MRP / Trib. Taylor Walker

[CaptainDangerfield]

Mark the day in the diary folks - 14th May 2012 - the day football died.

Teehee sorry couldn't help myself. Remember the ever "victimised", over dramatic port supporters saying this after Pickett got 6 games for crunching Begleys spine.

It certainly is a bizarre decision though. Appears we have been treated grossly unfairly. Must have something to do with Lovell-Murrays impecible record. So how are you supposed to tackle now if you can't pin the arms.

 

[Huntercrow]

I wonder if Walker could have won his appeal!

I think had the AFC decided to try their luck most supporters would have backed the club but unfortunately the football department's ultra conservatism doesn't match the players on field aggression this season. It seems out of place and our club admins need to become much more aggressive in these situations. We need more "us versus them" attitude and a little less namby pamby don't want to rock the boat nonsense.

You can say what you like about Walkers tackle compared to the Priddis tackle but the end result was Harry Taylor was not concussed and Priddis was. I'm no lawyer but wouldn't Priddis be more likely to win damages in a civil court?

This seems like a case of the sling tackle being labelled as unfashionable by the AFL and if they manage to eradicate it then the AFL believe they have done their job. Priddis may disagree.

 

[johnnypanther]

I'd be spending the next two weeks having someone work on Tex's tackling technique with him, last thing we need is for this to happen again come finals time.

Just get him to play with shoe polish over his face

 

[FR0GGY]

Does the player get any say in appealing at all or is it purely a club decision?

 

[swanfan]

The MRP are a very unfunny joke.

 

[johnnypanther]

I ****ing hate Adrian Anderson and what he has done to our great game.

I wouldn't piss on the bloke if he was on fire

I would...... with a petrol hose...... and add Vlad to the fire too

 

[beartoo]

Does the player get any say in appealing at all or is it purely a club decision?

Think it was Trigg that said the club would take into account whether or not Walker wanted to clear his name.
So,yes.

 

[Mattrox]

Just get him to play with shoe polish over his face

Dude, that's just not on.

 

[JP Sauce]

^ Agreed.

I mean imagine if that stuff got into your eyes?

 

[jamesclean]

Walker

seriously two weeks...

im psyched on footy again after our performance lately, but this MRP decision feels like davis and bock.

artificial AFL tampering.

IT WAS A REALLY GOOD TACKLE

i'm mad

the clean is mad

FOOTY

 

[AFC979810]

^ Agreed.

I mean imagine if that stuff got into your eyes?

Ha ha ha... Gold...

I am not as angry at the club as many are on here... I can understand why we didn't challenge... If we were unsuccessful Walker then effectively has 5 weeks off footy (misses Carl/Coll/Fre/Bye)... This way he has a two week rest - gets an afl game - weeks rest and then back into into...

I am still angry / miffed at the MRP. What i would love the club to come out and do is rip the decision to shreds.. Cop the fine and let the media / fans know how unfair the decision was. Demand an public explanation from the AFL as to why Nahas and NLM got off... Make it very very uncomfortable for them.

 

[JP Sauce]

Re: Walker

You wouldn't like the clean when he's angry.

 

[Allefgib]

That's weak in my opinion mate.

AD/AA would just point at the perfect opportunity they had to contest if they felt that strongly about it. And they would be right.

 

[AFC979810]

That's weak in my opinion mate.

AD/AA would just point at the perfect opportunity they had to contest if they felt that strongly about it. And they would be right.

Its our only option apart from doing nothing. Due to the bye the penalty if we are unsuccessful would be too large (5 weeks off). The MRP is so bloody inconsistent that we cannot risk a challenge. By coming out and damning the decision and the inequality we get our point across. Otherwise we are just pleading guilty and copping it on the chin. We have nothing to lose (except a little fine) and who knows it may make the MRP think twice before citing another one of our players...

We are a big club... We need to start acting like it.

When you make a big stink of something with the AFL, things change... Look at Tippett's free kick count on Sunday - he had 5 free kicks which is the same number he received in the first 6 games combined...

 

[The Big Sauce]

Re: Tex for the coleman?

It's amazing that is worth as much as a cheap shot by Campbell Brown behind play.

Or only 5 weeks short of Barry Hall's punch.

MRP needs to take a step back and look at themselves.

 

[moogerfooger]

Re: Tex for the coleman?

It's amazing that is worth as much as a cheap shot by Campbell Brown behind play.

Or only 5 weeks short of Barry Hall's punch.

MRP needs to take a step back and look at themselves.

I don't like the suspension either but its important to remember it would only have been one week with a guilty plea if Tex didn't have the carryover points in the bank. He's partly serving time for that slide into Surjan.

 

[SugarShane]

Re: Tex for the coleman?

He's partly serving time for that slide into Surjan.

Which the AFL have now come out and said they went too hard on.

 

[radiojake]

Re: Tex for the coleman?

Which the AFL have now come out and said they went too hard on.

Yeah, but Walker's slide did get Surjan in the head, it wasn't like the Thomas, Broughton ones, it was closer to the Goodes incident.

I said before, I thought his slide was more dangerous than his tackle.

 

[headache1]

Re: Tex for the coleman?

Yeah, but Walker's slide did get Surjan in the head, it wasn't like the Thomas, Broughton ones, it was closer to the Goodes incident.

I said before, I thought his slide was more dangerous than his tackle.

It was his shoulder actually. Walker's size combined with how quick he was moving would have resulted in Surjan being knocked out cold/bleeding had he hit him in the head.

 

[man in outer]

Re: Tex for the coleman?

Hi guys,

Im a bombers supporter but logged on to see what the reaction was over in Adeliade. To be honest I was quite surpised. Do all the posters think that Tex had no case to answer or that two weeks is over the top?

Personally I think that given he choose to fling Taylor into the turf and he got knocked out means that he needed to go (obviously an unpopular opinion around here). If that is not punish why wouldnt a player as strong as Walker try to do that every time? Is there any instance of a tackle that needs suspension? How do you guys think this compafred to the Mumford one on Ablett a few years ago?

Anyway hope you kill Carlton and Collingwood over the next two weeks.

 

[Racing To Win]

Re: Tex for the coleman?

Hi guys,

Im a bombers supporter but logged on to see what the reaction was over in Adeliade. To be honest I was quite surpised. Do all the posters think that Tex had no case to answer or that two weeks is over the top?

Personally I think that given he choose to fling Taylor into the turf and he got knocked out means that he needed to go (obviously an unpopular opinion around here). If that is not punish why wouldnt a player as strong as Walker try to do that every time? Is there any instance of a tackle that needs suspension? How do you guys think this compafred to the Mumford one on Ablett a few years ago?

Anyway hope you kill Carlton and Collingwood over the next two weeks.

Don't have a real problem with Walker getting cited. It is just the inconsistency of the MRP that is frustrating. Nathan Lovett-Murray's and Nahas' tackles were much more dangerous/had greater effect with Priddis getting subbed out, and they didnt get looked at. NLM hooked his leg around Priddis to get him off balance and then he drove him into turf. His intent was, without question, make him go to ground and hurt him. Incredibly frustrating, but that is just my opinion.

Cheers

 

[man in outer]

Re: Tex for the coleman?

Don't have a real problem with Walker getting cited. It is just the inconsistency of the MRP that is frustrating. Nathan Lovett-Murray's and Nahas' tackles were much more dangerous/had greater effect with Priddis getting subbed out, and they didnt get looked at. NLM hooked his leg around Priddis to get him off balance and then he drove him into turf. His intent was, without question, make him go to ground and hurt him. Incredibly frustrating, but that is just my opinion.

Cheers

Thanks Racing. Thought NLM was bit lucky because of the leg action which you mentioned. I think he was cleared because it was been deemed to be two seperate actions i.e. the leg hook and the arm tackle weren't related actions. Also believe there was no real drive into the turf. Nahas one was strange and unusual tackle, TBH thought he was gone. He certainly didnt show much thought for the safety of his fellow professional footballer.

 

[Slattery_20]

What is strange, is that the head is now apparently sacrosanct, but only if it's interfered with in the specific tackle the MRP deems to be inappropriate (the sling) or a hip and shoulder.

But think about it - how else should it work:
Guys getting rubbed out for perfectly legal pieces of play, that just happen to injure a guy by chance?


Clearly they have to penalise against things that they deem as against the rules. The sling tackle being one of them.
And not penalise things that are a normal part of play, and just unluckily injure someone. NLM's tackle being one of them.

(I haven't viewed the Nahas tackle).

 

[NikkiNoo]

Re: Tex for the coleman?

Personally I think that given he choose to fling Taylor into the turf and he got knocked out means that he needed to go (obviously an unpopular opinion around here).

It wasn't a fling, it was a pull down onto his side, where his shoulder connected to the ground first. The back view of the vision actually shows that Tex loosened his hold and allowed Taylor an arm free to help cushion his fall. He was probably winded, yes, a little stunned, but this is a contact sport.

Taylor was not knocked out. If he was, he would have been subbed out of the game as per the AFL concussion rules. He played 90% game time in the match. The only time he was off was for the 5 mins until the end of the quarter while they were doing the concussion test on him.

It was a text book tackle, that is the issue I have with the MRP citing that one and allowing others to go free which were inherently had more dangerous ramifications. Although a player going off for the rest of the match concussed should have caused them to look strongly at one. Oh, dear it was all Priddis' fault, he caused his own injury as his knees buckled.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Under the current rules Tex was gone, the minute he laid that tackle. We need to stop embarrassing ourselves whinging about it.