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

[The Falcon Strike]

It doesn't matter what Amon does you still have to tackle fairly.

Not true anymore with the amendments to rules where players cause the high contact as an example.

However that's blatantly in the back - nic tried to turn him and actually did - but not until after he cannoned into his back first.

First impact in on top of the ball and then he rolls over it and ploughs his head into the ground.

 

[Barrysballs]

Watch Christians explanation it makes sense i doubt under appeal he gets off now. And he never mentuobs pinned arms. Its about a Driving tackle and duty of care

 

[Coaster2012]

At least with the change to the MRP - we can challenge with no risk other than financial.

The MRP had become emboldened knowing that clubs were too pissweak to challenge. So they kept creeping further forward with penalising increasingly softer events.

This is a "for the good of the game" challenge.

Didn't pick him up and dump him, no second motion - what reasonable option did he have - not tackle? Not be 120kg? Not run fast?

That' it right there. The tackle at first impact was completely legal. Tackled him at the waist, nothing wrong there. But the fact that he is a big guy running at top speed, the momentum carries him over the back, so free kick. Technically, it shouldn't even be a fine.

 

[SAweagle]

Essentially Nic Nat has been offered a one week suspension for being an absolute monster who has physically dominated an unlucky smaller opponent.

F**k em, take the week off Nic, we'll get the win at spotless and then break Richmond with you back at the coalface.

#6inarow
#lidisoff
#bookmarkityaweekcampaigners

 

[Coaster2012]

Watch Christians explanation it makes sense i doubt under appeal he gets off now. And he never mentuobs pinned arms. Its about a Driving tackle and duty of care

It's a slippery slope that argument. What's he meant to do? Not tackle players smaller than him? Where does that argument end?

 

[mike123]

Not true anymore with the amendments to rules where players cause the high contact as an example.

Moot point since that rule doesn't cover what happened here.

 

[WCErevival]

Pinned his left arm and Amon is desperately trying to brace his fall with his right.
He does get lifted off the ground, pause the video it's clear to see
There's no whiplash because he's buried in to the ground

It's not a sling tackle. It's a driving tackle. Different but just as dangerous.

He's not lifted off the ground. He falls over and is in between steps so there is a split second there is nothing touching the ground.

 

[SloppyJoe]

Dangerous tackle is dangerous. Medical report was damning too.

I haven't seen the medical report, what did it say?

 

[mike123]

That' it right there. The tackle at first impact was completely legal. Tackled him at the waist, nothing wrong there. But the fact that he is a big guy running at top speed, the momentum carries him over the back, so free kick. Technically, it shouldn't even be a fine.

Being a big guy doesn't give you an excuse to dump a guys head in the ground, just like it doesn't to hit someone high.

 

[Frank Gallagher]

Ridiculous, campaigners are completely ******* our game.

 

[Ilkka Sinisalo]

Maybe the AFL is trying to increase scoring and make the game more free-flowing by discouraging players from tackling altogether.

 

[master bate]

He's not lifted off the ground. He falls over and is in between steps so there is a split second there is nothing touching the ground.

So he's just floating? Or falling over. He's swept off his feet and carried by the tackle. That counts as a lift to me, but call it what you want.

 

[Coaster2012]

Being a big guy doesn't give you an excuse to dump a guys head in the ground, just like it doesn't to hit someone high.

He didn't dump a guys head into the ground. Have you EVEN watched the footage? He tackled him at the waist, and the momentum carried him forward over the back. It will be the first time ever someone has been penalised for a tackle like this.

 

[amazingjoshy]

Watch Christians explanation it makes sense i doubt under appeal he gets off now. And he never mentuobs pinned arms. Its about a Driving tackle and duty of care

listen again at 0.55

 

[Adz]

I haven't seen the medical report, what did it say?

 

[gym4life]

This is like some one getting a week for a high tackle.

 

[skipper kelly]

Watch Christians explanation it makes sense i doubt under appeal he gets off now. And he never mentuobs pinned arms. Its about a Driving tackle and duty of care

he said driving tackle with arms pinned.

 

[Ilkka Sinisalo]

It doesn't matter what Amon does you still have to tackle fairly.

If that's a suspendable offence then there should be about 100 suspensions after every weekend and the MRP will need dozens of panelists to review every tackle laid in every match.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Bigfooty is far less interesting when we all agree.

 

[Barrysballs]

It's a slippery slope that argument. What's he meant to do? Not tackle players smaller than him? Where does that argument end?

I think Christian is saying there is a duty of care involved so if its going to drive a guy into the dirt you are tackling wrong

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I think Christian is saying there is a duty of care involved so if its going to drive a guy into the dirt you are tackling wrong

Did he talk about reasonable alternatives?

If he you hit a guy at pace, your momentum is only going in one direction.

Was he supposed to run slower?

 

[Scotland]

The fact that this is on the main board and the majority of people are arguing on the side of West Coast against something that is loosely umpire related tells me that Michael Christian got it wrong.

 

[ziad]

Dangerous tackle is dangerous. Medical report was damning too.

about time we separated the boys from theme - tackles are legal or illegal. had is irrelevant (up until today)
we shall see - but all tackles must be soft enough so as to not cause discomfort

 

[Barrysballs]

listen again at 0.55

he said driving tackle with arms pinned.

Listen again . He is Talking about tackling in general as in what they would not like to see ie: none of these things. He wasnt talking about Niks tackle

 

[BartBart]

It doesn't matter what Amon does you still have to tackle fairly.

I don't necessatily disagree but my point is no-one can claim Naitanui was intending to tackle Amon from behind. It was a front on tackle until the last moment.