MRP “medium impact” my ass!

[cmndstab]

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.

I mean, he is lying down at the end of the tackle so of course his head ends up on the ground afterwards. But I don't think it hits the ground during the tackle, does it?

0% chance he gets off, though. The MRP have made it clear that they simply will not budge on this issue. You get cited, you get games, full stop. Still worth making a stand and challenging it though.

 

[adelaidecrows]

I guess the view of the AFL is that its only luck injuries didn't occur. There is no need for the grading though. Just call it an illegal tackle which carries a mandatory 1 match suspension. The inconsistency with the grading system means that Laird could effectively get the same suspension to someone who actually injures the other player. So are they saying its a mandatory minimum of 2 matches for that tackle plus injury? To me I don't think they have been consistent enough on that if thats what they are saying.

 

[Betts are off]

I mean, he is lying down at the end of the tackle so of course his head ends up on the ground afterwards. But I don't think it hits the ground during the tackle, does it?

0% chance he gets off, though. The MRP have made it clear that they simply will not budge on this issue. You get cited, you get games, full stop. Still worth making a stand and challenging it though.

I hope the clubs keep disputing everything. Surely it would be costing the AFL an absolute boatload to keep processing, and reprocessing all these hearings right?

 

[ams4crows]

I hope the clubs keep disputing everything. Surely it would be costing the AFL an absolute boatload to keep processing, and reprocessing all these hearings right?

The clubs pay for it 5k every time for an appeal

 

[rabidcrow]

I don’t think he has any chance of getting off unfortunately. Thought on replay he was done and that seems to be the case.

The AFL are cracking down on these tackles and unlikely any of the 4 tonight get off - similar to the previous 16


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[ams4crows]

Perhaps all the clubs are fed up with their star players missing a week for a basic tackle particularly the ones where the player gets straight up plays out the game and at no point comes off for a HIA.


AFL needs a can only be 1 week if a HIA is performed, these tackles that a player gets straight up and takes their kick and doesn't even come off are stupid and ruining the game.

Imagine missing a Grandfinal because of a tackle like Laird's!!

 

[Mutineer]

Parker decision upheld out for 1 week. Returns Round 13.

 

[Cromulent]

Tribunal is underway for anyone interested:

Arena App

Sports are more fun when you chat in the moment.

go.arena.im

Parker’s ban was upheld. Cerra currently in progress, then onto Laird.

 

[ams4crows]

Parker decision upheld out for 1 week. Returns Round 13.

I think they'll all be upheld unfortunately

 

[CrowinNT]

I mean, he is lying down at the end of the tackle so of course his head ends up on the ground afterwards. But I don't think it hits the ground during the tackle, does it?

0% chance he gets off, though. The MRP have made it clear that they simply will not budge on this issue. You get cited, you get games, full stop. Still worth making a stand and challenging it though.

I agree totally

 

[Banrock]

The AFL have outlined why they upheld Parker's tackle.

Flynn (AFL): It's inevitable this tackle constitutes rough conduct. It was an inherently dangerous tackle in circumstances where Walsh's arm was pinned. He was unable to put his hand out to stop his head making contact with the ground.

Given Neale had his arm free (albeit holding the ball), and he chose to hold on to the ball instead of putting his hand out to stop his head making contact with the ground, then surely the AFL cannot contradict itself in upholding Lairds ban.

It is the AFL after all so their duplicity knows no bounds as long as they get the outcome they want.

 

[FR0GGY]

It won’t happen but I would love to see Rory laird

29

Rory Laird

Age

30

Ht

177cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

25.4

5star

K

12.9

5star

HB

12.5

5star

M

5.4

5star

T

2.3

4star

CL

1.0

3star

D

19.6

5star

K

10.9

4star

HB

8.7

4star

M

3.4

3star

T

2.4

3star

CL

1.1

3star

D

14.6

4star

K

7.4

3star

HB

7.2

5star

M

3.2

4star

T

4.0

5star

CL

0.4

3star

announce he’s quitting the game after his suspension is upheld.

 

[George Kramer]

The AFL have outlined why they upheld Parker's tackle.

Flynn (AFL): It's inevitable this tackle constitutes rough conduct. It was an inherently dangerous tackle in circumstances where Walsh's arm was pinned. He was unable to put his hand out to stop his head making contact with the ground.

Given Neale had his arm free (albeit holding the ball), and he chose to hold on to the ball instead of putting his hand out to stop his head making contact with the ground, then surely the AFL cannot contradict itself in upholding Lairds ban.

It is the AFL after all so their duplicity knows no bounds as long as they get the outcome they want.

Of course it can, it’s given themselves an out at the end, they’ve clearly worded it knowing the Laird case was coming up:

 

[John Who]

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'.

The issue how I see it is that they’re confusing the terms between “medium/high impact” and “potential to cause injury”.

Firstly, “potential to cause injury” is a vague phrase where each and every act in contact sport could be labelled as such. Even a “kick in danger” which is often a free against, could be “potential to cause serious injury”, but it will not incur a suspension, even if less potential for injury than a tackle such as in this case with Laird and various other tackles during this year.

Secondly, “medium impact” is more a medical term, and shouldn’t be decided on a layman’s view. Kind of like, “how bad was his concussion?” Well that’s up to the onfield medicos to decide. Shouldn’t be up to the MRP who is just watching a video without any records of any physical assessments.

Another way of questioning the “medium impact verdict”, is if we use this case as a baseline for “medium impact”, then how should we view “minor impact”? Because it’s kind of illogical to have any other forms of severity impact, that’s better than a player getting up and playing on without hindrance.

Any lawyers out there want to argue with the above?

 

[pjcrows]

The AFL make it up as they go and interpretations are deliberately obscure. Have done so for years. It's just now very, very obvious.

 

[John Who]

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.

Basically, their use of “potential to cause injury” is an excuse for them to fine whoever the * they want to fine.

They’re not thinking it through in terms of the repercussions of how players can be confused in terms of how to play the game, and how fans might be disgruntled with the game. It’s just a random mess without any ounce of objectivity with the “potential to cause injury” BS.

 

[Dirty Bird]

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

But it had the potential to

 

[Geoffa32]

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.

Looking forward to the day a player kicks the ball and it hits an opponents head (falcon) and the kicker is suspended by the MRO.


Medium level impact, strong well drilled kick, with potential to cause injury...

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[El Doederino]

Looking forward to the day a player kicks the ball and it hits an opponents head (falcon) and the kicker is suspended by the MRO.


Medium level impact, strong well drilled kick, with potential to cause injury...

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Wasn't there a free kick paid for that in our game on the weekend?

 

[FR0GGY]

Wasn't there a free kick paid for that in our game on the weekend?

Kicking in danger

 

[ams4crows]

Kicking in danger

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

 

[Danger Zone]

Could an umpire get suspended for accidentally bouncing the ball into a player? Could hit the head. Potential to cause injury there.

Joking aside, this stuff has gotten way out of hand and all it has led to are more issues with players looking for frees rather than less concussions. Can turn a free against (for HTB) into a free for (dangerous tackle) by putting a bit of mayo on it.

 

[FR0GGY]

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 haven’t heard of that part of the rule before.

 

[ams4crows]

I haven’t heard of that part of the rule before.

I'm not sure if it's true I had just never seen it paid before by a ball not on the ground.

 

[George Kramer]

Exactly