Tex's tackle - a free kick for, then against, and then maybe a suspension

[John Who]

Just want to point out this overt bias/inconsistency that is seriously bugging me as a footy fan. And it relates to poor old Tex and the way the AFL is heading.

Tex's sling tackle against Kelly, causing him to drop the ball, and then landed heavily and being concussed. Initially, the umpire awarded the free kick to Tex for "holding the ball". Then he later saw Kelly lying motionless, and reversed the free kick for GWS for a "dangerous tackle". To rub more salt into Tex and Adelaide fans' wounds, the commentators all discussed (and agreed) that it wasn't a tackle of malicious intent, and then proceeded to guess that Tex would get a week off, and Ling thinks perhaps 2 weeks off.

Here's my biff:
The game is heading in 2 directions:
1. hard tough footy - Tex's tackle was actually a decent example of tough footy, if it wasn't for the head landing first, it would have been a near-perfect tackle for the footy purist.
2. player safety - everyone's now more aware of concussions and its long-term implications, and the AFL wants to eradicate actions (bumps, dangerous tackles etc) which are deem to be at high risk for concussions.

Questions:
1. Can the game ever exist with "tough footy" and "player safety" in perfect harmony?
2. When Doedee and Murphy got concussed in the same game (a fortnight ago), why no umpires reverse the play and reward us a free kick? (especially when the free kick was obvious to us on 2 accounts anyway)
3. Does Tex deserve a suspension for a tackle, that if 5 years ago, would have been a free kick to him?

 

[Cincinnatus]

This will not end well for you, Tex or the club you support. And your thread will be moved if its not locked first.

#nostradamus

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

If doodee concussion wasn't punished. Neither should Tex

Common law

 

[John Who]

This will not end well for you, Tex or the club you support. And your thread will be moved if its not locked first.

#nostradamus

Not sure if it needs to be locked. This really is more about the way the game is heading more so than the issue about Tex. There is too much grey areas and it will lead to more frustrations.

 

[Cincinnatus]

Not sure if it needs to be locked. This really is more about the way the game is heading more so than the issue about Tex. There is too much grey areas and it will lead to more frustrations.

Oppo supporters arent level headed enough to see that. They will see Tex's name, see the team you support and itll be open season with the salt

 

[John Who]

If doodee concussion wasn't punished. Neither should Tex

Common law

Have you been taking some new herbs/vitamins? You seem to be making a lot of sense lately!

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Have you been taking some new herbs/vitamins? You seem to be making a lot of sense lately!

Picking chicks up at the footy

A few drinks afterwards and then hanky panky.

Best medicine ever

 

[Mike Smyth]

Picking chicks up at the footy

A few drinks afterwards and then hanky panky.

Best medicine ever

So you were at the Port game last night?

 

[Cap]

Oppo supporters arent level headed enough to see that. They will see Tex's name, see the team you support and itll be open seaosn with the salt

Seriously excellent post.

 

[jimvic]

Just want to point out this overt bias/inconsistency that is seriously bugging me as a footy fan. And it relates to poor old Tex and the way the AFL is heading.

Tex's sling tackle against Kelly, causing him to drop the ball, and then landed heavily and being concussed. Initially, the umpire awarded the free kick to Tex for "holding the ball". Then he later saw Kelly lying motionless, and reversed the free kick for GWS for a "dangerous tackle". To rub more salt into Tex and Adelaide fans' wounds, the commentators all discussed (and agreed) that it wasn't a tackle of malicious intent, and then proceeded to guess that Tex would get a week off, and Ling thinks perhaps 2 weeks off.

Here's my biff:
The game is heading in 2 directions:
1. hard tough footy - Tex's tackle was actually a decent example of tough footy, if it wasn't for the head landing first, it would have been a near-perfect tackle for the footy purist.
2. player safety - everyone's now more aware of concussions and its long-term implications, and the AFL wants to eradicate actions (bumps, dangerous tackles etc) which are deem to be at high risk for concussions.

Questions:
1. Can the game ever exist with "tough footy" and "player safety" in perfect harmony?
2. When Doedee and Murphy got concussed in the same game (a fortnight ago), why no umpires reverse the play and reward us a free kick? (especially when the free kick was obvious to us on 2 accounts anyway)
3. Does Tex deserve a suspension for a tackle, that if 5 years ago, would have been a free kick to him?

Interesting thread title - hopefully no photos

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

So you were at the Port game last night?

It was an interesting experience

Saw some dummy spits. Also saw eagles fans boo Ebert

I was also at the game a week before

Mercury retrograde is real for them

Ended up meeting a crows chick and then watched us at
a bar in the city. A few fights broke out between crows and port fans.

 

[Interloperer]

3. Does Tex deserve a suspension for a tackle, that if 5 years ago, would have been a free kick to him?

Walker was suspended for the exact same thing 6 years ago

 

[Apsaalooke]

Same as the bump - if you sling and the player's concussed you have a problem.
Solution - don't sling.

 

[John Who]

Same as the bump - if you sling and the player's concussed you have a problem.
Solution - don't sling.

In the heat of the moment, sometimes it's not always easy to control how you tackle. The intent should always be the main gist of the penalty, not the resulting concussion.

Because if we're just judging a penalty on concussions, then why didn't the guy who knocked out Doedee get suspended? And while we're at it, why not ban the forward bump going with the flight of the ball causing concussion (a la Murphy)?

 

[Iron]

So you were at the Port game last night?

The crowd is a little more his pace.

 

[Apsaalooke]

In the heat of the moment, sometimes it's not always easy to control how you tackle. The intent should always be the main gist of the penalty, not the resulting concussion.

Because if we're just judging a penalty on concussions, then why didn't the guy who knocked out Doedee get suspended? And while we're at it, why not ban the forward bump going with the flight of the ball causing concussion (a la Murphy)?

If Brayshaw didn't have his jaw smashed Gaff's penalty would be less, so the result has already become a factor in deciding punishment. Whether we like it or not (I do) it's now the norm.

Two wrongs don't make a right. They should have at least been looked at.

 

[John Who]

If Brayshaw didn't have his jaw smashed Gaff's penalty would be less, so the result has already become a factor in deciding punishment. Whether we like it or not (I do) it's now the norm.

Two wrongs don't make a right. They should have at least been looked at.

Can't really argue with Tex's tackle being looked at. But it does raise concerns for me, that it's a rule that is highly biased for certain players. Can you imagine Mackay tackling a bigger opponent, would the same action ever result in a concussion? Or Betts tackling a bigger defender?
Tex is a bigger and taller bloke compared with Kelly in this particular case, so his momentum would be a little more impactful than say if Kelly done the same tackling motion on Tex.

Brayshaw got smashed with intent to bodily harm. Tex's tackle was a tackle to pin the opponent down. Entirely separate intents, although both causing concussions.

 

[SaltPeter]

Can't really argue with Tex's tackle being looked at. But it does raise concerns for me, that it's a rule that is highly biased for certain players. Can you imagine Mackay tackling a bigger opponent, would the same action ever result in a concussion? Or Betts tackling a bigger defender?
Tex is a bigger and taller bloke compared with Kelly in this particular case, so his momentum would be a little more impactful than say if Kelly done the same tackling motion on Tex.

Brayshaw got smashed with intent to bodily harm. Tex's tackle was a tackle to pin the opponent down. Entirely separate intents, although both causing concussions.

Dangerfield got a week for his tackle on Kreuser last year. Wasn't dissimilar

 

[jackster83]

I thought Tex actually let go of him before he hit the ground, compared to previous incidents where he completed the sling tackle.

It won't change the outcome though.

#stillabettercaptainthangoalhogboak

 

[Apsaalooke]

Can't really argue with Tex's tackle being looked at. But it does raise concerns for me, that it's a rule that is highly biased for certain players. Can you imagine Mackay tackling a bigger opponent, would the same action ever result in a concussion? Or Betts tackling a bigger defender?
Tex is a bigger and taller bloke compared with Kelly in this particular case, so his momentum would be a little more impactful than say if Kelly done the same tackling motion on Tex.
Brayshaw got smashed with intent to bodily harm. Tex's tackle was a tackle to pin the opponent down. Entirely separate intents, although both causing concussions.

No argument there. They're entirely different of course but if Brayshaw wasn't injured then Gaff gets 2-3 weeks not 8. If Kelly isn't concussed then Tex gets 0 or a fine rather than a presumed 1 week. The result influences the penalty.

 

[hippyhippy]

I thought Tex actually let go of him before he hit the ground, compared to previous incidents where he completed the sling tackle.

It won't change the outcome though.

#stillabettercaptainthangoalhogboak

Yeah there didn't seem to be any force downward... Its just a footy incident.... Plenty of tackles causing concussion throughout the year .. But ling the cu'nt was so early to call for a suspension without even reviewing it What a flog.

 

[John Who]

Yeah there didn't seem to be any force downward... Its just a footy incident.... Plenty of tackles causing concussion throughout the year .. But ling the cu'nt was so early to call for a suspension without even reviewing it What a flog.

Commentators shouldn't be able to freely comment on the penalties. This can lead to public bias towards the incident and also can affect the tribunal adjudication. Funny thing is, if Kelly got up right away, Tex would have got the free!

 

[crowsup]

Commentators shouldn't be able to freely comment on the penalties. This can lead to public bias towards the incident and also can affect the tribunal adjudication. Funny thing is, if Kelly got up right away, Tex would have got the free!

You beat me to it!.
I could almost guarantee that if the position was reversed, i.e. - Kelly was the perpetrator against one of our player, the initial decision would NOT have been reversed.

 

[Simmo28]

If Brayshaw didn't have his jaw smashed Gaff's penalty would be less, so the result has already become a factor in deciding punishment. Whether we like it or not (I do) it's now the norm.

Two wrongs don't make a right. They should have at least been looked at.

Drink drive and get caught by a cop - lose your licence and a fine. Drink drive and kill someone - you are doing some time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Simmo28]

You beat me to it!.
I could almost guarantee that if the position was reversed, i.e. - Kelly was the perpetrator against one of our player, the initial decision would NOT have been reversed.

Load of s**t


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk