Nic Nats Report: Tribunal - Still pathetic/soft/inconsistent

[Sweet Jesus]

Come on, it is not that hard to understand:

He needs to find a tackling technique that does not involve leaping forward (off his feet) and using his momentum and weight to drive the opponent to ground and then land of top of him. He needs to control that where he lands is not on top of his opponent. So no flying tackles that carry the opponent forward.

If he lands in the opponent's back, then a free kick will be paid, as it was in this case.

But the standard for suspending him is presumably higher than that.

It can't be a direct link from "landing in his opponent's back" to "getting rubbed out for a dangerous tackle". There is a difference between the two.

 

[RookiePick]

The Rule/Interpretation is as follows:

Rough Conduct: Dangerous Tackles
"Players's when tackling should not lift, sling, rotate or drive their opponents into the ground with excessive force, resulting in the head region being left in a vulnerable position."

First determination: is was the player lifted, slung, rotated or driven into the ground in a tackle? Yes, he was driven forward in the tackle.

Second determination: was the head region left in a vulnerable position? Yes, he was driven head first into the ground.

Third determination: was there excessive force? Yes

It is not common to see reports for driving tackles, most that fall under dangerous tackles are slinging or lifting tackles, you generally need a significant amount of momentum or a fairly large size/mass difference to drive an opposition player.

As to your question, the answer would be it would depend on if the head was in a vulnerable position or not, assuming the other factors were the same. You are just far less likely for a tackle to be dangerous if you rotate a player, as the head typically isn't left in a vulnerable position. The MRP/Tribunal is more likely to determine that in that scenario the tackler did everything in their power to prevent an injury and it was unforeseeable that an injury could occur.



You mean if he turns him or if he did the exact same tackle without it being in the back? Rough conduct is when prohibited contact is excessive or unreasonable in those circumstances. Permitted physical contact is allowed in a tackle when the tackle is legal, rough conduct applies when a tackle is illegal and contact is prohibited, so if a tackle is legal and not dangerous, the force applied in a tackle, even if excessive doesn't constitute rough conduct... according to the rules the AFL has printed out, but these are subject to "interpretations" ie, dangerous tackle doesn't exist in the AFL's rules of the game, it is an AFL interpretation. You generally can't be suspended for being too big or too large when applying legal tackles, bumps or shepherds. Some players like Mumford and my club's Preuss have completely monstered smaller opposition in fair tackles and bumps.

We get inconsistencies because these interpretations which aren't in the rules aren't consistently applied or they can change quite dramatically based on the "mood" or "look". The rules themselves do not often change.



It wouldn't be a free kick, and shouldn't be considered rough conduct.



As far as I am aware, and as it is written in the rules, a tackle needs to be illegal (or dangerous) for rough conduct to apply. Ie, a spear tackle is technically legal in the rules, it is an interpretation of it being dangerous that makes it illegal.



Rough conduct relates to excessive force in those circumstances, they would have to take into consideration his size and velocity to determine if the force was excessive. It wouldn't have been an issue if the tackle was legal and not dangerous. You have big guys steamrolling smaller blokes every game.



Umpires sometimes make mistakes and it is difficult for them to determine if something is excessive during the flow of play, generally speaking you shouldn't get reported or suspended for a legal and safe tackle, however, there is a lack of consistency in terms of applying the same metrics across the board. If the AFL used a precedence system and only ever changed precedence when the rule of law changed, the AFL would be more careful with their rulings and then would be forced into consistency through precedence. AFL doesn't like precedence because they can't make s**t up on the fly like they can atm, like all these knee-jerk reaction interpretations they make mid-season.



NN would have most likely avoided the size/power determination if the tackle was legal and not dangerous, given the tackle was illegal they went straight into testing for rough conduct factors.

They change the process a few years ago, it should be fairly simple but they have botched it with the interpretations and the lack of precedence, they players should get the AFLPA to really insist that they implement a precedence system. If NN's one week was a precedent, then there would be a lot of suspensions. NN's case isn't really the problem, however, you can guarantee that there will be numerous incidents that occur which tick the same boxes that wont draw suspensions. That is the problem.

TAS. I like you as a poster but this is a very long waffle that is full of s**t. If Amon didnt land on the footy odds are he doesnt hit his head on the deck.

 

[Boston tiger]

I'd suggest that pertains specifically to spear tackles. All Naitanui did was hit Amon hard and carry him forward. Otherwise you could say any tackle that brings a player to ground involves a "driving" motion.

Suggest away

This how it went down

Rough Conduct: Dangerous Tackles

"Players's when tackling should not lift, sling, rotate or drive their opponents into the ground with excessive force, resulting in the head region being left in a vulnerable position."

First determination: is was the player lifted, slung, rotated or driven into the ground in a tackle? Yes, he was driven forward in the tackle.

Second determination: was the head region left in a vulnerable position? Yes, he was driven head first into the ground.

Third determination: was there excessive force? Yes

 

[Sweet Jesus]

First determination: is was the player lifted, slung, rotated or driven into the ground in a tackle? Yes, he was driven forward in the tackle.

So if you carry a player forward and bring them to ground, that's now "driving" and therefore illegal?

Second determination: was the head region left in a vulnerable position? Yes, he was driven head first into the ground.

Amon wasn't driven "headfirst into the ground". That's bullshit. He was carried forward, taken to ground, then hit his head on the turf after he landed. To describe it as being "driven headfirst into the ground" suggests a spear tackle, which it wasn't. He was bowled over and taken to ground. That's not the same as being "driven headfirst".

Third determination: was there excessive force? Yes

What constitutes "excessive force"?

 

[kaiserchief13]

Suggest away

This how it went down

Rough Conduct: Dangerous Tackles

"Players's when tackling should not lift, sling, rotate or drive their opponents into the ground with excessive force, resulting in the head region being left in a vulnerable position."

First determination: is was the player lifted, slung, rotated or driven into the ground in a tackle? Yes, he was driven forward in the tackle.

Second determination: was the head region left in a vulnerable position? Yes, he was driven head first into the ground.

Third determination: was there excessive force? Yes

Cotchin incident

1. Slung
2. Head first
3. Unknown

Result no case to answer

 

[Admiral Byng]

If he lands in the opponent's back, then a free kick will be paid, as it was in this case.

But the standard for suspending him is presumably higher than that.

It can't be a direct link from "landing in his opponent's back" to "getting rubbed out for a dangerous tackle". There is a difference between the two.

It is both a free kick, and a report. According to the current rules (since 2017) it ticks all three boxes for a reportable offence. Driving tackle. Head was left vulnerable and hit the ground, force was excessive by definition because the tackled opponent was concussed.

It is a bit of a case of the outcome determines the severity of the report, but that is a separate discussion.

As the rules stand today it ticks all the boxes for a report.

 

[Boston tiger]

Cotchin incident

1. Slung
2. Head first
3. Unknown

Result no case to answer

Probably excessive force saved him . Don’t know and don’t care.
We are so far at the bottom of the free kick ladder that I don’t analyse Richmond’s transgressions too much.

 

[Tas]

TAS. I like you as a poster but this is a very long waffle that is full of s**t. If Amon didnt land on the footy odds are he doesnt hit his head on the deck.

I was just going through the rules and the interpretations as the AFL has provided them, that wasn't opinion.

The tackle was illegal, it was in the back.
It was a dangerous tackle as it was driving him forward head first.
His head was in a vulnerable position, he had no opportunity to protect himself.
The force was excessive in the circumstance: He was concussed as the consequence of the dangerous tackle.
That is rough conduct, he is just lucky that it no longer equates to being considered high any longer automatically, as he would be sitting out for 4 weeks like Ziebell did a few times.

You can get your crystal ball out and try to figure out what might have happened had the ball not been under him or whatever, but I can only go by the video evidence and the current rules/interpretations.

Do I agree with the rules/interpretations? Not really, but if we don't have a strict control of forceful head injuries the sport is going to get crucified with law suits in the future. If we are very strict on head impact we can say we did everything humanly possible to reduce head trauma and the rest of the risk players had agreed to. We do not want to fall under the negligent legal definition, otherwise we will get crucified.

Honestly, if NN is tackled like that multiple times a game every week for the rest of the year, he will be a vegetable before the season is done. If it was a legal tackle I would defend him to the ends of the earth.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It is both a free kick, and a report.

Free kick sure. If it's a report, then that case must be made separately. Was the action itself illegal, above and beyond the push in the back?

The AFL had to make an absurd argument about weight differential to make that case.

According to the current rules (since 2017) it ticks all three boxes for a reportable offence. Driving tackle.

What does that even mean? If you carry a player forward and bring them to ground, that's now "driving" and therefore illegal?

"Driving" pertains to a spear tackle, which this wasn't.

You are allowed to carry a player forward in a tackle. You are also allowed to bring them to ground. If it's a push in the back, then a free kick will be paid. But carrying a player forward - or "driving" - and bringing them to ground doesn't automatically make a tackle reportable.

Head was left vulnerable and hit the ground, force was excessive by definition because the tackled opponent was concussed.

These are both nebulous.

What does it mean for "the head to be left vulnerable"? Sure, if the arms are pinned or there is a secondary slinging motion, that would apply. But there was neither of those.

Naitanui simply brought Amon to ground and his head hit the turf after landing. That would happen in dozens of tackles every weekend. But if the arms aren't pinned and there's no slinging motion, they don't get cited.

Equally, you can't say that force was "excessive by definition" simply because Amon was concussed. Does that mean that any tackle that leaves an opponent concussed, even if the tackle is otherwise legal, now gets cited because "the force was excessive by definition"?

We are creating several new standards here. Would you bet on them now being applied consistently?

It is a bit of a case of the outcome determines the severity of the report, but that is a separate discussion.

No it isn't.

Are we penalising the action or the outcome? That is central to the discussion, particularly in light of the Higgins/Burton incident.

The outcome didn't determine anything in that case, did it? Why is the reverse now true?

As the rules stand today it ticks all the boxes for a report.

Only if you go out of your way to tick those boxes to deliver a preferred outcome.

 

[Boston tiger]

So if you carry a player forward and bring them to ground, that's now "driving" and therefore illegal?

Amon wasn't driven "headfirst into the ground". That's bullshit. He was carried forward, taken to ground, then hit his head on the turf after he landed. To describe it as being "driven headfirst into the ground" suggests a spear tackle, which it wasn't. He was bowled over and taken to ground. That's not the same as being "driven headfirst".

What constitutes "excessive force"?

Ok . That’s better than saying they made up a rule on the spot.
Well done

 

[Admiral Byng]

Free kick sure. If it's a report, then that case must be made separately. Was the action itself illegal, above and beyond the push in the back?

The AFL had to make an absurd argument about weight differential to make that case.

What does that even mean? If you carry a player forward and bring them to ground, that's now "driving" and therefore illegal?

"Driving" pertains to a spear tackle, which this wasn't.

You are allowed to carry a player forward in a tackle. You are also allowed to bring them to ground. If it's a push in the back, then a free kick will be paid. But carrying a player forward - or "driving" - and bringing them to ground doesn't automatically make a tackle reportable.

These are both nebulous.

What does it mean for "the head to be left vulnerable"? Sure, if the arms are pinned or there is a secondary slinging motion, that would apply. But there was neither of those.

Naitanui simply brought Amon to ground and his head hit the turf after landing. That would happen in dozens of tackles every weekend. But if the arms aren't pinned and there's no slinging motion, they don't get cited.

Equally, you can't say that force was "excessive by definition" simply because Amon was concussed. Does that mean that any tackle that leaves an opponent concussed, even if the tackle is otherwise legal, now gets cited because "the force was excessive by definition"?

We are creating several new standards here. Would you bet on them now being applied consistently?

No it isn't.

Are we penalising the action or the outcome? That is central to the discussion, particularly in light of the Higgins/Burton incident.

The outcome didn't determine anything in that case, did it? Why is the reverse now true?

Only if you go out of your way to tick those boxes to deliver a preferred outcome.

LOL.

Life is much easier if you just go with the ordinary everyday meaning of words without the arguing to rearrange the definitions to suit your case.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The tackle was illegal, it was in the back.

That doesn't make it reportable.

It was a dangerous tackle as it was driving him forward head first.

It wasn't "headfirst". Amon landed on his torso, then hit his head subsequently.

In what universe is this "headfirst"? Maybe it's a bit like how "the arms were pinned"?

His head was in a vulnerable position, he had no opportunity to protect himself.

He did unless his arms were pinned, which they weren't.

The force was excessive in the circumstance: He was concussed as the consequence of the dangerous tackle.

So any concussion automatically equals "excessive force"?

We are therefore penalising the outcome, rather than the action.

Although that standard for some reason didn't apply to Higgins being concussed after Burton elected to bump him. It also didn't apply to Cotchin when he bumped Shiel and left him concussed. Why is that?

You can get your crystal ball out and try to figure out what might have happened had the ball not been under him or whatever, but I can only go by the video evidence and the current rules/interpretations.

Except for the part where you claimed he was "driven headfirst" when he wasn't. And claimed he couldn't protect himself despite his arms not being pinned.

Those are significant departures from what actually happened.

If we are very strict on head impact we can say we did everything humanly possible to reduce head trauma and the rest of the risk players had agreed to. We do not want to fall under the negligent legal definition, otherwise we will get crucified.

Well, we might start by citing Burton for bumping Higgins and suspending Mitchell for elbowing Goldstein in the head behind play. Or rubbing out Cotchin for bumping Shiel in the head and leaving him concussed.

So let's not pretend there's any consistent policy here.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Life is much easier if you just go with the ordinary everyday meaning of words without the arguing to rearrange the definitions to suit your case.

I've rebutted your post point by point and this is the lazy rubbish you offer?

Give me the specific example.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Ok . That’s better than saying they made up a rule on the spot.
Well done

They have applied some vaguely defined rules in an unprecedented way to deliver their preferred outcome.

A bit like when Barry Hall punched Matt Maguire "in play".

 

[Boston tiger]

They have applied some vaguely defined rules in an unprecedented way to deliver their preferred outcome.

A bit like when Barry Hall punched Matt Maguire "in play".

Won’t be his last he rekons he’s not going to change a thing. What a man

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Won’t be his last he rekons he’s not going to change a thing. What a man

Should Cotchin have been rubbed out when he hit Shiel in the head and forced him out of the PF with concussion?

Clearly excessive force given Shiel was concussed. Right?

 

[Tex9798]

..because it means the tackler now has to tackle you without forcing you forward.
Nit Nat over committed and was only interested in driving into the player as hard as he could.

Lol please, so you really think a player is thinking "if I turn around he can't tackle me as hard".

 

[Admiral Byng]

I've rebutted your post point by point and this is the lazy rubbish you offer?

Give me the specific example.

You've rebutted nothing, all you have done is try to change the meaning of words. For example you try to redefine drive to mean specifically a spear tackle. That is not argument or rebuttal.

 

[Barrysballs]

Has no idea and thats why your million dollar ruckman is sitting out this week stop your whinging simmo and teach how to correctly tackle instead

 

[Eagleboy68]

I posted before that if umpires had picked him up early and penalised some of his earlier tackles instead of rewarding him and giving him the green light etc we wouldn’t have this problem.
Someone else posted this about laws of the game

Rough Conduct: Dangerous Tackles

"Players's when tackling should not lift, sling, rotate or drive their opponents into the ground with excessive force, resulting in the head region being left in a vulnerable position."

First determination: is was the player lifted, slung, rotated or driven into the ground in a tackle? Yes, he was driven forward in the tackle.

Second determination: was the head region left in a vulnerable position? Yes, he was driven head first into the ground.

Third determination: was there excessive force? Yes

I'd suggest that pertains specifically to spear tackles. All Naitanui did was hit Amon hard and carry him forward. Otherwise you could say any tackle that brings a player to ground involves a "driving" motion.

 

[Tas]

That doesn't make it reportable.

You should go back and read my long post which you said was rubbish as I explained it there. It doesn't automatically make it reportable. If it is illegal, it is then tested for dangerous tackle/rough conduct.

It wasn't "headfirst". Amon landed on his torso, then hit his head subsequently.

In what universe is this "headfirst"? Maybe it's a bit like how "the arms were pinned"?

The MRP and Tribunal believes this is head first.

He did unless his arms were pinned, which they weren't.

Pinned arms isn't a requirement for rough conduct in the rule book. For example, if you are slung in an otherwise legal tackle, having the opponents arms pinned where the head hits the ground makes it dangerous. In an illegal tackle, the head just needs to be in a vulnerable position to tick off that particular box.

So any concussion automatically equals "excessive force"?

No, but it is a factor.

We are therefore penalising the outcome, rather than the action.

Partly, generally if there is insufficient force to concuss it is hard to argue there was excessive force. Hey, I didn't write these rules, don't shoot the messenger!

Although that standard for some reason didn't apply to Higgins being concussed after Burton elected to bump him. It also didn't apply to Cotchin when he bumped Shiel and left him concussed. Why is that?

I didn't say they were consistent. Burton should have been suspended according to the bumping rules. I don't remember the Cotchin incident so can't comment on that one.

Except for the part where you claimed he was "driven headfirst" when he wasn't. And claimed he couldn't protect himself despite his arms not being pinned.

See the image above, I didn't say his arms were pinned, it is not a requirement for rough conduct.

Those are significant departures from what actually happened.

I think it is natural to want to defend players, I don't like seeing them rubbed out but if it is not his intent to hurt players then he should look at his tackle technique, he is lucky he hasn't been rubbed out earlier this year. He comes across as a great guy, I think it would devastate him if crippled a player with a tackle like that and the outcries of support you see now you wont hear a peep out of if that was to happen. I think he can get the job done with less force and a bit more care placed on the technique, the way he rode the guys back is just completely reckless and lacks any kind of control. I don't think he goes out there to hurt people like Pav suggested, I think he gets a rush of blood. We are having a hard time getting Preuss to not bury players into the turf as well, we know it will get him into trouble and could potentially seriously hurt a player. Preuss almost buried Swallow in an intra club last year, there is no malice, it is just pure Adrenalin, it is just a matter of learning to control the power you have.

Well, we might start by citing Burton for bumping Higgins and suspending Mitchell for elbowing Goldstein in the head behind play. Or rubbing out Cotchin for bumping Shiel in the head and leaving him concussed.

So let's not pretend there's any consistent policy here.

I never claimed they were consistent. I said both Burton and Mitchell should have been suspended. Ironically, it ended up being Sicily copping a week for a very soft incident instead.

Without a precedence based system we are not going to get any kind of consistency with these outcomes. They don't apply the same standards to everyone, which is what infuriates people.

 

[dajesmac]

Has no idea and thats why your million dollar ruckman is sitting out this week stop your whinging simmo and teach how to correctly tackle instead

For a second there I thought I was reading Facebook comments

 

[kingswood71]

Based on new criteria that they plucked out of thin air.
Previously, for a tackle to be deemed "dangerous", we were looking for the arms being pinned or a secondary slinging motion. Neither of these applied to Naitanui's tackle. Neither of these established criteria applied

No you are actually wrong. You seem to be thinking that because the 'arms pinned and slinging motion" are mentioned as factors in the Guidebook, that these are the only sole factors that are considered in what may effect a rough conduct (dangerous tackle) charge.
They state prior to listing the factors that these are NOT the only factors, as they state "without limitation". This means that while the factors you stated could be looked at, they are not the only thing they will consider.
Without limitation, same as "including but not limited to".
Common mistake to make, even your coach made it

 

[Eagleboy68]

Suggest away

This how it went down

Rough Conduct: Dangerous Tackles

"Players's when tackling should not lift, sling, rotate or drive their opponents into the ground with excessive force, resulting in the head region being left in a vulnerable position."

First determination: is was the player lifted, slung, rotated or driven into the ground in a tackle? Yes, he was driven forward in the tackle.

Second determination: was the head region left in a vulnerable position? Yes, he was driven head first into the ground.

Third determination: was there excessive force? Yes

Must be a bot.

Same answer every time.

Do you like chicken?

BB: rough conduct...blah blah blah

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You've rebutted nothing, all you have done is try to change the meaning of words.

Nonsense. Try again.

For example you try to redefine drive to mean specifically a spear tackle. That is not argument or rebuttal.

If "driving" simply means carrying a player forward and bringing them to ground, then that happens dozens of times every weekend. Is that reportable?