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

[Footy_Fan2007]

How on earth can anyone think Hawk slammed his head into the ground?
He simply didn’t. Not sure what people are seeing in the vision?

 

[Jumping Jack]

Christian will suspend him for 2, nothing is surer.
He will than take it to the tribunal and use Holman as precedence to get off as just a fine.

Whilst the rule of precedent is an established notion in most legal systems, it does not necessarily extend to the AFL judiciary. Precedent has been used unsuccessfully on many occasions to try and argue a not guilty outcome, or establish a comparative sentence.

So whilst some in here are assuming the Hawkins case will play out the same as the Holman case …. There’s countless examples of where there is zero consistency with either the original penalty, or the outcome on appeal.

In other words, it’s like a chook raffle at the local pub. Who knows which way it goes.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Sttew]

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

What should Hawkins have done? A half hearted chase? It wasn’t a sling tackle

 

[Sttew]

Dangerfield should have nothing to worry about and any report dismissed tomorrow upon review of the match

Just watched the video. Clear as daylight Jones pushed Danger into Crouch. Umpire mustn’t have seen that.

 

[Patronus]

Has it been written into the rulebook that both arms mustn't be pinned?

Technically you can still be charged with a dangerous tackle if one arm is free so does not make much difference between the tackles that Duncan had one arm free or not. It does allow you to argue more that they were not put in as dangerous position as both arms pinned though.

The wording of the third point does not really bode well for Hawkins but they may be able to argue that he tried to turn him in the tackle to put him into a less vulnerable position To counteract that he had his arms pinned.

 

[johnnycjay]

2 probably, good chance on appeal

 

[Hamingja]

We got lucky with the Selwood one last week on an outcome basis and Hawkins is going to get reamed this week on the outcome basis.

 

[Cataholic]

Technically you can still be charged with a dangerous tackle if one arm is free so does not make much difference between the tackles that Duncan had one arm free or not. It does allow you to argue more that they were not put in as dangerous position as both arms pinned though.

The wording of the third point does not really bode well for Hawkins but they may be able to argue that he tried to turn him in the tackle to put him into a less vulnerable position To counteract that he had his arms pinned.


View attachment 1206469

The tackle would have to be deemed 'unreasonable'.

Was it?

I'd argue no. What other means of tackling, catching the player HTB, or disrupting the player's disposal of the ball did he have?

 

[Jumping Jack]

What should Hawkins have done? A half hearted chase? It wasn’t a sling tackle

The argument is not based around whether it’s a sling tackle - it wasn’t. He pinned both arms and took the player forward in the tackle - head hits the ground and concusses the player.

Duty of care rests solely with the player tackling. The AFL have made that crystal clear. If the Saints medical report supports the player concussion being as a result of the tackle then everything else is of little relevance.

It’s a harsh reality, but if the AFL is consistent (the big if) then he’ll go.

I’m as one eyed as anyone when it comes to my Cats, but Hawkins was aggressive in the way he chose to tackle from behind, and I think he’ll go.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Cataholic]

What should Hawkins have done? A half hearted chase? It wasn’t a sling tackle

Physics says that if you run a player down from behind the residual momentum will carry both players forward to the ground.

Apparently we're now either asking players to defy physics, or not tackle at all.

Which is it??

 

[geelong_crazy26]

What should Hawkins have done? A half hearted chase? It wasn’t a sling tackle

what was wrong with such a tackle?? He tackled him and drove forward without a sling, just his own forward momentum from behind.

a sling motion is a separate motion from the driving motion of the tackle itself. He showed none of this

 

[fpm84]

Don’t see anything wrong with the tackle, and didn’t see anything wrong with Holman’s tackle on Duncan either.

 

[Whiskers]

Whilst the rule of precedent is an established notion in most legal systems, it does not necessarily extend to the AFL judiciary. Precedent has been used unsuccessfully on many occasions to try and argue a not guilty outcome, or establish a comparative sentence.

So whilst some in here are assuming the Hawkins case will play out the same as the Holman case …. There’s countless examples of where there is zero consistency with either the original penalty, or the outcome on appeal.

In other words, it’s like a chook raffle at the local pub. Who knows which way it goes.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I don’t disagree, I’m just saying what will happen. He will get 2 today and use Holman as precedence at tribunal.
Hopefully it works.

 

[fpm84]

If Hawkins ‘dumps’ his opponent, it’s on his shoulder region as shown in this screenshot.

 

[iameviljez]

The wording of the third point does not really bode well for Hawkins but they may be able to argue that he tried to turn him in the tackle to put him into a less vulnerable position To counteract that he had his arms pinned.

I agree.

The way that the tribunal views the game has changed, and people need to get to grips with that. It's no longer about the actions of the tackler so much as it is the outcome of the player who is tackled. I don't like it, and frankly I don't agree with it, but this seems as close to open-and-shut as it gets by the current rules. The opponent did have his arms pinned and couldn't stop his head from hitting the turf.

It is a stupid rule for a good tackle. However, I can see exactly what the problem is in accordance with that rule, and I expect Hawkins to get a week after appeal through nothing more than sheer shit luck.

 

[Cataholic]

I agree.

The way that the tribunal views the game has changed, and people need to get to grips with that. It's no longer about the actions of the tackler so much as it is the outcome of the player who is tackled. I don't like it, and frankly I don't agree with it, but this seems as close to open-and-shut as it gets by the current rules. The opponent did have his arms pinned and couldn't stop his head from hitting the turf.

It is a stupid rule for a good tackle. However, I can see exactly what the problem is in accordance with that rule, and I expect Hawkins to get a week after appeal through nothing more than sheer sh*t luck.

I'll ask you since others won't respond - how should he have tackled him then??

 

[Spearman]

Could someone who is near AFL House check out the direction of the breeze, and maybe its aroma? That's the only way to have a clue what the decisions will be.

 

[iameviljez]

I'll ask you since others won't respond - how should he have tackled him then??

Exactly the way that he did tackle him.

The rules - in the stupid, reactive way that they have been set up here - discourage players from tackling while falling to the ground. Playing to avoid a suspension when the game is on the line is not feasible, it makes players play within themselves and it's a surefire way to lose a sport which thrives on full contact.

So, what Hawkins did wasn't wrong and his technique was pretty much perfect. However, he was unlucky in that his opponent was concussed.

The rule is stupid and it asks players to risk suspension in order to apply defensive pressure. I would rather Hawkins apply the pressure any day of the week and take the 1/10,000 chance that it results in a suspension.

 

[Cataholic]

I agree.

The way that the tribunal views the game has changed, and people need to get to grips with that. It's no longer about the actions of the tackler so much as it is the outcome of the player who is tackled. I don't like it, and frankly I don't agree with it, but this seems as close to open-and-shut as it gets by the current rules. The opponent did have his arms pinned and couldn't stop his head from hitting the turf.

It is a stupid rule for a good tackle. However, I can see exactly what the problem is in accordance with that rule, and I expect Hawkins to get a week after appeal through nothing more than sheer sh*t luck.

The rule applies if the tackle was unreasonable in the circumstances. Sensible people will see it was not.

So is it now the effective interpretation that both arms must no longer be pinned??

Pinning just one arm doesn't guarantee protection of the head, so if Hawkins is punished it's reasonable to conclude that the tackle is dead.

The game is steadily being destroyed by stupidity.

 

[cats_09]

Comparing Hawkins tackle to another one that happened yesterday - Cordy on Koschitzke

I know that Cataholic has already said they deem nothing wrong with the tackle below, and Tom Morris has given his opinion that it may be 1 week or based on the Redman case last week he'll have no case to answer

Here's my question - what real differences are there in the actions taken by both Hawkins & Cordy?
In both cases they are run down tackles, the tackler does their best to turn the player so that they aren't driven forward and instead land on their shoulder & in both cases there is contact between the tackled players head & the ground
The only difference seems to be that Koschitzke played out the match but Joyce was subbed out with concussion

That then raises the question of what exactly is being punished - is it the action of the tackle that's under scrutiny here or purely the outcome? If it's the latter doesn't that mean the league isn't so concerned about the actions leading to incidents & how to limit those actions from the game, because if the player gets up & plays on then surely the action wasn't that bad, but rather it's about the consequences of the action regardless of what the actual action was?

Both tackles look very similar in execution, but there's a chance for very different outcomes because the AFL & MRO don't seem as concerned about reportable actions but rather reportable outcomes & then working backwards which seems to be a very wrong way of doing things

We need to remember that sometimes shit happens on the football field - no one likes to see a player injured or concussed, but if we're going to start suspending those run down tackles then suspend every player who executes a run down tackle regardless of outcome

 

[Strange Cat]

View attachment 1206486

If Hawkins ‘dumps’ his opponent, it’s on his shoulder region as shown in this screenshot.

I have been arguing that all night against the posters that were saying Hawkins deliberately tried to hurt him

Rose coloured glasses I guess

 

[Cataholic]

Comparing Hawkins tackle to another one that happened yesterday - Cordy on Koschitzke

I know that Cataholic has already said they deem nothing wrong with the tackle below, and Tom Morris has given his opinion that it may be 1 week or based on the Redman case last week he'll have no case to answer

Here's my question - what real differences are there in the actions taken by both Hawkins & Cordy?
In both cases they are run down tackles, the tackler does their best to turn the player so that they aren't driven forward and instead land on their shoulder & in both cases there is contact between the tackled players head & the ground
The only difference seems to be that Koschitzke played out the match but Joyce was subbed out with concussion

That then raises the question of what exactly is being punished - is it the action of the tackle that's under scrutiny here or purely the outcome? If it's the latter doesn't that mean the league isn't so concerned about the actions leading to incidents & how to limit those actions from the game, because if the player gets up & plays on then surely the action wasn't that bad, but rather it's about the consequences of the action regardless of what the actual action was?

Both tackles look very similar in execution, but there's a chance for very different outcomes because the AFL & MRO don't seem as concerned about reportable actions but rather reportable outcomes & then working backwards which seems to be a very wrong way of doing things

We need to remember that sometimes sh*t happens on the football field - no one likes to see a player injured or concussed, but if we're going to start suspending those run down tackles then suspend every player who executes a run down tackle regardless of outcome

Good summary

If they suspend Hawkins I think that'll signal the death of the tackle to the competition.

Players will avoid tackling for fear of suspension, and the soul of the game will evaporate just a little bit more.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I agree.

The way that the tribunal views the game has changed, and people need to get to grips with that. It's no longer about the actions of the tackler so much as it is the outcome of the player who is tackled. I don't like it, and frankly I don't agree with it, but this seems as close to open-and-shut as it gets by the current rules. The opponent did have his arms pinned and couldn't stop his head from hitting the turf.

It is a stupid rule for a good tackle. However, I can see exactly what the problem is in accordance with that rule, and I expect Hawkins to get a week after appeal through nothing more than sheer sh*t luck.

we are quite literally getting to the point of eradicating tackling from AFL football. Any tackle that results in concussion is being suspended based on outcomes and not the law of a tackle.

To have what is deemed as a legal tackle that is perfectly executed and at times called holding the ball by an umpire, to be then classified as a suspension is a twisted knot the AFL has gotten itself into.

the bump is practically gone because everyone receives punishment for it, which creates greater congestion and issues of flow, so what now for the tackle??

What is the perfect tackle that 100% of occasions it is executed in every single possible fashion and scenario never results in concussion??

the problem is I don’t think such a tackle scenario exists, which the AFL is on a mission to happen, which leads me to the eventual extinction of the tackle if we continue down this path, as there is no other conclusion to reach to obtain 100% concussion free tackles in our game.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Good summary

If they suspend Hawkins I think that'll signal the death of the tackle to the competition.

Players will avoid tackling for fear of suspension, and the soul of the game will evaporate just a little bit more.

mad crazy as it may sound, it could also be a reason for top Four sides dropping off a little come pre-finals, as physicality is now punished in AFL, and nobody wants to miss September action

 

[iameviljez]

The rule applies if the tackle was unreasonable in the circumstances. Sensible people will see it was not.

Unfortunately the guidelines for determining exactly this state that one consideration is the pinning of the arms.