Autopsy Round 7 - Liked, Hated, Learnt

[DangerSloane]

That's nice, but as far as I'm aware their defence was full strength. Our bunch of forward battlers still put 14 goals past that.

14 goals isnt exactly many.
They were missing their best running defender in Williams, but in reality that doesnt stop many goals.
You kick a winning score often with a makeshift forward line, so obviously its not exactly important to your gameplan which personnel are there

 

[PhatBoy]

Your outs don't nearly compare to the Giants in the game on the weekend. Melbourne are average you say but we lost to the Cats by 3 points (and should've won if Gawn had kicked like a footballer. Rubbish assessment.



Even worse assessment. Three losses under 10 points, and they've played some decent teams.

How do they not compare? Ok overall the Giants missing players may have an edge over the cats, but we were without a million time all Australian midfielder, who despite being fairly injury prone is still among the best 2-3 in his position in the sport. Without Menzel, easily an elite goal kicker. Without a two time AA centre half back. Without our best performed defender over the preceding 2 seasons. Without our best young player in Parfitt who has impressed literally every commentator who’s ever watched him, without our ruckman, who, as average as he is, is better than Stanley. Without our our most versatile smaller player (Guthrie), a guy who was arguably best on ground in an away win in Adelaide three weeks earlier in Horlin-Smith and our only genuine speedster outside Murdoch and Dangerfield in Cockatoo.

Talk up the GWS wankfest all you want but the fact is we are a much, much better side with those players in it no matter what spin you want to put on it.

 

[Back One Out]

Surely Naitanui's suspension is the softest ever.

100% worst ever tribunal decision bar none.

Big Footy goldfish memories

Some players in previous years were given 2 match suspensions for dangerous tackles which didn't even concuss the tackled player.
All that happened was the player's head hit the ground and the tackle "looked bad". It had the potential to cause injury.

Naitanui pinned Amon's arms, drove him face first into the ground and knocked him out

He was always going to be suspended.

Have people been sleepwalking through the previous 5 years and not paying attention?

LOL at all the cretins in the media like Robbo and Whateley who think they know everything, but don't seem to know the rules, nor remember reportable incidents from one year to the next.

 

[ROYAL EAGLE]

Loving WCE debuting so many players this year including two against GWS.

But wow if our two emergencies play as well Josh Rotham and Tarir Bayok thats 4 in one game really pushes the envelope

 

[DangerSloane]

Big Footy goldfish memories

Some players in previous years were given 2 match suspensions for dangerous tackles which didn't even concuss the tackled player.
All that happened was the player's head hit the ground and the tackle "looked bad". It had the potential to cause injury.

Naitanui pinned Amon's arms, drove him face first into the ground and knocked him out

He was always going to be suspended.

Have people been sleepwalking through the previous 5 years and not paying attention?

LOL at all the cretins in the media like Robbo and Whateley who think they know everything, but don't seem to know the rules, nor remember reportable incidents from one year to the next.

1. A sling tackle is totally different.
2. People were warned heavily about sling tackles
3. Sling tackles are far more dangerous than falling into someones back
4. Same tackle was not even looked at earlier in the season, even when concussion was caused.
5. Arms WERE NOT PINNED. He had an arm free.
6. Well no he wasnt always going to get suspended when similar tackles/results have not even been looked at.

I think you're the one not paying attention.
Sounds like someone backed one out onto your keyboard and thats what you came up with.

 

[Back One Out]

1. A sling tackle is totally different.
2. People were warned heavily about sling tackles
3. Sling tackles are far more dangerous than falling into someones back
4. Same tackle was not even looked at earlier in the season, even when concussion was caused.
5. Arms WERE NOT PINNED. He had an arm free.
6. Well no he wasnt always going to get suspended when similar tackles/results have not even been looked at.

I think you're the one not paying attention.
Sounds like someone backed one out onto your keyboard and thats what you came up with.

Those sling tackles you're thinking of were not the only dangerous tackles which saw players suspended in previous years. I blame f-wits in the media (like Jon Ralph and Robbo) for crapping on about on "sling tackles" and confusing people.

For the past 5 or 6 years, the AFL have been consistently suspending players who tackle an opponent and cause head injury
They've talked in the aftermath about the dangers of pinning both arms and using slinging motions, but these aren't the be-all and end-all

Slam tackles, sling tackles, pile driver tackles... it doesn't matter what silly name people use.

Anytime a player gets knocked out in a tackle, you know they're going to look at it. Then it's a matter for them to decide, was it purely a case of bad luck and it wasn't an unreasonable tackle... Or did the tackler use excessive force or use a dangerous action which caused the injury?

I don't know how anyone can seriously argue that Naitanui didn't cause Amon's head injury? Maybe he didn't pin both arms, but he certainly went beast mode when he buried Amon into the Optus Stadium turf.

He showed no duty of care

It's simple. Nothing to be confused about.

If he does it again, he will be suspended again.

 

[DangerSloane]

Those sling tackles you're thinking of were not the only dangerous tackles which saw players suspended in previous years. I blame f-wits in the media (like Jon Ralph and Robbo) for crapping on about on "sling tackles" and confusing people.

For the past 5 or 6 years, the AFL have been consistently suspending players who tackle an opponent and cause head injury
They've talked in the aftermath about the dangers of pinning both arms and using slinging motions, but these aren't the be-all and end-all

Slam tackles, sling tackles, pile driver tackles... it doesn't matter what silly name people use.

Anytime a player gets knocked out in a tackle, you know they're going to look at it. Then it's a matter for them to decide, was it purely a case of bad luck and it wasn't an unreasonable tackle... Or did the tackler use excessive force or use a dangerous action which caused the injury?

I don't know how anyone can seriously argue that Naitanui didn't cause Amon's head injury? Maybe he didn't pin both arms, but he certainly went beast mode when he buried Amon into the Optus Stadium turf.

He showed no duty of care

It's simple. Nothing to be confused about.

If he does it again, he will be suspended again.

In summary of your post...it doesnt matter now what the action was, as long as it caused injury to the opponent?

So if a guy runs into a tackler and ducks his head and gets knocked out, should that tackler be suspended?

Do you agree with the tribunal that we should be taking weight and height into the equation?

Naitanui did not use excessive force, he did not throw the player...amons head was hitting the ground no matter what...he cant be blamed simply because he was born bigger than Amon. That just opens a can of worms that will ruin the sport.

Next we'll be saying oh well sorry Mason Cox, because your defender was a foot shorter, that mark doesnt count now, you'll have to hand it back.

What happens if next week someone does the same tackle but is the small guy doing it to a big guy? Is it still a suspension? or only if the guy gets knocked out?

You're one of a handful of people that think this is the right decision. Its not right by the laws of the game and is CERTAINLY not right in the spirit of the game.

 

[Back One Out]

In summary of your post...it doesnt matter now what the action was, as long as it caused injury to the opponent?

No. I didn't say anything like that.

I'm not talking about any old tackle.

The issue is tackles which are liable to cause head injury

So if a guy runs into a tackler and ducks his head and gets knocked out, should that tackler be suspended?

No...

Don't be ridiculous

Do you agree with the tribunal that we should be taking weight and height into the equation?

You're looking at it from the wrong angle.

It's up to Naitanui to take his own size into the equation when he is tackling a small bloke

Just because he is twice someone's size and strength, it doesn't mean he gets to drive their head into the ground and knock them out.

The onus is on him to show a duty of care

Naitanui did not use excessive force

Of course he did. He put everything he had into that tackle. He went beast mode, which is why both commentators gasped in awe and why Amon got knocked out.

he did not throw the player...

Nicnat rode Amon into the ground. The umpire penalised him for in the back.
His tackle was against the rules. Just let that sink in for a second...

amons head was hitting the ground no matter what...he cant be blamed simply because he was born bigger than Amon.

Bullshit.

All footballers should know how twist the tackled player's body to the side when they tackle them from behind.
Naitanui obviously wasn't coached properly as a junior if he's been tackling players like this all of his life.

That just opens a can of worms that will ruin the sport.

LOL

Just don't knock the guy out when you tackle them. Don't slam their head into the ground.

It's not that hard, mate.

What happens if next week someone does the same tackle but is the small guy doing it to a big guy? Is it still a suspension? or only if the guy gets knocked out?

Bingo!

You've got it.

The tribunal have ALWAYS given extra consideration to the damage caused

Not sure why dumbasses like Jonathan Brown keep on arguing about that.

If you hurt someone and it's deemed to be a reportable offence, then you will be suspended.

You're one of a handful of people that think this is the right decision.

LOL

Just because thousands of people bitch and moan about a decision doesn't mean there aren't thousands more who silently agree with the decision

The internetz is so funny the way it fosters people's outrage

Most people don't really care about this and they just shrug when they hear NicNat was suspended.

Its not right by the laws of the game

Wrong.

You can't tackle like Naitanui did.

1. In the back - free kick against
2. The force of the tackle (Nicnat's combined mass, strength and tackling action) caused his opponent's head to slam into the ground. Therefore a reportable offence under the Rough Conduct/Dangerous tackles guidelines.

Please get your facts straight.

and is CERTAINLY not right in the spirit of the game.

Wrong again.

It was never in the spirit of the game that it's okay to knock players out by going beast mode when tackling someone

It's unnecessary. It's football. Not wrestling or MMA.

 

[SloppyJoe]

Naitanui pinned Amon's arms

This was a falsity stated by Christian on Monday and instantly debunked by the crystal clear footage. The fact that more than 3 days later you still think Amon's arms were pinned shows (very ironically, given your post), that you haven't even remotely been paying attention.

You lost all credibility with those 4 words, mate.

 

[Back One Out]

This was a falsity stated by Christian on Monday and instantly debunked by the crystal clear footage. The fact that more than 3 days later you still think Amon's arms were pinned shows (very ironically, given your post), that you haven't even remotely been paying attention.

You lost all credibility with those 4 words, mate.

Well he pinned one arm - the one without the ball - and instantaneously drove his 201cm 110kg frame into Amon's back all the way to the ground for a face first landing

No attempt whatsoever to turn Amon sideways in the tackle.

No duty of care shown. None.

I laugh at all the muppets who refuse to accept the AFL rules on this.

 

[SloppyJoe]

Well he pinned one arm - the one without the ball - and instantaneously drove his 201cm 110kg frame into Amon's back all the way to the ground for a face first landing

No attempt whatsoever to turn Amon sideways in the tackle.

No duty of care shown. None.

I laugh at all the muppets who refuse to accept the AFL rules on this.

You can say whatever you want, but it holds very little weight given your lack of credibility. Maybe look at the incident first and then decide for yourself next time, rather than parroting what others have said.

 

[Back One Out]

You can say whatever you want, but it holds very little weight given your lack of credibility. Maybe look at the incident first and then decide for yourself next time, rather than parroting what others have said.

Hahaha

You've been stewing with anger all week about this

Hahahahahahahahahaha

And I am right and you are wrong

(Maybe you could appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport in Switzerland. I'm sure they'll listen to all of your sound arguments.)

 

[DangerSloane]

No. I didn't say anything like that.

I'm not talking about any old tackle.

You're right you're talking about a clumsy tackle. Nothing more. No intent to hurt.

The issue is tackles which are liable to cause head injury

All tackles are likely to cause a head injury if the bloke dives head first into the ground to win an in-the-back

No...

Don't be ridiculous

You're looking at it from the wrong angle.

Ive looked at it from all the angles. If suspensions are handed out for that kind of thing then we'll have 3 or 4 players suspended out of every game.

It's up to Naitanui to take his own size into the equation when he is tackling a small bloke

Absolute ******* bullshit. He has no obligation to tackle lightly because the bloke is smaller. In that case why dont we just recruit a bunch of 40kg players because nobody could tackle them at all without reasonably expecting injury...which after all is your entire argument.

Just because he is twice someone's size and strength, it doesn't mean he gets to drive their head into the ground and knock them out.

No but it doesnt mean he should be punished for being bigger and stronger than his opponent.

The onus is on him to show a duty of care



Of course he did. He put everything he had into that tackle. He went beast mode, which is why both commentators gasped in awe and why Amon got knocked out.

He put everything into the tackle, just like every single person watching, coaching or playing the game wants a player to. Just because it was an awkward and illegal tackle doesnt mean he intended to knock him out. He didnt hit him high remember.

Nicnat rode Amon into the ground. The umpire penalised him for in the back.
His tackle was against the rules. Just let that sink in for a second...

Ill let it sink in. So now every play that is against the rules is a suspension? It was a free kick nobody is debating that. A free kick does not equal a suspension. Should every high tackle therefore head to the tribunal? After all its against the rules.

Bullshit.

All footballers should know how twist the tackled player's body to the side when they tackle them from behind.
Naitanui obviously wasn't coached properly as a junior if he's been tackling players like this all of his life.

Indeed they should. Which is why a free kick was paid against Naitanui and his coaches would be suggesting he does better next time.
Once again absolutely no reason for a suspension.

LOL

Just don't knock the guy out when you tackle them. Don't slam their head into the ground.

Oh ok next time I'm sure he'll ask Amon nicely not to put his face first into the ground. Maybe he should have just not tackled and asked Amon nicely for the ball...

It's not that hard, mate.

You're right its not, but even after you've been told many many times you still dont get it.

Bingo!

You've got it.

The tribunal have ALWAYS given extra consideration to the damage caused

Not sure why dumbasses like Jonathan Brown keep on arguing about that.

If you hurt someone and it's deemed to be a reportable offence, then you will be suspended.

This is the problem. That is not a reportable offense in anyones eyes except for you and some idiot at the AFL.

LOL

Just because thousands of people bitch and moan about a decision doesn't mean there aren't thousands more who silently agree with the decision

More likely to be right if you're outnumbering the opposite opinion by 1000 to 1

The internetz is so funny the way it fosters people's outrage

You think this is an internet thing...thats funny. The outrage began in print, TV, ex players, coaches, current players well before it even hit the internet.
Also the internet is how everything is conveyed these days so really youre being a bit daft with that comment.

Most people don't really care about this and they just shrug when they hear NicNat was suspended.

Wrong. I've never seen a reaction like this from neutral players/fans about any decision.


Wrong.

You can't tackle like Naitanui did.

1. In the back - free kick against
2. The force of the tackle (Nicnat's combined mass, strength and tackling action) caused his opponent's head to slam into the ground. Therefore a reportable offence under the Rough Conduct/Dangerous tackles guidelines.

Please get your facts straight.

Wrong again.

It was never in the spirit of the game that it's okay to knock players out by going beast mode when tackling someone
Except it has, for the entire history of the game. Now you want players to only go at the ball/player with 'mild intensity'.


It's unnecessary. It's football. Not wrestling or MMA.
Football involves tackling and risk of injury. Its not Netball is what you should be saying.

 

[DangerSloane]

This was a falsity stated by Christian on Monday and instantly debunked by the crystal clear footage. The fact that more than 3 days later you still think Amon's arms were pinned shows (very ironically, given your post), that you haven't even remotely been paying attention.

You lost all credibility with those 4 words, mate.

I think he lost credibility with ALL of his words tbh.
Never have I seen a bigger pile of steaming turd....and I've read Rucci articles.

 

[DangerSloane]

Well he pinned one arm - the one without the ball - and instantaneously drove his 201cm 110kg frame into Amon's back all the way to the ground for a face first landing

No attempt whatsoever to turn Amon sideways in the tackle.

No duty of care shown. None.

I laugh at all the muppets who refuse to accept the AFL rules on this.

Did you think Burton should've been suspended?
After all he showed no duty of care, chose to bump and knocked a bloke out and sent him to hospital?

He showed no care whatsoever, used all of his momentum and frame. Gave the bump everything he had.

His bump was likely to cause injury.

Did he take into account his height and that his head would hit Higgins' head?

All of your rules fit that case...yet no suspension?

I bet you didnt feel the same about that one though did you....?

 

[Back One Out]

Did you think Burton should've been suspended?
After all he showed no duty of care, chose to bump and knocked a bloke out and sent him to hospital?

He showed no care whatsoever, used all of his momentum and frame. Gave the bump everything he had.

His bump was likely to cause injury.

Did he take into account his height and that his head would hit Higgins' head?

All of your rules fit that case...yet no suspension?

I bet you didnt feel the same about that one though did you....?

You're comparing apples and oranges

LOL at people who regurgitate the crapola they hear from douchebags in the football media

Burton virtually stood his ground and braced for the impact. That's how soft the bump was. It was a perfectly legal hit and within the rules. The clash of heads was accidental, an unforeseeable outcome from a legitimate action which was within the rules. Both their heads clashed together! Burton didn't lower his head down and headbutt Higgins... It could've easily been Burton who came off second best from that accidental clash of heads.

There was nothing reportable about that incident.

Naitanui executed a dangerous tackle which was outside the rules and fell under the 'Rough Conduct' category of the AFL tribunal guidelines

 

[DangerSloane]

You're comparing apples and oranges

LOL at people who regurgitate the crapola they hear from douchebags in the football media

Burton virtually stood his ground and braced for the impact. That's how soft the bump was. It was a perfectly legal hit and within the rules. The clash of heads was accidental, an unforeseeable outcome from a legitimate action which was within the rules. Both their heads clashed together! Burton didn't lower his head down and headbutt Higgins... It could've easily been Burton who came off second best from that accidental clash of heads.

There was nothing reportable about that incident.

Naitanui executed a dangerous tackle which was outside the rules and fell under the 'Rough Conduct' category of the AFL tribunal guidelines

BURTON RAN FULL PELT FROM FORTY METRES AWAY TO MAKE THAT HIT!
You obviously don't watch anything.

How soft the bump was? That the guy woke up in hospital? An impact which was much bigger than Naitnui's - and DIRECT to the head not head on ground.

Legal? It was high, he chose to bump, the guy was knocked out. What part of that is legal?

But the head clash was caused by them being similar size. He didn't take his size into account when laying the bump did he? Whoops.

So now if the offending player could be worse off that changes everything? So if Naitnui had dislocated his shoulder in the impact then no suspension?

You're making this up as you go along. You're proving to be more and more stupid with every word.

You call my claims ridiculous but what you dont realise is I'm using entirely your own argument.

Nothing reportable about the incident. Except choosing to bump and knocking the bloke out.

 

[Adz]

This is hella boring.

 

[roacheee]

This is hella boring.

agreed, like watching the pies

 

[The Filth]

Another change to the interpretation of the rules

Learnt:
You can get rubbed out for legally tackling a player simply because you're bigger and stronger than your opponent - NicNat
but..
You can get off at the tribunal for bumping a player in the head (as long as you are wearing a Swans jumper) - Luke Parker