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

[Strange Cat]

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

Strange , by its very difinition tackling involves pinning the arms

 

[Cataholic]

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

What's the point of tackling if you're forbidden from pinning the arms??

 

[iameviljez]

Strange , by its very difinition tackling involves pinning the arms

What's the point of tackling if you're forbidden from pinning the arms??

Yeah, I don't disagree with either of you. The rules are an ass.

 

[cat_fanatic]

It wasn't a sling, just a footy incident.

 

[Spearman]

The only thing to my mind that makes sense is the argument for calling HTB or ball up much sooner rather than make the tackler put the ball carrier on the ground. As long as there is a wrestle there will be this problem.

 

[Cataholic]

Yeah, I don't disagree with either of you. The rules are an ass.

Yeah, not arguing with you. Just thinking out loud and bouncing off of you....

Indeed an ass.

 

[Strange Cat]

Yeah, not arguing with you. Just thinking out loud and bouncing off of you....

Indeed an ass.

It’s very clear it’s a outcome based report rather than the tackle itself, heaps of tackles are made during a game …and yet this is the only one that is being looked at because of the end result…it’ll be looked at then appealed imo

Just madness that this is what it has come to because Hawkins executed that tackle within the laws of the game

 

[Cataholic]

It’s very clear it’s a outcome based report rather than the tackle itself, heaps of tackles are made during a game …and yet this is the only one that is being looked at because of the end result…it’ll be looked at then appealed imo

Just madness that this is what it has come to because Hawkins executed that tackle within the laws of the game

Completely agree.

As iameviljez said, the interpretation is an ass.

 

[iameviljez]

Yeah, not arguing with you. Just thinking out loud and bouncing off of you....

Indeed an ass.

I do think that the "arms pinned" rule is a joke, as is the sliding rule (i.e. the Gary Rohan rule). Eliminating the bump I completely understand as it's a tactic used to literally hurt people, but tackling and going for the football are both at the literal core of the game: the footy.

There is a place for legislating against two-motion tackles that dump a player's head into the ground. This is not one of them.

 

[Patronus]

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.

In reality I don’t think he can get one week. It would have to be two or nothing. Their only option if he is cited is to argue that it was not unreasonable for him to perform the tackle as he did and that he had no other option and that he tried to make the tackle as safe as he possibly could in the circumstances.

There is no way they will be able to argue the impact down from high to medium if Joyce got a concussion from the tackle. You would have to hope it was not that bad and that StKilda had just decided to not waste time and bring in the injury sub while trying to perform the tests with not a great deal of time to go in the last quarter.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

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.

Absolute utter bullshitt - and a total load of craap-

As a previous poster - who put up the actual rules - if the player has both arms pinned - you have to show a duty of care - Hawkins showed none - talk about rough - youd have to be deaf and dumb and blind not to notice that

These incidents allways seem to happen re Hawkins - not suggesting that the Melb incident was deliberate - not suggesting that for one moment - but the poor baarstard ended up with a fractured eye socket

If you take off the blue and white goggles for a moment - Hawkins the 2nd half of his career - he hasnt got the swinging arms of Neil Balme - but boy he has got the dirt in the system that Balme played with .

 

[Cataholic]

I do think that the "arms pinned" rule is a joke, as is the sliding rule (i.e. the Gary Rohan rule). Eliminating the bump I completely understand as it's a tactic used to literally hurt people, but tackling and going for the football are both at the literal core of the game: the footy.

There is a place for legislating against two-motion tackles that dump a player's head into the ground. This is not one of them.

Tackle and you get done, go low for the ball and you'll get done, hit the arms and you get done, kick away hurriedly and have it bounce out you'll get done, and so on....

The sport has become an over officiated, complicated mess that is compounded by interpretations that are outside the spirit of the game.

 

[Cataholic]

Absolute utter bullshitt - and a total load of craap-

As a previous poster - who put up the actual rules - if the player has both arms pinned - you have to show a duty of care - Hawkins showed none - talk about rough - youd have to be deaf and dumb and blind not to notice that

These incidents allways seem to happen re Hawkins - not suggesting that the Melb incident was deliberate - not suggesting that for one moment - but the poor baarstard ended up with a fractured eye socket

If you take off the blue and white goggles for a moment - Hawkins the 2nd half of his career - he hasnt got the swinging arms of Neil Balme - but boy he has got the dirt in the system that Balme played with .

Sorry, but to my mind your first sentence summarises the rest of your post.

 

[iameviljez]

Tackle and you get done, go low for the ball and you'll get done, hit the arms and you get done, kick away hurriedly and have it bounce out you'll get done, and so on....

I don't have any issue with the deliberate out of bounds rule, TBH. Modern players are very good at disguising the kick - now they hack it out of the pack and funny enough even if they *don't* intend for it to go over the line, they *do* intend for it to go near the line. Funny how these hack kicks never go back in toward the centre.

But yes, in an ideal world Tomahawk's tackle would be legal.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

In reality I don’t think he can get one week. It would have to be two or nothing. Their only option if he is cited is to argue that it was not unreasonable for him to perform the tackle as he did and that he had no other option and that he tried to make the tackle as safe as he possibly could in the circumstances.

There is no way they will be able to argue the impact down from high to medium if Joyce got a concussion from the tackle. You would have to hope it was not that bad and that StKilda had just decided to not waste time and bring in the injury sub while trying to perform the tests with not a great deal of time to go in the last quarter.

does impact need to be high for a concussion to take place? The head is not a robust structure capable of absorbing large forces. What is classified high impact for the head would not even bruise a muscle

 

[Patronus]

does impact need to be high for a concussion to take place? The head is not a robust structure capable of absorbing large forces. What is classified high impact for the head would not even bruise a muscle

No impact does not need to be high to get a concussion. You don’t even need to be hit in the head to get one you can get one from whiplash as you get concussed when your brain moves around and hits the inside of your skull.

It is why you have a head rest in your car to try and stop you head from suddenly whipping back to fast during a sudden stop and causing your brain to hit the front of your skull.

 

[51niwstac]

Dangerfield got a week for pinning both arms of Kreuzer, lost a Brownlow, Kreuzer was one of the best on ground the week after.
Hard to fathom they won't give Hawkins a week. Perhaps it could be downgraded to a fine based on Holman, but Duncan had an arm free.

 

[goyoucatters]

Based on what I've read here, I'm going to need to remove both my 'blue and white goggles' and my 'rose-coloured glasses' before I'll be able to make any sense of what happened with this incident. But how will I see anything, then?

Seriously, though, I'm also of the view that you basically just have to ban the run-down tackle if this is deemed 'outside the rules'. Don't buy for a second that there is malice in it (when Toma is clearly shown trying to turn Joyce onto his side as he goes to ground).

But I do fully accept that the AFL will make of it what they will. As last week again proved, their outcomes-based adjudication of any matters like these is just ridiculous and is totally counterproductive to producing real and lasting change in how the game is played.

Shouldn't result in any citing, let alone an actual ban. But, given the system (and given it's Toma), truly anything is possible.

 

[Jumping Jack]

Based on what I've read here, I'm going to need to remove both my 'blue and white goggles' and my 'rose-coloured glasses' before I'll be able to make any sense of what happened with this incident. But how will I see anything, then?

Seriously, though, I'm also of the view that you basically just have to ban the run-down tackle if this is deemed 'outside the rules'. Don't buy for a second that there is malice in it (when Toma is clearly shown trying to turn Joyce onto his side as he goes to ground).

But I do fully accept that the AFL will make of it what they will. As last week again proved, their outcomes-based adjudication of any matters like these is just ridiculous and totally counterproductive to producing real and lasting change in how the game is played.

Shouldn't result in any citing, let alone an actual ban. But, given the system (and given it's Toma), truly anything is possible.

Yeah it’s a worry. Who knows which way Christian goes?

In true Christian form, I’m told a cross and nails is being set up just in front of the Cats Shop.

Hopefully Hawkins can rise again after a 1 or 2 week sabbatical


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[witsend]

If we don’t want the kind of tackle Hawkins executed resulting in suspensions, then the AFL has no choice but to ban tackling from behind. Ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cats_09]

Did any Saints players remonstrate with Hawkins following the incident?

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Based on what I've read here, I'm going to need to remove both my 'blue and white goggles' and my 'rose-coloured glasses' before I'll be able to make any sense of what happened with this incident. But how will I see anything, then?

Seriously, though, I'm also of the view that you basically just have to ban the run-down tackle if this is deemed 'outside the rules'. Don't buy for a second that there is malice in it (when Toma is clearly shown trying to turn Joyce onto his side as he goes to ground).

But I do fully accept that the AFL will make of it what they will. As last week again proved, their outcomes-based adjudication of any matters like these is just ridiculous and is totally counterproductive to producing real and lasting change in how the game is played.

Shouldn't result in any citing, let alone an actual ban. But, given the system (and given it's Toma), truly anything is possible.

Reading that - youd put your last quid on it that you are a Richmond supporter - thats how some of them carry on - they are out to get us - the world is against us - its a conspiracy you know - there could be even corruption on this matter at the Afl - and Michael Christian well there you go . But anyone who has got any sense knows that is a load of tripe

The head is delicate - its not reinforced steel - you only have to look at what happened Shaun Smith- Dean Kemp - Graham Farmer and plenty of others - so common sense says you protect it at every possibly

And this utter nonsense - by keyboard warriors - that the game is soft and you cant tackle - id love to see them out on the field with both their arms pinned and 110kg on their back

You contrast Hawkins tackle - to what i consider the best tackle in the past 20 years - this tackle was brutal - it was severe - it was angry - it was hard - it was outstanding - but best of all it was safe

And that was Sav Rats tackle ( playing in the ruck ) in the last qtr - 2 years ago against West Coast in Perth . That tackle of Savs was also from behind - but the West Coast midfielder was all good -

They ought to put Savs tackle up on the AFL Website - this is how you tackle properly - and there is no risk whatsoever to the tackled players head

 

[JohnZ]

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

Duncan got concussed by Holman (as evidenced by the medical report) who got off at the tribunal. It's so clear cut that we have the playbook to take it to the tribunal and get Hawk off it Christian is stupid enough to grade it the same way again.

 

[goyoucatters]

Reading that - youd put your last quid on it that you are a Richmond supporter - thats how some of them carry on - they are out to get us - the world is against us - its a conspiracy you know - there could be even corruption on this matter at the Afl - and Michael Christian well there you go . But anyone who has got any sense knows that is a load of tripe

The head is delicate - its not reinforced steel - you only have to look at what happened Shaun Smith- Dean Kemp - Graham Farmer and plenty of others - so common sense says you protect it at every possibly

And this utter nonsense - by keyboard warriors - that the game is soft and you cant tackle - id love to see them out on the field with both their arms pinned and 110kg on their back

You contrast Hawkins tackle - to what i consider the best tackle in the past 20 years - this tackle was brutal - it was severe - it was angry - it was hard - it was outstanding - but best of all it was safe

And that was Sav Rats tackle ( playing in the ruck ) in the last qtr - 2 years ago against West Coast in Perth . That tackle of Savs was also from behind - but the West Coast midfielder was all good -

They ought to put Savs tackle up on the AFL Website - this is how you tackle properly - and there is no risk whatsoever to the tackled players head

I simply said 'anything is possible'. How that equates to supposedly imagining some grand conspiracy is seriously beyond me. I'm not suggesting corruption in this matter; just a general and lingering incompetence in making clear what is 'OK' and what is not. How anyone can take what happened with Holman and Duncan earlier this year ('system' says ban, process says 'fine') and not see that there is a huge problem with how these matters are adjudicated by the AFL is just ignoring the clear reality in my view.

Anyway, each to their own. As this thread demonstrates, it's actually possible for Cats supporters to see it quite differently. So do feel free to send along your last quid when you get a chance as well.

Geelong till I die...

 

[Goggin Our Best]

.

Anyway, each to their own. As this thread demonstrates, it's actually possible for Cats supporters to see it quite differently. So do feel free to send along your last quid when you get a chance as well.

Geelong till I die...

We agree on that - and like you say its good discussion

My final bit on this - Oscar Allen the young West Coast forward he got knocked out about 8-10 weeks ago - and i remember reading it - he said the following week - the 1st 3-4 days were frightening - he didnt know what was happening - and he was scared - he said it took him to about Thursday to come back to normal - but it rattled him a fair bit