by

1 Uninjured
2 Injured

Something like that
Means that football accidents can’t get weeks but stupid acts get something (might need to fix up the intentional punch bit down to 1 week)

Just think, go back over Cotchin's career and this is the value that has been applied by the MRO and tribunal every time

Accident (0) x Injured (2) - 0x2 = 0 weeks. You are free to snipe...oops i mean play Mr Cotchin

 

[John Who]

While I’m glad he got off, they’ve now introduced probably the biggest grey area we have ever had in terms of suspension.
Tackling someone has a large percentage of outcome based upon what the person being tackled does, how are you as a tackler supposed to take this into account?
Bumping is easy, you chose to bump (and there is a choice) and get the head it’s your responsibility.
A player doesn’t have a reasonable choice to do anything other than tackle and then the outcome is then governed by the person being tackled and the tackler and the length unto which the umpire decides to blow the whistle.

It’s a contact sport there will be head contact, they need to accept this like a knee to the head in a marking contest, it’s just a football action accident.
Sanity prevails this time but it’s just made it more complicated.

This is a very good post that I can say we’ve finally can come to some sort of agreement!

The way the tackle penalties are being adjudicated, a player has to go through some mental calculations if going for a tackle:

• should I try to drag him down or swing him?
• how much force should I apply with my size and his?
• too little force I might look like a wuss and he breaks my tackle easily
• too much force I might bring him down too hard and some chance to knock his head and I might have to hear from Christian
• if I swing, at what angle and how much angular momentum to avoid any head contact to the ground?

All those running thoughts above to be calculated in a literal split second, while chasing your glutes off. Yeah, that’s a reasonable expectation..

 

[John Who]

Now that he's rightly got off, can we focus on Neale and how often he's doing this at the moment?

I don’t think you can say Neale is the only one who is milking it when he gets the chance to get a free. I’ve seen it many times by other players to expect this to happen again and again. Selwood probably one of the biggest milker of them all.

The onus should be by the MRP/tribunal to have some reasonable common sense, or at the very least get the definitions right when determining a penalty. Ideally, they should also fine or suspend the player who acts up to help deter these unfair suspensions.

 

[Carmo]

We should rest Laird this week just to troll the MRO

 

[beartoo]

An ass is a donkey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I know. It's also an American arse.

On SM-A115F using BigFooty.com mobile app