MRP / Trib. Potential MRP - Hawkins run down tackle from behind on Joyce - Not cited yet.

[aCunningPlan]

'Slamming his head' is emotive language and implies a deliberate action.

It was not.

Purely accidental.

Apologies, his head hitting the ground with force.

 

[Jumping Jack]

Not sure people are unhappy with you bringing a different opinion, but more so the theme of your first post on the issue - starting a post with "Take off the rose coloured glasses." probably isn't going to be well received

We just have to go back to last week to see that a good number of folk around here were expecting Selwood to be watching today's match from home after his bump on Sam Taylor - it was a pleasant surprise to see the impact graded as low and only be a fine. If Joel did miss a miss, I'm not sure too many would have been complaining

When our guys stuff up and are pulled up for it, so be it - don't tend to see too many complaints

That’s sort of the point though isn’t it?

Selwood should have got a week.

And this week it’s Hawkins turn. Maybe he gets off - but it deserves a week.

Just my opinion. And as for rose coloured glasses, I think the comment stands based on some of the biased commentary in here tonight. Just stop and think about what the AFL are trying to stamp out. Both Selwood and Hawkins incidents deserve a week.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Strange Cat]

Pinned the arms and slammed his head into the ground. Pinning the arms is fine but the head is sacrosanct. It is the excessive driving force in a vulnerable position.

Slammed his head? I think you’re adding a bit of Mayo to that tackle, clearly in the video Hawkins tries to roll him on his side …the head clash is accidental

Everything was in play , the head clash is purely accidental and unavoidable…unless you are going to try and argue that Hawkins shouldn’t had attempted the tackle which is laughable in itself

 

[Jumping Jack]

You’re doing a fantastic job of proving my point

Ok. Just go with whatever you think is fair. I really don’t mind. Last time I checked we’re not running a high school popularity contest?

I’ve got an opinion - you don’t agree. Just move on.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Pinned the arms and slammed his head into the ground. Pinning the arms is fine but the head is sacrosanct. It is the excessive driving force in a vulnerable position.

10 words their - and you have summed it up perfectly

Anyone who hasnt seen the vision - you have painted the picture for them of what exactly happened

 

[Reppie]

He seemed fairly angry all game so not surprising he is up on a charge.
Dont think it is a suspend able act but he puts himself in these situations too often for my liking.

 

[Cataholic]

That’s sort of the point though isn’t it?

Selwood should have got a week.

And this week it’s Hawkins turn. Maybe he gets off - but it deserves a week.

Just my opinion. And as for rose coloured glasses, I think the comment stands based on some of the biased commentary in here tonight. Just stop and think about what the AFL are trying to stamp out. Both Selwood and Hawkins incidents deserve a week.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

The AFL is trying to eradicate the dirty, deliberate, careless stuff.....not legitimate tackles I hope.

It was perfectly reasonable for Hawkins to tackle him, and he did so to the letter of the rule book.

 

[JohnZ]

He seemed fairly angry all game so not surprising he is up on a charge.
Dont think it is a suspend able act but he puts himself in these situations too often for my liking.

It's not his fault tho. It wasn't a two action tackle or a 360 sling.

He literally tackled the bloke to the ground who instead of falling back on himself like most do went face first into the turf. When you tackle you have no control which way the player falls, generally they go face first when kicking as their momentum is going that way (like Duncan and Holman back in Rd11). The MRO might cite Hawkins to be consistent with that, but if we go to the tribunal I'd expect to get off for the same reasons Holman did.

There was nothing wrong with the tackle itself, it was an unfortunate outcome but ultimately a footy act which we expect the players to do. Sometimes shit happens.

 

[Cataholic]

10 words their - and you have summed it up perfectly

Anyone who hasnt seen the vision - you have painted the picture for them of what exactly happened

Gross exaggeration.

 

[Cataholic]

It's not his fault tho. It wasn't a two action tackle or a 360 sling.

He literally tackled the bloke to the ground who instead of falling back on himself like most do went face first into the turf. When you tackle you have no control which way the player falls, generally they go face first when kicking as their momentum is going that way (like Duncan and Holman back in Rd11). The MRO might cite Hawkins to be consistent with that, but if we go to the tribunal I'd expect to get off for the same reasons Holman did.

There was nothing wrong with the tackle itself, it was an unfortunate outcome but ultimately a footy act which we expect the players to do. Sometimes sh*t happens.

This

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Gross exaggeration.

No way - he has got both of his arms pinned - - the StKilda bloke is totally vulnerable - there is a duty of care - and Hawkins showed none - im hoping for only 1 week - but i think there is more chance it will be 2

 

[Reppie]

It's not his fault tho. It wasn't a two action tackle or a 360 sling.

He literally tackled the bloke to the ground who instead of falling back on himself like most do went face first into the turf. When you tackle you have no control which way the player falls, generally they go face first when kicking as their momentum is going that way (like Duncan and Holman back in Rd11). The MRO might cite Hawkins to be consistent with that, but if we go to the tribunal I'd expect to get off for the same reasons Holman did.

There was nothing wrong with the tackle itself, it was an unfortunate outcome but ultimately a footy act which we expect the players to do. Sometimes sh*t happens.

i agree but will he get weeks...history says yes.

 

[Cataholic]

No way - he has got both of his arms pinned - - the StKilda bloke is totally vulnerable - there is a duty of care - and Hawkins showed none - im hoping for only 1 week - but i think there is more chance it will be 2

How should Hawkins have tackled him, or should he not have tackled him at all?

 

[Cataholic]

i agree but will he get weeks...history says yes.

Then the game is in trouble

 

[Reppie]

Then the game is in trouble

Been Farked for a long time so no surprise.

 

[STPer18]

He's looked angry the past fortnight. I'm just relieved he hasn't belted anyone yet.

 

[Strange Cat]

No way - he has got both of his arms pinned - - the StKilda bloke is totally vulnerable - there is a duty of care - and Hawkins showed none - im hoping for only 1 week - but i think there is more chance it will be 2

He tried to roll him onto his side in the tackle , the head clash was unavoidable

The only thing that could had avoided the head clash was for Hawkins not to tackle , so essentially you are advocating for players not to tackle at all when the opposition has the ball

 

[Goggin Our Best]

How should Hawkins have tackled him, or should he not have tavkled him at all?

He has got both of the Saints player arms pinned - so the StK bloke cant cushion the landing at all - totally vulnerable - and Hawkins drove him forward into the ground with force

I must be looking at different vision - but my eyes are good

When i post stuff - i just post what i actually think - i take the Geel bias right out of it

 

[AWOL]

If that was a Saints player tackling (and concussing) Hawkins we’d be screaming murder.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

We weren’t when Duncan got KO’d by Holman. Blind Freddy could see that they were both legitimate tackles with unfortunate outcomes.

 

[Cataholic]

He has got both of the Saints player arms pinned - so the StK bloke cant cushion the landing at all - totally vulnerable - and Hawkins drove him forward into the ground with force

I must be looking at different vision - but my eyes are good

When i post stuff - i just post what i actually think - i take the Geel bias right out of it

So how should he have tackled him??

 

[Strange Cat]

He has got both of the Saints player arms pinned - so the StK bloke cant cushion the landing at all - totally vulnerable - and Hawkins drove him forward into the ground with force

I must be looking at different vision - but my eyes are good

When i post stuff - i just post what i actually think - i take the Geel bias right out of it

 

[Cataholic]

He has got both of the Saints player arms pinned - so the StK bloke cant cushion the landing at all - totally vulnerable - and Hawkins drove him forward into the ground with force

I must be looking at different vision - but my eyes are good

When i post stuff - i just post what i actually think - i take the Geel bias right out of it

Hawkins did not 'drive him into the ground with force'. That assigns a deliberate action.

A tackle carries momentum. It's a law of physics. Both players were running in the same direction until there was a sudden deceleration that caused an unpredictable action.

It happens. There was no malice. Just part of a physical contact sport.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Hawkins did not 'drive him into the ground with force'. That assigns a deliberate action.

A tackle carries momentum. It's a law of physics. Both players were running in the same direction until there was a sudden deceleration that caused an unpredictable action.

It happens. There was no malice. Just part of a physical contact sport.

Disagree - watch the tackle - and focus entirely on Hawkins right arm - and the last part of that tackle - Hawkins with his right arm drives that Stk bloke with tremendous force into ground

You just have to watch his right arm towards the conclusion of the tackle - clear cut

 

[cats_09]

It's not his fault tho. It wasn't a two action tackle or a 360 sling.

He literally tackled the bloke to the ground who instead of falling back on himself like most do went face first into the turf. When you tackle you have no control which way the player falls, generally they go face first when kicking as their momentum is going that way (like Duncan and Holman back in Rd11). The MRO might cite Hawkins to be consistent with that, but if we go to the tribunal I'd expect to get off for the same reasons Holman did.

There was nothing wrong with the tackle itself, it was an unfortunate outcome but ultimately a footy act which we expect the players to do. Sometimes sh*t happens.

Pretty sure that we the terminology many used after Duncan was concussed in the Holman tackle

 

[Cataholic]

Disagree - watch the tackle - and focus entirely on Hawkins right arm - and the last part of that tackle - Hawkins with his right arm drives that Stk bloke with tremendous force into ground

You just have to watch his right arm towards the conclusion of the tackle - clear cut

Nope.

He throws the right arm around him to wrap the guy up, and turns him to the side to avoid the face plant.

I think he got a perfect balance between tackling and exercising a duty of care.