MRP Round 7 - Waite, Stevens suspended

[BruceFromBalnarring]

It's not about the action. It's about the length of time that force continues to be applied by the tackling player. Waite applied force all the way to the ground. That's why he was suspended. You can feel when you are tackling the point at which you as the tackling player have full control. You can feel the resistance disappear from the player being tackled. That's the point when he has completely lost balance. When I played we were encouraged to always continue to apply that force all the way to the ground. But back then, grounds weren't as rock hard as they are now.

 

[archereleven]

It's not about the action. It's about the length of time that force continues to be applied by the tackling player. Waite applied force all the way to the ground. That's why he was suspended. You can feel when you are tackling the point at which you as the tackling player have full control. You can feel the resistance disappear from the player being tackled. That's the point when he has completely lost balance. When I played we were encouraged to always continue to apply that force all the way to the ground. But back then, grounds weren't as rock hard as they are now.

Now and again you stumble on some absolute BF gold, and then you get posts like this...

Are you on the sauce bud?

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

It's not about the action. It's about the length of time that force continues to be applied by the tackling player. Waite applied force all the way to the ground. That's why he was suspended. You can feel when you are tackling the point at which you as the tackling player have full control. You can feel the resistance disappear from the player being tackled. That's the point when he has completely lost balance. When I played we were encouraged to always continue to apply that force all the way to the ground. But back then, grounds weren't as rock hard as they are now.

Lynch was already rotating to shoot for goal, Waite used the correct amount of force and even allowed lynch to protect himself with letting one arm go. The afl's issue was the concussion (the image) and the sling tackle motion (the image), despite lynch being at least partially at fault with both with not protecting himself with his free arm and the fact he was swinging about shooting for goal.


It is curious that the main ones really supporting the decision are swans posters.

 

[Orange Agent]

The GWS player that Stevens tackled could have used an arm to protect himself as well but chose to hang on to the ball instead which is why he got pinged for holding the ball, if he had just dropped the ball and braced himself it probably wouldn't have been a free kick and wouldn't have been a suspension.

He had one arm pinned and one arm holding onto the ball and at the same time was being spun in a tackle and into the turf. Im sure you'd love to see your players just cough up the ball to the opposition and drop it each time they are tackled, heard of the advantage rule?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Lynch was already rotating to shoot for goal, Waite used the correct amount of force and even allowed lynch to protect himself with letting one arm go. The afl's issue was the concussion (the image) and the sling tackle motion (the image), despite lynch being at least partially at fault with both with not protecting himself with his free arm and the fact he was swinging about shooting for goal.


It is curious that the main ones really supporting the decision are swans posters.

Waite sustained downward force right up until the player hit the ground. If you go back through these types of reports you'll see that's always been the point of difference for those that get suspended. Waite kicked 6 on the weekend. I'd have him playing because he'd be guaranteed to kick 0.6.

 

[Plugger35]

He had one arm pinned and one arm holding onto the ball and at the same time was being spun in a tackle and into the turf. Im sure you'd love to see your players just cough up the ball to the opposition and drop it each time they are tackled, heard of the advantage rule?

Well if you get caught in a tackle and can't get a handball away as one arm is pinned you have the option of either dropping/throwing the ball or hanging on to it with no arm free to protect yourself if you hit the ground.

If you choose to hang on to the ball and then get injured that's your fault and not the tacklers fault.

 

[Missing The 90s]

It's not about the action. It's about the length of time that force continues to be applied by the tackling player. Waite applied force all the way to the ground. That's why he was suspended. You can feel when you are tackling the point at which you as the tackling player have full control. You can feel the resistance disappear from the player being tackled. That's the point when he has completely lost balance. When I played we were encouraged to always continue to apply that force all the way to the ground. But back then, grounds weren't as rock hard as they are now.

Wow. Just wow.

The points I feel I should mention:

1- No one has ever been coached to release a tackle once they feel like a player is falling. Of course you should apply force all the way down to the ground. It's legal. Only isn't when there are two separate actions.

2- AFL grounds are way softer than they were years ago. Where are you getting your facts from?

3- You barrack for Sydney. Not surprised by your bias here. I assure all the normal Sydney fans that I will not judge you based on the ridiculous comments made by a couple of your posters in regards to this decision.

 

[archereleven]

Wow. Just wow.

The points I feel I should mention:

1- No one has ever been coached to release a tackle once they feel like a player is falling. Of course you should apply force all the way down to the ground. It's legal. Only isn't when there are two separate actions.

2- AFL grounds are way softer than they were years ago. Where are you getting your facts from?

3- You barrack for Sydney. Not surprised by your bias here. I assure all the normal Sydney fans that I will not judge you based on the ridiculous comments made by a couple of your posters in regards to this decision.

Not worth replying to MT90s... The bloke is either on the sauce big time or a dill...

 

[Plugger35]

Wow. Just wow.

The points I feel I should mention:

1- No one has ever been coached to release a tackle once they feel like a player is falling. Of course you should apply force all the way down to the ground. It's legal. Only isn't when there are two separate actions.

2- AFL grounds are way softer than they were years ago. Where are you getting your facts from?

3- You barrack for Sydney. Not surprised by your bias here. I assure all the normal Sydney fans that I will not judge you based on the ridiculous comments made by a couple of your posters in regards to this decision.

If you release the tackled player as they're falling they could get a handball away or bounce back to their feet and take off, coaches would really love that.

Alan Richardson said he told the Saints players at half time that the GWS players were breaking too many tackles so they needed to tackle more forcefully but then when a player like Stevens does just that he ends up getting rubbed out for a week.

No one wants to see players get injured but it's a tough contact sport where tackling is part of the game, if you don't like it then play a non contact sport.

 

[Orange Agent]

If you release the tackled player as they're falling they could get a handball away or bounce back to their feet and take off, coaches would really love that.

Alan Richardson said he told the Saints players at half time that the GWS players were breaking too many tackles so they needed to tackle more forcefully but then when a player like Stevens does just that he ends up getting rubbed out for a week.

No one wants to see players get injured but it's a tough contact sport where tackling is part of the game, if you don't like it then play a non contact sport.

Same logic. No coach would ever instruct a player to just drop the ball in a tackle and allow the opposition to run away with it. Stevens had the option to hold onto the player in the tackle as he no option to legally dispose of the ball but instead he chose to swing the player across his body and into the turf. So if his coach had instructed him to go out and king hit somebody because he felt the team needed it, you would use that instruction as a defence to his actions?

 

[Ry009]

Burke's reasoning on 'Bill and Boz' was both unsatisfactory and a bit unprofessional for an AFL employee.

He actually said he would like players to 'use their body weight'. Looking forward to the day when someone goes the 'Cobra Clutch' on a player bringing 100kg plus the own players weight, breaking their leg like a twig.

Don't think either tackle was worthy of suspension, and based on Burke's reasoning plenty of other players should be suspended.

All for player safety, but the MRP deserves a better investment of time and money, get rid of the flog who are treating it like a weekend paper delivery job for pocket money.

 

[MattyB_76]

Wow. Just wow.

The points I feel I should mention:

1- No one has ever been coached to release a tackle once they feel like a player is falling. Of course you should apply force all the way down to the ground. It's legal. Only isn't when there are two separate actions.

2- AFL grounds are way softer than they were years ago. Where are you getting your facts from?

3- You barrack for Sydney. Not surprised by your bias here. I assure all the normal Sydney fans that I will not judge you based on the ridiculous comments made by a couple of your posters in regards to this decision.

Bolded bit is not correct. Yes 2 separate actions is indicative of a dangerous tackle, but it can still be a dangerous tackle without 2 separate actions. The actual rule states (from the AFL Tribunal Booklet):

4.3 Reportable Offences
3. Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackles)
The application of a tackle may be considered Rough Conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence and whether the offence is Careless or Intentional, without limitation, regard may be had to the following factors, whether:
»»The tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether the Player being tackled is in possession of the ball;
»»The tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle or a tackle where a Player is lifted off the ground;
»»An opponent is slung or driven into the ground with excessive force.

The fact that Lynch suffered a concussion will almost guarantee the MRP deem the tackle excessive force, and hence the charge would be upheld.

People have also commented that Lynch had an arm free and could have prevented the head hitting the ground. In reality his right arm was free while his left side hit ground. Due to the reaction times of milliseconds we are talking about, it's unlikely any human being could protect their head with the opposite arm in that situation. Instinctively you may be able to lessen the impact if your arm is free on the side you are falling.

 

[Whiskers]

Free kick and suspension? That's just laughable and absolutely pathetic by the people who run this game.
There should be no confusion one way or the other.
Was it Murphy who got tackled with both arms pinned a couple of years ago and a huge fuss was made over it? Fair enough to but neither player on these occasions have both arms pinned and need to look after themselves better.
It's difficult but it's the nature of the sport. Everyone seems to have a responsibility for someone else but none for themselves.

 

[archereleven]

Bolded bit is not correct. Yes 2 separate actions is indicative of a dangerous tackle, but it can still be a dangerous tackle without 2 separate actions. The actual rule states (from the AFL Tribunal Booklet):

4.3 Reportable Offences
3. Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackles)
The application of a tackle may be considered Rough Conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence and whether the offence is Careless or Intentional, without limitation, regard may be had to the following factors, whether:
»»The tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether the Player being tackled is in possession of the ball;
»»The tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle or a tackle where a Player is lifted off the ground;
»»An opponent is slung or driven into the ground with excessive force.

The fact that Lynch suffered a concussion will almost guarantee the MRP deem the tackle excessive force, and hence the charge would be upheld.

People have also commented that Lynch had an arm free and could have prevented the head hitting the ground. In reality his right arm was free while his left side hit ground. Due to the reaction times of milliseconds we are talking about, it's unlikely any human being could protect their head with the opposite arm in that situation. Instinctively you may be able to lessen the impact if your arm is free on the side you are falling.

So, in you opinion, was it right for Waite to be suspended for that tackle?

 

[Whiskers]

Bolded bit is not correct. Yes 2 separate actions is indicative of a dangerous tackle, but it can still be a dangerous tackle without 2 separate actions. The actual rule states (from the AFL Tribunal Booklet):

4.3 Reportable Offences
3. Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackles)
The application of a tackle may be considered Rough Conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence and whether the offence is Careless or Intentional, without limitation, regard may be had to the following factors, whether:
»»The tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether the Player being tackled is in possession of the ball;
»»The tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle or a tackle where a Player is lifted off the ground;
»»An opponent is slung or driven into the ground with excessive force.

The fact that Lynch suffered a concussion will almost guarantee the MRP deem the tackle excessive force, and hence the charge would be upheld.

People have also commented that Lynch had an arm free and could have prevented the head hitting the ground. In reality his right arm was free while his left side hit ground. Due to the reaction times of milliseconds we are talking about, it's unlikely any human being could protect their head with the opposite arm in that situation. Instinctively you may be able to lessen the impact if your arm is free on the side you are falling.

Shouldn't Mumford be suspended in that case? Or are we just happy to use common sense sometimes even though the rule states that he was driven into the ground with excessive force, and other times throw common sense out of the window and go by the wording of the rules?

 

[archereleven]

Free kick and suspension? That's just laughable and absolutely pathetic by the people who run this game.
There should be no confusion one way or the other.
Was it Murphy who got tackled with both arms pinned a couple of years ago and a huge fuss was made over it? Fair enough to but neither player on these occasions have both arms pinned and need to look after themselves better.

If there is consistency with this ruling(flipping LOL), then im tipping 60-70 players rubbed out this season... Bring that down to 10-12 though, as its not the action that deems you to be suspended, its the outcome(but only sometimes ie. depends on player, club, who they play week after) #pluckaduc

 

[Plugger35]

Same logic. No coach would ever instruct a player to just drop the ball in a tackle and allow the opposition to run away with it. Stevens had the option to hold onto the player in the tackle as he no option to legally dispose of the ball but instead he chose to swing the player across his body and into the turf. So if his coach had instructed him to go out and king hit somebody because he felt the team needed it, you would use that instruction as a defence to his actions?

Don't be ridiculous, a coach asking players to tackle more forcefully is nowhere near the same thing as a coach asking players to king hit somebody.

One of the reasons Richardson asked the Saints players to tackle more forcefully is that our tackles weren't being rewarded with holding the ball free kicks in the first half with GWS players being allowed to drop/throw the ball or spin around in the tackle so the poor umpiring contributed to what happened.

Not that the AFL or the MRP would ever admit to that.

If there is consistency with this ruling(ruddy LOL), then im tipping 60-70 players rubbed out this season... Bring that down to 10-12 though, as its not the action that deems you to be suspended, its the outcome(but only sometimes ie. depends on player, club, who they play week after) #pluckaduc

Also what time the incident happens and the amount of media coverage it gets makes a difference to whether a suspension is handed down or not.

I'm sure the fact that Koby Stevens tackle happened on a Friday night with big FTA coverage and with the Ch7 commentators banging on about it with endless replays helped contribute to him being suspended, if the tackle happened in a Foxtel only Sunday game it probably wouldn't have been looked at.

Like some of the idiotic rules and interpretations there is no consistency with the MRP's decisions.

 

[MattyB_76]

So, in you opinion, was it right for Waite to be suspended for that tackle?

According to the rule I quoted, yes. Why have rules if they are not going to be enforced?

 

[MattyB_76]

Shouldn't Mumford be suspended in that case? Or are we just happy to use common sense sometimes even though the rule states that he was driven into the ground with excessive force, and other times throw common sense out of the window and go by the wording of the rules?

Yep, according to the rules I quoted. Surprised he wasn't.

You are talking about common sense, this amorphous concept that supports whatever argument you want it to at the time. Thing is common sense is different to different people. Nothing common about it. One guy thinks it's common sense to let people tackle hard and if an accident happens, bad luck. Another guy thinks is common sense to protect the head from injury.

I'm talking about black and white rules in a booklet.

I'd make it even more simple, you tackle someone and they get concussed, you get suspended. No arguments, no grey areas. You can go as hard as you want, but know there is a firm, clear, specific line at which you will get suspended.

 

[archereleven]

According to the rule I quoted, yes. Why have rules if they are not going to be enforced?

OK, thats a fair enough stance to take, but what about dangerous tackles that dont concuss someone? Are we trying to eliminate the action or do we only really care about the outcome? What if the tackle is perfectly legal and the tacklee gets knocked out? Surely we cant be suspending players that havnt broken any rules? The rules needs expanding on(which they wont as the AFL loves an out) to include the action and the outcome as separate entities...

Yep, according to the rules I quoted. Surprised he wasn't.

You are talking about common sense, this amorphous concept that supports whatever argument you want it to at the time. Thing is common sense is different to different people. Nothing common about it. One guy thinks it's common sense to let people tackle hard and if an accident happens, bad luck. Another guy thinks is common sense to protect the head from injury.

I'm talking about black and white rules in a booklet.

I'd make it even more simple, you tackle someone and they get concussed, you get suspended. No arguments, no grey areas. You can go as hard as you want, but know there is a firm, clear, specific line at which you will get suspended.

Its funny how you bring common sense up, as im yet to see any displayed on a week to week basis from the MRP or AFL for that matter. Should Charlie Cameron be suspended for his full blown stomach punch on Kayne Turner? What about Franklins jumper punch? Im sure there are rules about both kinds of incidents? Should the penalty only be a fine as was handed out? Is it a good look for the game having thuggery accepted and a bit of bad luck punished? Not sure i can accept the MRP/AFL's stance on this...

Do you think the tackles by Tex Walker and Matt Crouch deserved a week? They are eerily similar to the Waite/Stevens tackles but the NM players were able to brace impact with their free arm thus avoiding a near certain concussion? Is the outcome more important than the action? Is Lynch more prone to concussions, does he have less awareness than the average player? Lots to consider...

As long as we are on the subject, and talking about firm, clear, specific lines, if a knee to the back of the head can knock you out should players that take a mark that way be scrutinised? Whats the difference compared to a bump/tackle? Both can have exactly the same out come?

Its an interesting discussion. I personally dont think there was anything wrong with Waites tackle, i think sometimes in a contact sport, players just get hurt. A series of events occur out of every ones control which leads to the demise of a certain player. However, if Mumford had of been given a week for his tackle on Liberatore, i can see the sense in Waite getting a week.

Heres how i see the incident btw- Lynch was trying to get boot to ball and while doing so throws his body to the left in order to get decent contact. His free arm was preoccupied in controlling the ball to boot which didnt allow time for any impact bracing. Waite dropped his knees as soon as he gets hold of him, then slightly rolls him to avoid falling into his back. There was no malice and imho there was no excessive force used. It was combination of events as explained above. How did you see it?

What were Waites options? Please explain. Thanks.

 

[MattyB_76]

I'll try and keep this brief.

For those people who want to TLDR,

I only care about outcome,. Cameron should have got a game, Crouch's tackle was different, Waite had other options, but you'll disagree with me based on your already established opinion.

OK, thats a fair enough stance to take, but what about dangerous tackles that dont concuss someone? Are we trying to eliminate the action or do we only really care about the outcome? What if the tackle is perfectly legal and the tacklee gets knocked out? Surely we cant be suspending players that havnt broken any rules? The rules needs expanding on(which they wont as the AFL loves an out) to include the action and the outcome as separate entities...

No one gets injured, I don't care. someone gets injured due to a 3rd player's foot/knee; etc being in the way, I can accept that as an accident.

The issue is the rules don't actually state that they will punish on the the outcome. They only state the action, but the MRP penalises on the outcome.

Its funny how you bring common sense up, as im yet to see any displayed on a week to week basis from the MRP or AFL for that matter. Should Charlie Cameron be suspended for his full blown stomach punch on Kayne Turner? What about Franklins jumper punch? Im sure there are rules about both kinds of incidents? Should the penalty only be a fine as was handed out? Is it a good look for the game having thuggery accepted and a bit of bad luck punished? Not sure i can accept the MRP/AFL's stance on this...

I didn't actually bring it up I was responding to someone else, but nonetheless. Charlie Cameron should have been suspended. I'm surprised it was graded low impact. Medium would have seen him get a game.

Jumper punches aren't magically legal. Most jumper punches are deemed below the force required to constitute a charge.

Do you think the tackles by Tex Walker and Matt Crouch deserved a week? They are eerily similar to the Waite/Stevens tackles but the NM players were able to brace impact with their free arm thus avoiding a near certain concussion? Is the outcome more important than the action? Is Lynch more prone to concussions, does he have less awareness than the average player? Lots to consider...

Can't recall the Walker tackle, but (Brad) Crouch's tackle didn't hurt the Atley. Atley was able to brace himself because he was tackled from the side and brought down facing the ground.

Does Lynch have less awareness? Not sure anyone has enough awareness to do anything other than put an arm out or down. We're talking about instinctive reactions to being off balance. Really just depends on the luck of the way you are facing wen you hit the ground.

As long as we are on the subject, and talking about firm, clear, specific lines, if a knee to the back of the head can knock you out should players that take a mark that way be scrutinised? Whats the difference compared to a bump/tackle? Both can have exactly the same out come?

Feel free to bring in every possible discussion into this topic, but knees in heads in marking competitions worry me too. But there is no rule against it.

Scott Stevens nearly had his career ended when Luck McPharlin ran back with the flight of the ball with 2 knees in the air attempting to spoil. Been worried about knees in heads since then.

Heres how i see the incident btw- Lynch was trying to get boot to ball and while doing so throws his body to the left in order to get decent contact. His free arm was preoccupied in controlling the ball to boot which didnt allow time for any impact bracing. Waite dropped his knees as soon as he gets hold of him, then slightly rolls him to avoid falling into his back. There was no malice and imho there was no excessive force used. It was combination of events as explained above. How did you see it?

I saw it as Lynch's left hand had the ball and he was trying to handball across to Betts with his free hand. The rest of that paragraph is opinion (you literally say "in my opinion"). You say he rolled him slightly to avoid landing on his back, I say he rolls him at least 180 degrees from facing the centre circle to the far side fwd pocket.

What were Waites options?

Always a loaded question. You'll respond by saying he had no other options. But Waite could have tackled without twisting Lynch or drop his knees=>drop TO his knees and pull lynch down.

The issue is we were always taught to play hard, and if you have a chance to hurt someone legally then do it. Hopefully the coaches are now saying if you have a chance to hurt them legally, then do it, but don't hit their head on the ground.

 

[archereleven]

I'll try and keep this brief.

For those people who want to TLDR,

I only care about outcome,. Cameron should have got a game, Crouch's tackle was different, Waite had other options, but you'll disagree with me based on your already established opinion.

Im not going to disagree based on an established opinion, im going to disagree because i have witnessed over the past 35 years 1000's of similar tackles where both players got up and played the game out. The tackles which injure are mostly accidents. Maybe we'll start seeing tacklers suspended whenever any injury occurs, i mean, why not?

No one gets injured, I don't care. someone gets injured due to a 3rd player's foot/knee; etc being in the way, I can accept that as an accident.

So accidents can only occur according to you if by 3rd party involvement. Why cant an accident occur between tackler and tacklee, or are we living in an age where someone needs to pay no matter what? Should Lindsay Thomas have been suspended for breaking Gary Rohan's leg a few years ago? I know, loaded question with LT lol

If a sling tackle is performed but the tacklee isnt injured you dont care? So, the action shouldnt be punishable just the outcome? That is the staus quo anyway.

The issue is the rules don't actually state that they will punish on the the outcome. They only state the action, but the MRP penalises on the outcome.

Everyone knows this, unless its star players or Sydney teams. Of course no one can challenge the penalty in a meaningful way, as they will not allow precedent at the tribunal, which is very handy for upholding previous decisions. The grading system gives the MRP any desired result they need, just decide the penalty and work back.

I didn't actually bring it up I was responding to someone else, but nonetheless. Charlie Cameron should have been suspended. I'm surprised it was graded low impact. Medium would have seen him get a game.

Agree.

Jumper punches aren't magically legal. Most jumper punches are deemed below the force required to constitute a charge.

So as long as players dont lose teeth etc, jumper punch the shit out of each other? Not sure its a good look for the game tbh.

Can't recall the Walker tackle, but (Brad) Crouch's tackle didn't hurt the Atley. Atley was able to brace himself because he was tackled from the side and brought down facing the ground.

The Walker tackle was on Hansen. Hansen was able to just get his arm down to protect himself, however, it was very, very close and could of been career ending as Loogie has had 6 odd concussions in his career to date. I cant remember anyone getting rubbed out for any of them either btw

Does Lynch have less awareness? Not sure anyone has enough awareness to do anything other than put an arm out or down. We're talking about instinctive reactions to being off balance. Really just depends on the luck of the way you are facing wen you hit the ground.

Of course players can have less awareness. Kosczitche(spelling?), Leigh Adams, Lachie Hansen etc Concussions ended the two former players career and Hansen is one more away from retirement himself.
We are talking about instinctive actions to tackling. Really just depends on the luck of the way your opponent is facing and which way you try and get him to the ground. Without malicious intent, its all down to a series of events that contribute to the demise of a certain player, nothing more.

Feel free to bring in every possible discussion into this topic, but knees in heads in marking competitions worry me too. But there is no rule against it.

Scott Stevens nearly had his career ended when Luck McPharlin ran back with the flight of the ball with 2 knees in the air attempting to spoil. Been worried about knees in heads since then.

These are just accidents or incidental contact if you will. I would stop watching if they outlawed this.

I saw it as Lynch's left hand had the ball and he was trying to handball across to Betts with his free hand. The rest of that paragraph is opinion (you literally say "in my opinion"). You say he rolled him slightly to avoid landing on his back, I say he rolls him at least 180 degrees from facing the centre circle to the far side fwd pocket.

So, you dont believe Lynch was trying to kick the ball? WOW.

Always a loaded question. You'll respond by saying he had no other options. But Waite could have tackled without twisting Lynch or drop his knees=>drop TO his knees and pull lynch down.

Of course there are different options, but unless you are going in with the intent to knock someone out, it really is just an accident. I think Lynch's attempt at kicking the ball is the prime reason why the tackle ended the way it did. Again, JMO.

The issue is we were always taught to play hard, and if you have a chance to hurt someone legally then do it. Hopefully the coaches are now saying if you have a chance to hurt them legally, then do it, but don't hit their head on the ground.

Jarrad Waite didnt go into the tackle with intent to do anything but stop a goal. Again, my opinion

Dont know how to wrap text in quotes like you did lol

 

[MattyB_76]

Dont know how to wrap text in quotes like you did lol

You need to type the tags for /QUOTE and QUOTE (wrapped in square brackets) at the end and start of each section you're quoting.

As for the discussion, I'm not going to change your opinion, so let's just leave it there.

 

[archereleven]

You need to type the tags for /QUOTE and QUOTE (wrapped in square brackets) at the end and start of each section you're quoting.

As for the discussion, I'm not going to change your opinion, so let's just leave it there.

Fair enough, although im not expecting anyone to change my opinion, im just interested in other thoughts, how they see things and how they come to hold the opinions they do. Its just discussion. For instance-

Now the sliding rule has been added(when it actually gets enforced) i wonder what would happen if another Lindsay Thomas/Gary Rohan incident did come up? Suspension, or would the AFL world just call it bad luck and move on? Its very interesting imo.

Cheers

 

[Whiskers]

Yep, according to the rules I quoted. Surprised he wasn't.

You are talking about common sense, this amorphous concept that supports whatever argument you want it to at the time. Thing is common sense is different to different people. Nothing common about it. One guy thinks it's common sense to let people tackle hard and if an accident happens, bad luck. Another guy thinks is common sense to protect the head from injury.

I'm talking about black and white rules in a booklet.

I'd make it even more simple, you tackle someone and they get concussed, you get suspended. No arguments, no grey areas. You can go as hard as you want, but know there is a firm, clear, specific line at which you will get suspended.

That's a good response.
What we know is that the MRP don't always go by the rule book so I find it futile quoting their rules because they don't even use it or can throw it out the window when it suits. What they use is their version of 'common sense'
I guess my common sense and the MRP's is completely different and it frustrates me no end.
I am sure they have this rule because Murphy got sling tackled a few years ago with both arms pinned.
Neither of these players had both arms pinned and in Waite's instance it is not even a sling. So now we just have 'dangerous tackle' is deemed suspendable and dangerous tackle is open to interpretation.
The open interpretation is so ridiculously bad that an umpire sees a free kick and someone else has the power to suspend that same player.
Gil needs to sort this crap out, no one has got any idea. I blame his complete ineptness something like this can happen.

Fish rots at the head, and the rules are rot.