Discussion The Koby Tackle

[plugger66]

One that is consistent

Well I think they try but its obviously hard. An example is people saying the Mumford tackle was just the same so he should be let off.

 

[majortinkle]

Well I think they try but its obviously hard. An example is people saying the Mumford tackle was just the same so he should be let off.

To be honest I think it's the mummy adjudication that's wrong. Let's just get the win and welcome him back for Sydney.

 

[Sir Skid]

If Koby played for the Pies he would have gotten off IMHO. The Pies would have challenged it if he did get a week.

We will remain a Minnow club while we keep acting like one.

 

[plugger66]

If Koby played for the Pies he would have gotten off IMHO. The Pies would have challenged it if he did get a week.

We will remain a Minnow club while we keep acting like one.

I reckon that's easy to say but is there any proof over the last year or two and there is no way they would have challenged. No club is that stupid. Still would love someone to come up with a better system.

 

[StFly]

Dude, you're not related to Dr Seuss by any chance?

No, sometimes I wish I was though as maybe then people might listen to me and understand.

It's largely my own fault I have rule books dating back to the turn of the millenium and cringe when I see people like plugger cheerleading the AFL fraternity like he wants to be a part of it and wave pom poms to further misdirect, dissuade and sweep things under carpets because boy oh boy isn't the AFL great when you don't really understand anything anymore hey?

What system would you use?

Law 19.2 in the AFL rules of the game, as adjudicated by field umpires whose intention it is to create a fair match and to apply the rule of law to that match.

This law states that they can refer cases to the tribunal/MRP for grading, it is by its very nature the punishment of the law as law 19 is Reportable offences.

Why do we have effective police in the MRP retroactively reporting the rule of law in games? Are they field umpires? No, there was a provision written into the very laws themselves to give power to the body to retroactively apply the rule of law, and this is manifestly unfair, both to the players since they can play the game in a fair manner and happen upon unfortunate circumstance, and to umpires because it brings into disrepute their mandate to apply the rule of law in a fair manner.

Your question is redundant because like most of the time you miss the point entirely.

The systems are fine, get rid of the statement empowering the MRP to retroactively apply rule of law to a game, thus brnging into disrepute the very laws they wish to try and adjudicate and give it back to the umpires. Or;

Remove it from the umpires to report any player, get rid of law 19 entirely and have it purely as an MRP report.

At the moment you have 2 reports on the same action which can be wildly different, which provides confusion to everyone involved.

This won't happen though, because the AFL, AFLPA, Umpire Department and etc are so far up each others intestines they're the Tasmanian joke about inbreeding and multiple headed abominations.

 

[plugger66]

No, sometimes I wish I was though as maybe then people might listen to me and understand.

It's largely my own fault I have rule books dating back to the turn of the millenium and cringe when I see people like plugger cheerleading the AFL fraternity like he wants to be a part of it and wave pom poms to further misdirect, dissuade and sweep things under carpets because boy oh boy isn't the AFL great when you don't really understand anything anymore hey?



Law 19.2 in the AFL rules of the game, as adjudicated by field umpires whose intention it is to create a fair match and to apply the rule of law to that match.

This law states that they can refer cases to the tribunal/MRP for grading, it is by its very nature the punishment of the law as law 19 is Reportable offences.

Why do we have effective police in the MRP retroactively reporting the rule of law in games? Are they field umpires? No, there was a provision written into the very laws themselves to give power to the body to retroactively apply the rule of law, and this is manifestly unfair, both to the players since they can play the game in a fair manner and happen upon unfortunate circumstance, and to umpires because it brings into disrepute their mandate to apply the rule of law in a fair manner.

Your question is redundant because like most of the time you miss the point entirely.

The systems are fine, get rid of the statement empowering the MRP to retroactively apply rule of law to a game, thus brnging into disrepute the very laws they wish to try and adjudicate and give it back to the umpires. Or;

Remove it from the umpires to report any player, get rid of law 19 entirely and have it purely as an MRP report.

At the moment you have 2 reports on the same action which can be wildly different, which provides confusion to everyone involved.

This won't happen though, because the AFL, AFLPA, Umpire Department and etc are so far up each others intestines they're the Tasmanian joke about inbreeding and multiple headed abominations.

As my daughter would say omg. A lot written and also beautifully written but doesn't address your original point that basically says because a free was paid the umpire should either be dropped or the mrp is wrong because a free was paid.

I can't write as much or as good as you but I get to the point. You should try it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[phantom13]

Lindsay Thomas got given three weeks for a blatant flying elbow. Some points raised in his case
- the vfl/afl fixturing was taken into account (his 3 weeks will effectively become 5 weeks because of the vfl state game and kangaroos bye week)
- his previous poor record at afl level was NOT taken into account
- his "contrition" immediately after giving the "bump" was taken into consideration

One other interesting note
- Maynard (the bloke he elbowed) was taken immediately to hospital where he underwent a CT scan, he has since been assessed and is suffering from amnesia, he is expected to miss 1-2 weeks

Now, I know it's the VFL so a seperate entity but honestly... A fair tackle, rewarded with a holding the ball decision in which both players continued playing is in the same ball park as a cheap, running elbow that ko'd someone who is no suffering from memory loss and will miss 1-2 games. MRP is in a sad state of affairs.

 

[IllBeTheJudge]

As my daughter would say omg. A lot written and also beautifully written but doesn't address your original point that basically says because a free was paid the umpire should either be dropped or the mrp is wrong because a free was paid.

I can't write as much or as good as you but I get to the point. You should try it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For me it wasn't just that a free was paid to Stevens ... umpires can get it wrong.
The problem I have with it all is all the mixed messages that come out of the system.

Umpires instructed to give more leeway to the person with the ball when it comes to HTB decisions. So the player has to tackle harder to ensure the ball doesn't come out. In this case, whilst the player spent some time off the field for a concussion test, he passed it, and played out the game. Effectively meaning he wasn't injured in the tackle.

Players (such as J. Riewoldt on AFL360 last night) stated that he was fine with the ruling citing that you can't have players getting knocked out in tackles. Fair point. Then watch the Mumford tackle from a week ago or something, who knocks the guy out and he doesn't return to the play. How was that one? All fine says Jack, it wasn't a sling tackle. Hang about, I thought the first thought was that players shouldn't be knocked out in tackles? How long until Mummy gets asked to "tackle more softly"?

Cue next segment where you get to mock the players on the weekend who chose to avoid contact in contested situations. Wait, now we want players to go in hard and potentially hurt each other? Perhaps they were fearful of making too much contact (either to themselves and/or the opposition) and hurting someone? Make up your damn mind AFL.

I don't know what my point is TBH but this suspension has me mad.

 

[Pardon me]

For me it wasn't just that a free was paid to Stevens ... umpires can get it wrong.
The problem I have with it all is all the mixed messages that come out of the system.

Umpires instructed to give more leeway to the person with the ball when it comes to HTB decisions. So the player has to tackle harder to ensure the ball doesn't come out. In this case, whilst the player spent some time off the field for a concussion test, he passed it, and played out the game. Effectively meaning he wasn't injured in the tackle.

Players (such as J. Riewoldt on AFL360 last night) stated that he was fine with the ruling citing that you can't have players getting knocked out in tackles. Fair point. Then watch the Mumford tackle from a week ago or something, who knocks the guy out and he doesn't return to the play. How was that one? All fine says Jack, it wasn't a sling tackle. Hang about, I thought the first thought was that players shouldn't be knocked out in tackles? How long until Mummy gets asked to "tackle more softly"?

Cue next segment where you get to mock the players on the weekend who chose to avoid contact in contested situations. Wait, now we want players to go in hard and potentially hurt each other? Perhaps they were fearful of making too much contact (either to themselves and/or the opposition) and hurting someone? Make up your damn mind AFL.

I don't know what my point is TBH but this suspension has me mad.

Add to that Robbo saying "you cant pin the arms" Koby only had one arm pinned Robbo - and it was the one *not* holding the footy - and then following up with "you can't have players being knocked out" - pretty sure he played out the game there mate.
It's a double standard - "We want you to go in hard, but tackle softly" it just will not work

 

[majortinkle]

For me it wasn't just that a free was paid to Stevens ... umpires can get it wrong.
The problem I have with it all is all the mixed messages that come out of the system.

Umpires instructed to give more leeway to the person with the ball when it comes to HTB decisions. So the player has to tackle harder to ensure the ball doesn't come out. In this case, whilst the player spent some time off the field for a concussion test, he passed it, and played out the game. Effectively meaning he wasn't injured in the tackle.

Players (such as J. Riewoldt on AFL360 last night) stated that he was fine with the ruling citing that you can't have players getting knocked out in tackles. Fair point. Then watch the Mumford tackle from a week ago or something, who knocks the guy out and he doesn't return to the play. How was that one? All fine says Jack, it wasn't a sling tackle. Hang about, I thought the first thought was that players shouldn't be knocked out in tackles? How long until Mummy gets asked to "tackle more softly"?

Cue next segment where you get to mock the players on the weekend who chose to avoid contact in contested situations. Wait, now we want players to go in hard and potentially hurt each other? Perhaps they were fearful of making too much contact (either to themselves and/or the opposition) and hurting someone? Make up your damn mind AFL.

I don't know what my point is TBH but this suspension has me mad.

The point I take from your post is a. a lack of consistency and b. that they're coming at this from the wrong angle - pay holding the ball quicker and when it's dropped and sling tackles won't happen or will be obviously over the top so there won't be any argument.

 

[plugger66]

The point I take from your post is a. a lack of consistency and b. that they're coming at this from the wrong angle - pay holding the ball quicker and when it's dropped and sling tackles won't happen or will be obviously over the top so there won't be any argument.

But do we really want the person making the play penalised quicker. I reckon that just means blokes will just sweat on other players. Don't think there is an easy solution.

 

[majortinkle]

But do we really want the person making the play penalised quicker. I reckon that just means blokes will just sweat on other players. Don't think there is an easy solution.

Depends what you mean by making the play - I think teams are being rewarded for dropping the ball in the tackle by sweating their own ball carrier. I'd call the tackle the play and the ball carrier needs to get rid before the tackle is laid. It will mean more ball ups and more holding the balls, but potentially quicker disposal and more reward for the tackler.

Agree though - rule interpretation changes can have unintended consequences. I worry about the apparent success in the SANFL of the last touch rule - AFL coaches will work the rules a lot more than SANFL ones.

 

[StFly]

As my daughter would say omg. A lot written and also beautifully written but doesn't address your original point that basically says because a free was paid the umpire should either be dropped or the mrp is wrong because a free was paid.

I can't write as much or as good as you but I get to the point. You should try it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please provide evidence of me citing an umpire to be dropped based on this performance. I would love to see your apology since it didn't happen.

If you are talking about this;

Not to mention checks and balances of performance, I mean sure an overreaction by some, but if an umpire makes wrong decisions, their performance would mandate them being dropped from the highest league which demands performance until their performance improves.

Then you are confused and may seek out your daughter to explain it to you. Context is that was a response to your previous statements in this thread to other individuals calling for the umpire to be dropped, as opposed to a statement of fact that I felt the same as them. As you no doubt are well aware now, my issue is and has been for the best part of about 8ish years been on the rules themselves and their constant evolution into what we have at present.

As for the point;

Read law 15.4 in the AFL rules of the game.
Read the definitions in the tribunal booklet and the application of the MRP on said definitions.

It's a Boolean response; 1 or 0

1. The field umpire is right.
2. The MRP is right.
3. The catch is both cannot be right. because all dot points need a third option and this needs to be made clear in the case you cannot count.

In the case you are confused: my statements indicate #1 is true and 2 is false.

 

[plugger66]

Please provide evidence of me citing an umpire to be dropped based on this performance. I would love to see your apology since it didn't happen.

If you are talking about this;


Then you are confused and may seek out your daughter to explain it to you. Context is that was a response to your previous statements in this thread to other individuals calling for the umpire to be dropped, as opposed to a statement of fact that I felt the same as them. As you no doubt are well aware now, my issue is and has been for the best part of about 8ish years been on the rules themselves and their constant evolution into what we have at present.

As for the point;

Read law 15.4 in the AFL rules of the game.
Read the definitions in the tribunal booklet and the application of the MRP on said definitions.

It's a Boolean response; 1 or 0

1. The field umpire is right.
2. The MRP is right.
3. The catch is both cannot be right. because all dot points need a third option and this needs to be made clear in the case you cannot count.

In the case you are confused: my statements indicate #1 is true and 2 is false.

interesting.

 

[Kildonan]

I feel that the umpires are being asked to make too many judgement calls, things like player intent in particular. I have advocated that any new rules should be ones which don't require judgement. Make them easy and unequivocal. I think if the player's head hits the ground heavily then the tackler has failed in his duty of care to prevent such and a penalty should be incurred such that it forces the player to at least try to prevent head impacts in the future.

This is the real issue for me - ensuring that our players are protected primarily, and that all players in the AFL and in lesser leagues down through junior levels are left without any doubt that the head is sacrosanct. A rule preventing the tackler smacking the tackled player's head into the ground should be welcomed. It is a good thing.

If you have any doubt on the seriousness of this look up info on ex NFL players with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE)

 

[Strahany]

I feel that the umpires are being asked to make too many judgement calls, things like player intent in particular. I have advocated that any new rules should be ones which don't require judgement. Make them easy and unequivocal. I think if the player's head hits the ground heavily then the tackler has failed in his duty of care to prevent such and a penalty should be incurred such that it forces the player to prevent head impacts.

This is the real issue for me - ensuring that our players are protected primarily, and that all players in the AFL and in lesser leagues down through junior levels are left without any doubt that the head is sacrosanct. A rule preventing the tackler smacking the tackled player's head into the ground should be welcomed. It is a good thing.

If you have any doubt on the seriousness of this look up info on ex NFL players with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE)

Problems will arise, similar to this tackle, when the player in possession of the ball could have prevented said impact if they chose to drop the ball and break their fall. If someone pins both arms, then that's fair enough to punish the tackler. But if the player has one arm free, then it would be ridiculous to punish the tackler when they provided every opportunity for their opponent to avoid the head contact. It's no different to a player injuring themselves if they opt to duck into a tackle that was otherwise safe, or a player standing in space to prevent a mark and being cleaned up, etc.

In such a scenario, players would be more likely to avoid pinning an arm altogether, so that they minimise their chance of suspension, however this would just create a state of ineffectual tackles. If this rule were to be implemented (or even if it isn't, quite frankly) the AFL should make it clear to players that they risk injury by opting to hold onto the ball, thus should accept incorrect disposal call and protect themselves (especially considering such a tackle was likely to result in a holding the ball decision, anyway).

 

[theprospect]

Possible little dig there? Rate your work Koby

 

[Kildonan]

ex NFL players with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE)

The NFL reportedly reached a settlement in 2013 with around 4,500 former players (or their estates).
This could become a huge class action suit against AFL unless they can be shown to have done everything possible to prevent CTE.