MRP / Trib. Paul Curtis

[tiger_tough]

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.

That is garbage. No player or club is going to fake a concussion. Even if they did, that would rule out the player for at least 1, potentially 2 finals matches themselves.

Extraordinary take.

 

[RCAB]

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.

They won't get off if there's a concussion.

 

[Rabish Binney]

That was a beautiful bump
No free awarded

Which resulted in Rankine being badly concussed.

 

[Ambrosia]

That's a joke, It's officially touch footy

We've well and truly begun the march towards stand up tackles only

 

[Rabish Binney]

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.

So if the roles were reversed (i.e. Sinn was the tackler and Curtis had the ball) and the tribunal came to the same result for Sinn (3 games suspension) are you really telling us that you wouldn't be outraged at the penalty to your player?

 

[Duckimus Prime]

FMD

A legitimate tackle and your outraged.

Yet you and your supporters couldn’t understand and were up in arms as to why Houston got suspended against Rankine last year.

It wasn't a legitimate tackle. It was in the back, and dangerous.

And Port fans weren't up in arms about Houston being suspended, we were up in arms about the excessive extra weeks added to his suspension.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I only post 100% verifiable facts.

Well at least you didn't try and claim that they used a North attendance figure... because then it would be a stretch.

 

[Makeshift Park]

It was in the back

That's the thing with rundown tackles. The player being tackled tends to be the one in front.

 

[SplintWhisky]

Not sure how Curtis drove his head in the ground. Absolute accident that came from Sinn's knees not sliding but catching the ground.

 

[SplintWhisky]

It wasn't a legitimate tackle. It was in the back, and dangerous.

And Port fans weren't up in arms about Houston being suspended, we were up in arms about the excessive extra weeks added to his suspension.

It was in the back but not dangerous. Just because there was a bad outcome doesnt mean the action is inheritently dangerous. Even if Curtis had one arm and rolled him, Sinn's knees digging in would still have concussed him with a knock to the side of the head. Still doesnt make the tackle dangerous, just the whiplash and digging in unfortunate.

They need to pay in the back a lot more with these tackles since it seems to be completely gone from the game. In the 3rd quarter, I think it was Gawn tackled Tarranto and it had all the hallmarks of in the back but wasnt paid. The AFL is forever chasing their tails when they don't enforce rules, players just adapt to the new normal.

 

[Rabish Binney]

It wasn't a legitimate tackle. It was in the back, and dangerous.

And Port fans weren't up in arms about Houston being suspended, we were up in arms about the excessive extra weeks added to his suspension.

That is 100% bullshit

 

[EBERT THE KING]

This is the worst Tribunal adjudication in history, surely??

 

[SSSSSS]

This is the worst Tribunal adjudication in history, surely??

I felt like the Sicily tackle was pretty bad a few years ago. Got someone done for HTB (actually won a free kick) and got done for three weeks.

Almost set a precedent for how these tackles are adjudicated now.

This one tops it. At least you could argue with Sicily there may have been a bit of a sling.

 

[apollo_creed]

So pretty much everyone 'ridiculous decision'
except Port fans 'appropriate outcome'

Classic BigFooty bias.

 

[RCAB]

I felt like the Sicily tackle was pretty bad a few years ago. Got someone done for HTB (actually won a free kick) and got done for three weeks.

Almost set a precedent for how these tackles are adjudicated now.

This one tops it. At least you could argue with Sicily there may have been a bit of a sling.

Sicily did nothing wrong.


He was actually pushed when he was trying to tackle....

Curtis had nobody else creating forward momentum. Curtis also landed in his opponent's back.



Sicily was on the ground and was going for the hips and barely pinned one arm....

Curtis had time to work out how to execute the tackle while simultaneously pinning both arms.



Curtis could've rolled Sinn on his side....

Sicily was just hanging on to McCluggae, while McCluggae was also hit by a Hawthorn player when he was falling.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

So if the roles were reversed (i.e. Sinn was the tackler and Curtis had the ball) and the tribunal came to the same result for Sinn (3 games suspension) are you really telling us that you wouldn't be outraged at the penalty to your player?

Disappointed yes. Outraged no.

When it’s written in black and white in the guidelines, we’re all aware of them as are the players and coaches. There isn’t much room to move there.

Just as last year with Houston (you can go back and check if you like), I said straight up it will be an instant 4-5 weeks and there’s no wiggle room based on his actions.

Same principles apply. We can love it or hate it all we like, but the guidelines are there and guess what, they’re actually sticking to them to a T.

What we are missing in this space and I’ve raised previously, is we don’t have a clear metric to measure the impact so we’re left with a subjective scale applied by the MRO.

If they came flat out and said concussion = severe and 3 weeks then at least we all know. But instead we have this unknown metric between low, medium, high, severe which doesn’t actually have any clear guide as to what they actually constitute. This leaves us with incidents like this that has to be either 3 or 0.

What needs to be included in parallel with the current guidelines is a clear definition or scale of how we determine impact.

I’ve previously proposed something like;

Low impact - Player did not require medical attention and continued play (ie, copped a light jab but no damage done). Fits with what receives a fine generally now.

Medium - Player required medical attention or left the ground however was able to return to play. (Left for HIA but was cleared to return). Fits the 1 week category.

High - Player was required to leave the field of play and did not return to play. (Failed the HIA). This is where the Curtis incident would fit and 2 weeks is pretty fair.

Severe - The player required assistance to be removed from the field (ie, Stretcher/was unconscious) and did not return to play. This is reserved for the more serious hits like Houston last year or Nash where the impact is clearly higher than the Curtis/Sinn. 3+ weeks.

If they implement a clear and defining scale like that, it would remove so much of this uncertainty or frustration with all incidents of concussion having to be a minimum of 3 weeks.

 

[Vindicater]

They won't get off if there's a concussion.

They absolutely will if it means they will miss finals.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I’ve previously proposed something like;

Low impact - Player did not require medical attention and continued play (ie, copped a light jab but no damage done). Fits with what receives a fine generally now.

Medium - Player required medical attention or left the ground however was able to return to play. (Left for HIA but was cleared to return). Fits the 1 week category.

High - Player was required to leave the field of play and did not return to play. (Failed the HIA). This is where the Curtis incident would fit and 2 weeks is pretty fair.

Severe - The player required assistance to be removed from the field (ie, Stretcher/was unconscious) and did not return to play. This is reserved for the more serious hits like Houston last year or Nash where the impact is clearly higher than the Curtis/Sinn. 3+ weeks.

This literally was the AFL's guidance on grading impact.

Until 2020. When Brad Ebert laid a bump on Harry Perryman, who go up without assistance and took his free kick. And Ebert was suspended for a careless, high contact bump with medium impact. And then a week later against the Bulldogs Sam Mayes laid a bump on a player, who got up without assistance and took his free kick. And was suspended for under medium impact.

Careless, high contact and low impact is a fine. But hey, its not like this is anything new for us.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

As fans we expect umpires to make split second judgement calls yet players cant, please.

 

[LongSerong]

As fans we expect umpires to make split second judgement calls yet players cant, please.

It's a lot easier to observe an action than carry one out in real time

 

[sexyhunk]

not sure if anyone brought it up, what happen one day someone copped a falcon from a torp and gets concussion? do they then ban the player who kicked it cause the other player got concussed and then also ban the torp.

 

[Some Idiot]

This suspension has nothing to do with the tackle of Curtis and everything to do with the AFL avoiding concussion lawsuits.

 

[SplintWhisky]

As fans we expect umpires to make split second judgement calls yet players cant, please.

This is a ridiculous idea. Making a split decision AFTER observing something is much easier than making a decision in the action.

 

[SplintWhisky]

This suspension has nothing to do with the tackle of Curtis and everything to do with the AFL avoiding concussion lawsuits.

That is very true but I think the AFL is at the knifes edge. Eddie brought up the thing that NFL players sign at the collage level that says they understand they could get injured. Hird basically said the AFLPA wouldnt let something like that to be included in contracts.

At this point the sport needs to ask the question. Even if it fails, North should of contested again to force the AFL to come out and say that any concussion ends in 3 weeks. The AFL needs to force the AFLPA to fight a disclaimer that the players know that there is a risk in playing football.

What was done in the past was terrible if we ignored concussion protocols of the time. But there is an easy line in the sand where they can say "that was bad but going forward we are X". If they keep dancing around the issue, then the sport will die and move to obscurity.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

This is a ridiculous idea. Making a split decision AFTER observing something is much easier than making a decision in the action.

And those observations are often obstructed but we still expect them not to make mistakes.
Players make mistakes too, we need to accept that in a fast paced environment, sometimes they get it wrong, as Curtis did.