Tackling the tackling issue, how do we resolve the issue?

[Gazza Greatness]

According to the MRO that must be the expectation as Close got 1 week

I'd be very surprised if Close's appeal is not upheld, just reckon the MRO got it wrong, if appeal is dismissed then the game is in serious trouble when it comes to tackling and a player tackled goes to ground, the tackler is on a hiding to nothing.

Close's decision or non decision is really a line in the sand moment, sure the head has to be protected, especially when it comes to dangerous tackles which we have seen a few this year but that is not what Close did, it was the momentum of Dawson going forward that ultimately was the issue.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Geelong is challenging the Close outcome.. should be the first time where all supporters are hoping a cats player gets off

It's nearly identical to day on close. Should be 2 weeks for the sake of consistency

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

It's nearly identical to day on close. Should be 2 weeks for the sake of consistency

He was on the ground but the style of tackle was the same. Both tackles should have had no case to answer. Game is in the grave if this gets upheld and not thrown out.

 

[The Hobo]

It's nearly identical to day on close. Should be 2 weeks for the sake of consistency

Agreed, though the end result/fall seemed heavier with the Day one - likely due to more momentum.

It's a difficult situation, as I can see both sides of it. The head has hit the ground rather heavily, and it's something we're trying to prevent - but there is only so much a player can do in these situations.

What really irks me about the whole thing is the legit sling tackles, like Gary Rohan - have only got one week. I played this game a long long time, and I know that a sling tackle is far more avoidable than the Day/Close one. They need to make the sling action multiple weeks, there is simply no excuse to be doing that now. It's avoidable, and can generate more force than the other tackle types.

The dump tackle like Day/Close - I don't have a solution, they're much harder to prevent whilst maintaining a good tackle on a player.

 

[TEDDY24INC]

It's nearly identical to day on close. Should be 2 weeks for the sake of consistency

It’s not identical, and in any case your logic is flawed. Consistently been wrong is not a good outcome.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

It’s not identical, and in any case your logic is flawed. Consistently been wrong is not a good outcome.

When the hawks have constantly been the only team to cop BS suspensions, I'm happy everyone is now getting the same treatment

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Head high contact is now in plague proportions in every game now. At least 10 above shoulder tackles are not penalised every single quarter of every game.
Since the AFL decided that all head high contact is the player with the ball fault it has just made it worse.
The difference now is the tackler doesn’t even have to try and tackle correctly now, they all tackle the same height knowing that they won’t be penalised because we blame the player with the ball now.
You watch them tackle now, they hardly even have to bend their knee, just straight in and no attempt at all to tackle player below the shoulder.
Whst the AFL did with this rule is modern crap, the head is not sacrosanct if the tackler no longer has to tackle corrrectly.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I'd be very surprised if Close's appeal is not upheld, just reckon the MRO got it wrong, if appeal is dismissed then the game is in serious trouble when it comes to tackling and a player tackled goes to ground, the tackler is on a hiding to nothing.

Close's decision or non decision is really a line in the sand moment, sure the head has to be protected, especially when it comes to dangerous tackles which we have seen a few this year but that is not what Close did, it was the momentum of Dawson going forward that ultimately was the issue.

Colour me surprised also ...

 

[Boxhead_31]

So just so we're all clear.
AFL players are now expected to tackle, but they have to release an arm otherwise they are committing an illegal tackle

 

[The_Todd07]

The tribunals explanation is a joke.

Essentially "if you feel the tackle going to ground, release the tackle"

Yeah that will go well when it just allows players to get off easy handballs

Also their determination that Dawson's momentum didn't greatly contribute to the tackle going to ground just defies physics.
I'm not at all saying Dawson deliberately fell face first, but he is 15kg heavier than Close and tried to break away. That created an angular momentum that is very much harder to arrest from Close's position. With that momentum and Close sticking the tackle, there was only one possible outcome

 

[TEDDY24INC]

When the hawks have constantly been the only team to cop BS suspensions, I'm happy everyone is now getting the same treatment

This isn’t the bay

 

[FRUMPY]

Touch footy.

That's what happens when players sue the AFL for head knocks, the AFL get rid of as many head knocks as possible.

Only going to get worse

On CPH2005 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Touch footy.

That's what happens when players sue the AFL for head knocks, the AFL get rid of as many head knocks as possible.

Only going to get worse

On CPH2005 using BigFooty.com mobile app

How much worse can it get? I don’t even know what sport they are playing now. Can’t believe so many people still attend to watch it.

 

[Boxhead_31]

As soon as a player feels the opposition player going to ground they must be released by the tackler according to the Tribunal's definition of how they want the game played.
Will be interesting to see if the umpires speed up their paying of HTB now that tackles can no longer be completed to the ground.

 

[Micksy]

It is what it is.
If you tackle someone and their head touches (or looks like it might have been able to touch) the ground, you are gone.
Simple.
Now I just want to see the same apply to the potential Brownlow medallists, and during finals.
Consistency please.

 

[kickazz]

Head high contact is now in plague proportions in every game now. At least 10 above shoulder tackles are not penalised every single quarter of every game.
Since the AFL decided that all head high contact is the player with the ball fault it has just made it worse.
The difference now is the tackler doesn’t even have to try and tackle correctly now, they all tackle the same height knowing that they won’t be penalised because we blame the player with the ball now.
You watch them tackle now, they hardly even have to bend their knee, just straight in and no attempt at all to tackle player below the shoulder.
Whst the AFL did with this rule is modern crap, the head is not sacrosanct if the tackler no longer has to tackle corrrectly.

Unpopular but I agree with this.

Tackling used to be more of a skill, and the tradeoff when tracking to pin the arms was always that you'd risk going too high.

The interpretation change has, as you say, led to lazy technique.

 

[kickazz]

Surely if pinning both arms is going to become problematic then players will need to learn to tackle lower.

But there must be a trade-off then. HTB will need to be stricter.

 

[Gazza Greatness]

I'd be very surprised if Close's appeal is not upheld, just reckon the MRO got it wrong, if appeal is dismissed then the game is in serious trouble when it comes to tackling and a player tackled goes to ground, the tackler is on a hiding to nothing.

Close's decision or non decision is really a line in the sand moment, sure the head has to be protected, especially when it comes to dangerous tackles which we have seen a few this year but that is not what Close did, it was the momentum of Dawson going forward that ultimately was the issue.

Essentially "if you feel the tackle going to ground, release the tackle"

Yeah that will go well when it just allows players to get off easy handballs

Also their determination that Dawson's momentum didn't greatly contribute to the tackle going to ground just defies physics.
I'm not at all saying Dawson deliberately fell face first, but he is 15kg heavier than Close and tried to break away. That created an angular momentum that is very much harder to arrest from Close's position. With that momentum and Close sticking the tackle, there was only one possible outcome

Initially, I posted that MRO had got the Close decision wrong and the appeal would be upheld but never in my wildest imagination did I think they would come back with their reasoning as to why the appeal was dismissed and to what Close was suppose to do under the circumstances that prevailed. My initial comment of it being a line in the sand moment if appeal was dismissed has ended up far more serious that I ever anticipated, this is a bloody outrage, what are these clowns trying to do, destroy our game.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

We lynch those in charge of the tribunal and rules committee. Pretty simple solution.

 

[lordbob]

Also if you swing the player in a tackle, even if both arms are free, you get suspended. ie tyler brokman suspension

 

[Boxhead_31]

Surely if pinning both arms is going to become problematic then players will need to learn to tackle lower.

But there must be a trade-off then. HTB will need to be stricter.

And quicker.
By the Tribunal standard, it has to be paid before a player hits the ground now as the tackler now needs to let go before a tackle hits the ground

 

[Boxhead_31]

Also if you swing the player in a tackle, even if both arms are free, you get suspended. ie tyler brokman suspension

Dawson would have been cited for this just before the Close tackle if that were the case

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Are players now starting to flop a bit when they get tackled to draw the free? Looking at the Brockman tackle, Walker does put it a bit of mayo on it. It wasn't even a aggressive sling!

Yep, I started noticing this a bit last year and even more so this year. I can't prove it of course, but it appears to me that some players being tackled to the ground will purposely allow their head to hit the ground to draw a free kick.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

The ONLY way I can see this being a fair, workable solution is with an instant whistle on being "tackled". No waiting to give the player in possession a chance to dispose. As soon as the tackler get two hands on the player in possession, the whistle blows. Either a ball-up (no prior) or holding the ball (prior).

Players will adjust, and tap the ball to advantage to run into space. No-one will want to take possession in a pack or hot contest, so players will sit back ready to tackle. Ball winners will be those who can knock-on, soccer, etc to their advantage breaking out of the pack to win possession.

Messy.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Also if you swing the player in a tackle, even if both arms are free, you get suspended. ie tyler brokman suspension

Yeah, I don't really get this one at all.

No arms pinned, body (right knee and right arm) was first to hit ground with no head contact or driving force at all.