Taylor Walker tackle on Josh Kelly

[Fadge]

Very similar action in the tackle... difference being that in the tex/kelly tackle both players were running in the same direction when the tackle was layed so there was plenty of momentum in that direction already whereas the parfitt one the players were moving towards each other, the tackle was laid and then parfitt slung him onto the ground.

Furthermore it looks like parfitt holds him all the way onto the ground whereas tex lets go before kelly makes contact with the ground.

Has Parfitt been reported?..

Ultimately as a crow supporter I hope tex gets off but if he doesnt it wont be a bad thing to see him rest up early and get himself ready for a injury free preseason.

Time to have a look at Himmelburg!..

Agree. This tackle was worse than Tex's, but still not reportable.

Will be interesting to see what the MRO does with these on Monday.

 

[Snake_Baker]

There's are a dozen tackles like that per game. That fact they rarely end up in concussion means they aren't highlighted.

The fact the officiating umpire awards the free after Kelly is on the ground says it all. The decision was only overturned when it was apparent Kelly wasn't getting up.

Seems the tackle is dead.

You know how the rule is interpreted.

 

[Fadge]

You know how the rule is interpreted.

Looking forward to a deciding moment in a big final when a tackled player stays on the ground 'feigning' head contact with the ground, only to get up after being awarded the free kick to baulk his opponent and slot the winning goal from 55 metres.

 

[master bate]

It doesn't have the lift and tilt over horizontal that most sling tackles have. Neither does he pin and drive in to the ground. He squats down but doesn't then drive his legs up, he collapses and drops his own body weight.

There's significant rotation and Kelly really goes flying at force which is not ideal and leads to the injury but this is right on the minor end of sling tackles.

I agree that even with the concussion they should make this medium impact and 1 week because Tex has done very little wrong.

 

[BG32]

 

[demontim27]

You guys are just seeing things that didn't happen.

The tackle didn't dislodge the ball.

Kelly has very clearly tried to kick the ball and Walker turning him has prevented that from happening, his foot only just missed it.

Also the umpire does not put his whistle to his mouth to signal a free kick until Kelly is already on the ground.

So stop trying to recreate the vision to fit your idea that this was some heinous act, it barely fits the criteria of a sling tackle.

Well this relates to nothing that was said

 

[Chaisa]

Live it looks bad, on other angles it looks more of a good tackle gone wrong. He'll still probably get a week though as it was a double movement and Kelly did get concussed.

 

[dockerfemme]

I cannot see why this is any different to the nyhuis on Robbie grey tackle a few weeks ago. That was 3 weeks. Maybe as Kelly eventually walked off the impact could be seen as different. Grey did play the next week so the actual time lost won’t be more for Grey.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Wasn't that bad to be honest.
Should have stayed with the original decision.

 

[Aeglos]

Having seen this a few times now I’m shifting my original assessment of “it kinda looks like more than one motion” to “there is more than one motion”.

AFL could probably argue Tex should’ve just dropped to his knees and dragged Kelly straight down if Adelaide go the “what else was he meant to do to stop Kelly disposing of the ball”

 

[biaseddustyfan]

7 weeks

 

[headache1]

I cannot see why this is any different to the nyhuis on Robbie grey tackle a few weeks ago. That was 3 weeks. Maybe as Kelly eventually walked off the impact could be seen as different. Grey did play the next week so the actual time lost won’t be more for Grey.

If Walker did to Kelly what Nyhuis did to Gray, then Kelly would be in a coma.

 

[Tex9798]

Well this relates to nothing that was said

What do you mean? You say the ball coming loose is relevant and I say it's completely irrelevant.

 

[demontim27]

What do you mean? You say the ball coming loose is relevant and I say it's completely irrelevant.

It was relevant to the discussion of the two free kicks.

I never said how the ball came loose. I’m well aware kelly caused this.

You just got ridiculously defensive because you assumed i was saying tex committed a “heinous act”

I never said anything of the sort. I literally just explained that overruling one free kick is common.

Don’t attribute s**t to me that I haven’t said.

 

[Tex9798]

Take your Crows blinkers off mate.

I've said I think he will get suspended.

I was specifically referring to your summary of the incident that it was holding the ball as soon as it came loose which - which it wasn't as clear in the vision.

Two umpires called two different free kicks at the same time, one over rules the other.

 

[John Who]

Haven't been going on this part of the forum lately, and I made a thread before reading this one:
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/why-penalties-relating-to-concussions-can-be-unfair.1201807/

FWIW, I think Tex will get 1 game. Though I think it's unfair, as there does not seem to be intent to cause a head knock in this particular incident.

 

[Gralin]

He should go for that. It's the kind of tackle that shouldn't be rewarded, no way did he need to grab Kelly and swing him round like that

If Kelly had got up it probably doesn't even get looked at though, but it's a dangerous tackle and another example of where the outcome will probably decide the result instead of the risk of the action.

 

[stax on the mull]

I've said I think he will get suspended.

I was specifically referring to your summary of the incident that it was holding the ball as soon as it came loose which - which it wasn't as clear in the vision.

Two umpires called two different free kicks at the same time, one over rules the other.

That's the conundrum with how they rule these incidents.

The tackling player wants the umpire to make the decision right away so that he can get the ball and put his team in a better position.

If the umpire is second too slow to blow the to whistle, the tackler tends to carry on with the tackle to make it clear to the umpire that his tackle was good and the ball spilled.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

He knew the ball was out while they were both still upright, all he had to do was let go but he made the decision to continue on. Week / weeks.

 

[ShadeyP]

Definitely a suspension is warranted ... the motion of the plant , turn and swing the player is exactly what the AFL do not want to see .
The shittiest thing with that tackle is that it featured the best footwork i have seen from Tex in years . 2 weeks is about right .
See you in 2019 Tex , and hopefully 3 to 4 kegs lighter , fit and fresh for the preseason .

 

[John Who]

Here's basically how the AFL rule sits at the moment, with the exact same tackling motion:
- if Kelly gets up, free to Tex ("illegal disposal" or "holding the ball")
- if Kelly looks dazed but can still play on, free to Kelly, nothing more ("dangerous tackle")
- if Kelly remains concussed (not playing the game out), free to GWS, Tex gets looked at and possible suspension

One exact motion, can possibly lead to 3 different outcomes!

 

[Gralin]

Here's basically how the AFL rule sits at the moment, with the exact same tackling motion:
- if Kelly gets up, free to Tex ("illegal disposal" or "holding the ball")
- if Kelly looks dazed but can still play on, free to Kelly, nothing more ("dangerous tackle")
- if Kelly remains concussed (not playing the game out), free to GWS, Tex gets looked at and possible suspension

One exact motion, can possibly lead to 3 different outcomes!

Yep but it should go against the tackler every time. That's the problem they don't want to give clear guidelines about cleaning up the dangerous s**t for fear of appearing soft so they flip flop on it

 

[John Who]

That's the conundrum with how they rule these incidents.

The tackling player wants the umpire to make the decision right away so that he can get the ball and put his team in a better position.

If the umpire is second too slow to blow the to whistle, the tackler tends to carry on with the tackle to make it clear to the umpire that his tackle was good and the ball spilled.

It's a conundrum for the tackler too. Tex couldn't be sure if the ball had spilled out from the tackle, so unless the "illegal disposal" was called earlier by an umpire, Tex would have no choice but to hold Kelly for a bit longer until near ground impact. This is the basic instinct of a tackler - to stick the tackle and make sure the opponent doesn't dispose freely of the ball.

So if we're purely focusing on eradicating the concussion, Tex or any player in his position, would have to let go of Kelly earlier, allowing Kelly free access to a clean disposal. Which sort of kinda defeats the purpose of doing the tackle in the first place!

 

[romeohwho]

He’ll get a week.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I think he must get 1 week. MRO really has no choice.