Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Paul Curtis

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

DocSholl said:
Releasing an arm at the last second will do fk all to prevent a concussion if the tackle is already in its downward motion. That's purely an optics thing.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t really matter if it’s all optics. It’s about addressing the MRP guidelines and showing that duty of care. All the players know what the guidelines are and like it or not, that’s what we have.

That’s why Danger got off last year, he was able to argue that he adhered to that duty of care principle by trying to hold the player up before hitting the ground.

Even if it results in concussion, if you can show you have released an arm and met that duty of care, you likely get off again and it’s deemed an unfortunate football act.

So Curtis had options.
 
greatwhiteshark said:
The coaches are going to use these things come finals time.
Daicos tackles you so you fake concussion and Nick gets a few weeks.
This is how ridiculous it could become. Abd anyone who thinks it wouldn’t happen is just kidding yourself.
Click to expand...
Daicos could decapitate someone on the field and they’d find a way to get him off the hook. But apart from Collingwood players yeah
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

powerrrrrrrrrrrr said:
It doesn’t really matter if it’s all optics. It’s about addressing the MRP guidelines and showing that duty of care. All the players know what the guidelines are and like it or not, that’s what we have.

That’s why Danger got off last year, he was able to argue that he adhered to that duty of care principle by trying to hold the player up before hitting the ground.

Even if it results in concussion, if you can show you have released an arm and met that duty of care, you likely get off again and it’s deemed an unfortunate football act.

So Curtis had options.
Click to expand...

Yes, the AFL has clearly explained that he had other options available to him. Most just disagree with them

My point was him releasing Sinn's arm likely doesnt change the end result, so implying he failed his duty of care because he didn't release an arm is a bit disingenuous.
 
PenfoldsFan said:
Me too, 3 seemed about right, which the tribunal verified.
Click to expand...
It is what it is.

I'm of the belief that football accidents happen and 'duty of care' is just an AFL buzzword that will be used to implicate some players while other players get off.

It's a well executed tackle imho, and if Sinn didn't drop his knees into the turf the concussion doesn't occur, but each to their own.

I can only hope for consistency from the AFL/MRO 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
MaxiBont said:
The fact it has to be 3 or 0 makes the whole thing farcical. No room for nuance or context.

1 would have been outrageous but at least understandable, 3 is beyond a joke.
Click to expand...
agree..
unfortunately this is what it has now come to.
 
The AFL is all over the shop on this issue. It is looking at the outcome of an action to determine legality or not. If a concussion occurs (Curtis tackle) then the tackle is rough conduct, if no concussion (Watson tackle) then nothing to see here. They are not addressing the issue which is to ban certain actions football actions that increases the risk of concussion regardless whether a concussion occurs or not.

By their own rules, using this tackle as an example (both Curtis and Waton's), it is rough conduct if someone gets tackled, both arms are pinned and taken to ground then it should result in a suspension. If there is a concussion add a few more weeks. In actual fact, we should be seeing multiple suspensions each week until the players stop executing this tackle.

You don't see chicken wing tackles (looking at Judd as the most high profile case) anymore because they came down hard on the action, not whether an injury occurred. But those days were when the AFL still had some semblance of respectability.

If the AFL's defence in a class action is we took all steps to mitigate concussion in the game they will be laughed out of court as they have not done anything to address the core issue which is to ban certain actions on the field. By pretending they are seriously looking at this issue and suspending players for football actions they are ruining the game and taking the piss out of all of us (clubs, players, supporters).
 
Curtis could have turned him slightly in the tackle & he would have got off
Might have got holding the ball too
Don’t get the faux outrage
Boohoo.
storm in a teacup

Pretty consistent really Nic Nat got one but would have been 3 if Amon was badly concussed
 
Sam_100 said:
The AFL is all over the shop on this issue. It is looking at the outcome of an action to determine legality or not. If a concussion occurs (Curtis tackle) then the tackle is rough conduct, if no concussion (Watson tackle) then nothing to see here. They are not addressing the issue which is to ban certain actions football actions that increases the risk of concussion regardless whether a concussion occurs or not.
Click to expand...

It's the same reason they won't ban jumping on someone's head. They still want the spectacle and excitement of a chase down tackle (hence actively promoting Watson on Reid), so they basically tell players to do it at their own risk and they can still say they are taking preventative measures.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Can someone clarify something to me ?

Is the AFL getting sued because of negligence within the game? or the fact they never had protocols around concussions?

Because the way I see it the AFL was negligent in allowing players to either resume playing on the field after an incident and/or let them play the next week etc... nothing to do with the fabric of the game. Why are they changing rules ? Everyone grew up playing the game a certain way and fell in love with it, not this madness. Every kid understands the risks of playing - none of the kids that are playing right now have starting playing in this lawsuit era. I genuinely don't understand why the AFL is moving to change rules when I was under the impression they were getting sued for negligence post-concussion. Surely the ex-players aren't suing the AFL's laws of the game?

Would love some clarification
 
powerrrrrrrrrrrr said:
Here’s a good comparison for how Curtis could have still completed the tackle and maintained his duty of care.

Butler on Blakey, resulted in him being subbed out. Was suspended then overturned at the tribunal.

www.afl.com.au

Butler bewildered after mow down deemed dangerous

Dan Butler lets out some frustration after being penalised for this tackling action on Nick Blakey
www.afl.com.au www.afl.com.au

The reasoning for the overturn,

“The tribunal said Butler had made best endeavours to avoid injuring the player. Butler turned Blakey slightly in the tackle so as not to go into his back, and at the last moment let Blakey’s arm go.”

That’s what players are asked to do if they pin the arms and bring a player to ground.

Release an arm and/or turn the player. If Curtis did that, he’s free to play. It’s a split second movement but so are bumps that result in head high contact.
Click to expand...
This one’s different because Sinn had only just collected the ball at the same time Curtis had eyes on him.

ie. the time that Curtis had to make a call was less than a second.

He was behind Sinn who didn’t have possession initially. Sinn gains possession and Curtis immediately tackles him. There’s no way in hell he has the opportunity to adjust anything about the tackle in this scenario, he just has to wrap him up and bring him to ground
 
How embarrassing this all is...

We all need to sit here and be lectured by Gerard Whately (who has probably never tackled anyone in any grade of football anywhere) on how to execute a tackle... while he sits across the desk from a 226 game, 5x all Australian, ex-captain who is completely bewildered by what is being said.

How the f**k did we get here?
 
Handyandy said:
When I played footy & tackled from behind I would drive my knees into the opponents legs and pull them sideways so I didn’t give away a ‘push in the back’ free
You can’t just smash into the middle of someone’s back at full speed and cannon them forward & into the turf. It’s always been a free & always will. Because it’s f($&&&g dangerous. And if you pin their arms & knock them out you are gone every time.
Change your tackling technique Curtis
Click to expand...
That’s absolute crap. Curtis drops to his knees, the idea being that his weight pulls the player back and down in the tackle. He didn’t lunge with forward momentum. He executed as well as could be expected. To suggest he had other options is a misinformed joke
 
I’m just not sure what PC realistically should’ve done? It was a run down tackle with both players’ momentum carrying them that way
 
So the AFL now want players to be Einsteins at all times in their decision making? They are reacting more to the possible repercussions off field more than anything that is happening on field.
In less than a second they are expecting a player to decide too many actions in order to keep all the AFL honchos happy. I still like footy these days, but i have long since fallen out of love with it. It's not the game called Australian Rules Football that i grew up with. Next stop on the hit list will be the "High Pack Mark"....those that are laughing are the ones who never thought the Bump would go, now the Tackle is at risk, it's inevitable that the "Specky" will be looked at which is fair dinkum unbelievable!
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Non Superstar
Small club
Bad team

AFL set their example.

You watch Nick Watson, Bobby Hill, Tyson Stengle or Charlie Cameron do this in the first week of finals and they will get off.
 
tiger_tough said:
Mate that was 8 years ago. It was lineball then, he'd be suspended these days for sure.

Curtis wouldn't have been suspended for this action in 2017 either.
Click to expand...
The thing I find most galling is they say you have to release one arm. But this makes zero difference to the result if the person being tackled chooses to hold onto the ball under his rather than release the ball and using his free arm to protect his fall …. Given the umpires don’t pay incorrect disposal any more the tackled player should just drop the ball and cushion the fall. The Zac Merrett suspension highlights this perfectly… Merrett only has one armed tied up on his opponent and takes him to ground his opponent holds on the ball with his free arm head hits ground… concussion and Merrett cops two weeks for a perfect tackle having taken the player to ground and still only restricted one arm
 
Coasters7 said:
Until you read the AFLs defense and realise it’s absolute bullshit.

“Could have attempted to slow the momentum of the tackle” - in a split second against a bigger opponent.

“Attempted to roll him in the tackle” - which he actually did try to do because he ended up on his side and it was a borderline in the back.
Click to expand...
They said he made "no opr insufficient attempt to move him sideways."

They then admit he went sideways but it "was too late".

They're just making it up as they go along.
 
Handyandy said:
When I played footy & tackled from behind I would drive my knees into the opponents legs and pull them sideways so I didn’t give away a ‘push in the back’ free
You can’t just smash into the middle of someone’s back at full speed and cannon them forward & into the turf. It’s always been a free & always will. Because it’s f($&&&g dangerous. And if you pin their arms & knock them out you are gone every time.
Change your tackling technique Curtis
Click to expand...
It happens 20 times a game!!!

The AFL put out a tweet celebrating another playing doing it at the very time they were suspending Curtis.
 
powerrrrrrrrrrrr said:
It doesn’t really matter if it’s all optics. It’s about addressing the MRP guidelines and showing that duty of care. All the players know what the guidelines are and like it or not, that’s what we have.

That’s why Danger got off last year, he was able to argue that he adhered to that duty of care principle by trying to hold the player up before hitting the ground.

Even if it results in concussion, if you can show you have released an arm and met that duty of care, you likely get off again and it’s deemed an unfortunate football act.

So Curtis had options.
Click to expand...
So its all about bullshit optics not what really happens in the incident?

I would suggest your attitude is symptomatic of what is wrecking this game.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom