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

[ThatsjustDappa]

And now there's a habit of players flicking their heads into the ground when tackled to play for a free kick. Noticed it a handful of times this season, accentuating the action for the ump....

 

[Art Vandelay_]

HairyO showing his bias for all to see. Incapable of displaying a rational thought on Geelong.
Common sense from the MRO as this was not a suspendable tackle

 

[HairyO]

HairyO showing his bias for all to see. Incapable of displaying a rational thought on Geelong.
Common sense from the MRO as this was not a suspendable tackle

He grabbed the arm and dragged him down head first in to the ground.

Its happened 15 times with a suspension this year.

The MRO has now changed and only penalising outcome.

Which is terrible.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Apology accepted.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

He grabbed the arm and dragged him down head first in to the ground.

No he didn't.

Francis ran for about 10 metres then dived headfirst at the ground. Had plenty of time to get rid of the football so he could protect himself, chose not to.

 

[Spearman]

No he didn't.

Francis ran for about 10 metres then dived headfirst at the ground. Had plenty of time to get rid of the football so he could protect himself, chose not to.

umpire should have showed duty of care and whistled it a tackle with HTB

 

[speedpeck23]

Have to agree with Nathan Buckley, get rid of prior opportunity. Currently that interpretation encourages players to hang on to the ball, increases the risk of a dangerous tackle.

The prior opportunity was allowed to encourage players to make the play, but the stand on the mark rule does that now in a better way. Forget prior opportunity just pay holding the ball.

 

[HairyO]

Have to agree with Nathan Buckley, get rid of prior opportunity. Currently that interpretation encourages players to hang on to the ball, increases the risk of a dangerous tackle.

The prior opportunity was allowed to encourage players to make the play, but the stand on the mark rule does that now in a better way. Forget prior opportunity just pay holding the ball.

But when you get rid of it players will just drop the ball or throw it and the umpires wont penalise. It makes that problem worse.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Have to agree with Nathan Buckley, get rid of prior opportunity. Currently that interpretation encourages players to hang on to the ball, increases the risk of a dangerous tackle.

The prior opportunity was allowed to encourage players to make the play, but the stand on the mark rule does that now in a better way. Forget prior opportunity just pay holding the ball.

Removing prior opportunity will only discourage players actually going first at the ball. As a result, I think we’re more likely to just see players dancing around the ball, waiting for someone to pick it up and tackle them to get a holding the ball.

Prior opportunity is essential to the game IMO to provide some protection for the player attacking the ball. Without that protection, they will either just keep kicking it along the ground to avoid taking possession or wait for their opponent to take possession. Can you imagine how dull a game would become with 50+ holding the ball frees for each team?

 

[HairyO]

Removing prior opportunity will only discourage players actually going first at the ball. As a result, I think we’re more likely to just see players dancing around the ball, waiting for someone to pick it up and tackle them to get a holding the ball.

Prior opportunity is essential to the game IMO to provide some protection for the player attacking the ball. Without that protection, they will either just keep kicking it along the ground to avoid taking possession or wait for their opponent to take possession. Can you imagine how dull a game would become with 50+ holding the ball frees for each team?

View attachment 1728595

It will also encourage more tackling where arms are pinned because you get a guaranteed free kick if you hold the ball in.

 

[flyinghi64]

Blow the bloody whistle quicker.
Sick of seeing players now get to be turned 360 degrees, EVENTUALLY break free only to be tackled again and flick the ball out for a play on call.
Bont, sorry mate but you are the king of this play but not alone.
4 umps out there, surely one of them can get the whistle to their mouth.

If you choose to take possession of the ball and can take two steps and get tackled you must immediately dispose of the ball.
If you take possession and go to ground in a tackle it should be an instant holding the ball, provided it is a fair tackle. Players will be less likely to flop to the ground.

 

[speedpeck23]

Removing prior opportunity will only discourage players actually going first at the ball. As a result, I think we’re more likely to just see players dancing around the ball, waiting for someone to pick it up and tackle them to get a holding the ball.

Prior opportunity is essential to the game IMO to provide some protection for the player attacking the ball. Without that protection, they will either just keep kicking it along the ground to avoid taking possession or wait for their opponent to take possession. Can you imagine how dull a game would become with 50+ holding the ball frees for each team.

Prior opportunity was originally introduced to provide a better chance for the ball carrier to make the play, more time to make an effective kick or handpass. This was in the days of increasing congested defensive play. Now we have "Stand" on the mark, 6 in 50m arc and better kick off space all of which have opened up the play more effectively for the player in possession.

Prior opportunity now simply encourages the ball carrier to hang on to the footy longer, become an easier target for an aggressive tackle. So, ironically it doesn't protect the player with the footy... If he doesn't make any attempt to move we just have another ball up and the same thing happens again and again. Traditionally the ball carrier was always given a chance to get rid of it if he gained possession before being tackled. If when tackled he couldn't dispose of it correctly by hand or foot he would be pinged for holding the ball. Game moves on

Don't worry players will still go for the footy and some who are skilled enough will tap the footy forward rather than take possession eg. Baldock, Bartlett, Matthews.... then take possession when they know they can break free.

Agree with flyinghi 64...pay holding the ball more often, open it up. Make the ball carrier less of a target.

 

[naysayer]

Nick Haynes

19

Nick Haynes

Age

31

Ht

192cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.4

4star

K

11.4

4star

HB

4.9

4star

M

6.2

5star

T

1.6

4star

MG

326.8

4star

D

17.4

4star

K

13.9

5star

HB

3.5

2star

M

8.0

5star

T

1.5

2star

MG

326.8

5star

D

7.8

2star

K

4.4

2star

HB

3.4

3star

M

2.4

3star

T

2.2

4star

offered a week for a tackle on Ward. Thought it was just a free kick. Not a lot of force involved.

 

[Maddo11]

Nick Haynes offered a week for a tackle on Ward. Thought it was just a free kick. Not a lot of force involved.

The majority of dangerous tackle suspensions this year have seen the player tackled continue to play out the game. Force threshold is pretty low.

 

[naysayer]

The majority of dangerous tackle suspensions this year have seen the player tackled continue to play out the game. Force threshold is pretty low.

Let's not.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

The majority of dangerous tackle suspensions this year have seen the player tackled continue to play out the game. Force threshold is pretty low.

Apparently, the MRP never grade any dangerous tackle as "low" impact despite it being in the guidelines. The base level impact now appears to medium impact.

 

[HairyO]

Nick Haynes offered a week for a tackle on Ward. Thought it was just a free kick. Not a lot of force involved.

He had a hold of the arm before Ward even had the ball. And Id say he slung him with a lot of force. Was more luck that no damage was done.

It looked pretty nasty from where I was sitting - maybe 40m away.

The handful of GWS supporters were booing the call which I found humorous.

Swans supporters are generally ignorant of the rules but GWS supporters generally are completely clueless.

A guy near me was banging his umbrella and screaming at every single call. According to old mate, every Hawk tackle was high and every GWS tackle should have been holding the ball. And he had plenty of friends.

 

[HairyO]

Apparently, the MRP never grade any dangerous tackle as "low" impact despite it being in the guidelines. The base level impact now appears to medium impact.

Potential to cause serious injury now applies to every contact involving the head.

 

[Purple Suit]

Potential to cause serious injury now applies to every contact involving the head.

They need to apply it to their rules. Grabbing one arm is holding the ball without prior but tackling with one arm free is still dangerous? It makes no sense.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Potential to cause serious injury now applies to every contact involving the head.

They should remove the impact grading then. What's the point of having "low' impact (with an example of a low impact dangerous tackle listed in the guidelines) if they don't consider anything to be low impact?

 

[RonnieRaven]

AFL just adding more grey areas to manipulate the game for best business outcomes.
You see there’s no such thing as coincidence.
Everything that happens is the result of a calculated move that leads us to where we are.

 

[Crankyhawk]

umpire should have showed duty of care and whistled it a tackle with HTB

True they do need to blow whistle much earlier

 

[Stars align]

Finally someone in the media has taken issue with the fact the AFL use pinning of the arms indiscriminately to find a player guilty of a dangerous tackle
The broad tackle was dangerous both arms pinned no way of player protecting themselves
I cannot think of another case where both arms are pinned
In most cases 1 arm is pinned the other is protecting the ball
When tackled and going to ground player has a choice to release the ball and have a good chance of cushioning your fall but also the likelihood of getting pinned for incorrect disposal
Everyone of the hia discussions over the last couple of seasons I can’t remember 1player who has ceded the ball to protect their head
This was the point raised by dunstall to which Buckley added the AFL sees 1 arm pinned as equating to both and all responsibility is with the tackler

 

[peetoo]

Dunstall and Buckley should be running the AFL

 

[HairyO]

Clearly we ban tackles. The AFL is now routinely handing out stiffer penalties for tackles than for strikes and other off-the-ball hits.