Tom Hawkins dangerous tackle, Darragh Joyce concussed

Remove this Banner Ad

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
27,761
29,971
AFL Club
Hawthorn
There is no distinction between one and two arms being pinned in the dangerous tackle rule.
Yes Duncan had one arm free when he was tackled but it was the arm on the opposite side of the body that hit the ground. He had no way of protecting his head in that position resulting in him getting concussed.
So the only logical solution is to remove the dangerous tackle rule. Treat it the same as a collision.

And we can probably bring back the bump too.

Gil will be long gone by the time the AFL is paying out tens of millions or hundreds of millions in lawsuits so he wont care.
 

Matilda05

All Australian
Jul 28, 2013
601
695
AFL Club
Hawthorn
That is the point that all these Geelong supporters cant grasp.

We have players getting suspended / fined for actions that are no worse than the Hawkins one.

The fact that the same bloke who makes all of the decisions can grade the Hawkins tackle as lower than any of the others he chose to fine / suspend is just farcical.

I have no issue with the Hawkins tackle not being a fine or suspension, but if that is the case none of these other tackles should be penalised.

Robbie Tarrant was fined this weekend for a dangerous tackle that showed it was the shoulder that contacts the ground.
This, and they still don't get it
 

Log in to remove this ad.

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
27,761
29,971
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The logical solution is to take this process out of the hands of an idiot, because it’s pretty clear that we have an imbecile running the MRO.
The AFL signs off on every charge and every non-charge Christian lays.

The AFL decided not to appeal the Duncan tackle so let the tribunal decide that pinning 1 arm in a tackle isnt always dangerous. I cant think of any cases where 2 arms have been pinned and the tribunal cleared the player - so the AFL themselves have now decided that pinning 2 arms isnt dangerous.

So we are now left with no dangerous tackles?
 

Roosurgence

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 25, 2006
12,349
17,511
Mount Waverley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
The AFL signs off on every charge and every non-charge Christian lays.

The AFL decided not to appeal the Duncan tackle so let the tribunal decide that pinning 1 arm in a tackle isnt always dangerous. I cant think of any cases where 2 arms have been pinned and the tribunal cleared the player - so the AFL themselves have now decided that pinning 2 arms isnt dangerous.

So we are now left with no dangerous tackles?
The fact that several players were fined for dangerous tackles on the weekend clearly shows that the dangerous tackle exists.

The real issue is Christian has the power to apply arbitrary thinking to his decision.

He picks and chooses based on what outcome he wants to reach.

Selwood is the perfect example. Player head over the ball and he chooses to bump when their is another alternative. Yet magically this is seen as a fine because he gets lucky and doesn’t knock out Taylor, yet a week later he deems Redmans tackle to be worthy of a suspension due to the chance it may cause harm.

Now you tell me how this works?
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
22,634
21,432
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
The fact that several players were fined for dangerous tackles on the weekend clearly shows that the dangerous tackle exists.

The real issue is Christian has the power to apply arbitrary thinking to his decision.

He picks and chooses based on what outcome he wants to reach.

Selwood is the perfect example. Player head over the ball and he chooses to bump when their is another alternative. Yet magically this is seen as a fine because he gets lucky and doesn’t knock out Taylor, yet a week later he deems Redmans tackle to be worthy of a suspension due to the chance it may cause harm.

Now you tell me how this works?
Here's how it seemed to work. Within the rules that he follows Redman was cited but Essendon took it to the tribunal and the charge was dropped. In other words, Redman got off.

The MRO probably would have done the same with Hawkins but he decided not to waste everyone's money and time knowing the Holman precedent would see the charge dropped.
 

Roosurgence

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 25, 2006
12,349
17,511
Mount Waverley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Here's how it seemed to work. Within the rules that he follows Redman was cited but Essendon took it to the tribunal and the charge was dropped. In other words, Redman got off.

The MRO probably would have done the same with Hawkins but he decided not to waste everyone's money and time knowing the Holman precedent would see the charge dropped.
That’s not how it works.

It’s not his job to pick and chose what he thinks will get overturned or not?

His job is to grade all incidents within the guidelines and use consistency to apply those guidelines.

If the guidelines are wrong, then change them?

All you have done is prove my point that he is picking and choosing.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
27,761
29,971
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The fact that several players were fined for dangerous tackles on the weekend clearly shows that the dangerous tackle exists.

The real issue is Christian has the power to apply arbitrary thinking to his decision.

He picks and chooses based on what outcome he wants to reach.

Selwood is the perfect example. Player head over the ball and he chooses to bump when their is another alternative. Yet magically this is seen as a fine because he gets lucky and doesn’t knock out Taylor, yet a week later he deems Redmans tackle to be worthy of a suspension due to the chance it may cause harm.

Now you tell me how this works?
The only dangerous tackles the AFL has been penalising have been ones where no damage was done. Much like, as you say, bumps.

So players may as well inflict serious damage because there is a higher likelihood of getting off.
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
22,634
21,432
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
That’s not how it works.

It’s not his job to pick and chose what he thinks will get overturned or not?

His job is to grade all incidents within the guidelines and use consistency to apply those guidelines.

If the guidelines are wrong, then change them?

All you have done is prove my point that he is picking and choosing.
If picking and choosing means not lining the pockets of lawyers on a case the AFL won’t win, then you’re right.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
27,761
29,971
AFL Club
Hawthorn
If picking and choosing means not lining the pockets of lawyers on a case the AFL won’t win, then you’re right.
The rule says pinning both arms in the tackle is dangerous. There is no "except under thr following circumstances".

They are choosing not to fight it because they may win. And then they will lose the ability to let Coleman medallists and Brownlow favourites off.

Which is far more important to them than caring about player welfare.
 

Roosurgence

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 25, 2006
12,349
17,511
Mount Waverley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
If picking and choosing means not lining the pockets of lawyers on a case the AFL won’t win, then you’re right.
It means we have a clown running a part of our game that can’t even apply the same logic to his decisions from week to week and even day to day.

If you can tell me what logic he has applied to the Cordy and Hawkins decisions then you are some kind of savant.

He has actually contradicted himself with two different rulings.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
27,761
29,971
AFL Club
Hawthorn
It means we have a clown running a part of our game that can’t even apply the same logic to his decisions from week to week and even day to day.

If you can tell me what logic he has applied to the Cordy and Hawkins decisions then you are some kind of savant.

He has actually contradicted himself with two different rulings.
I didnt even think Cordy's was that bad.

He also ignored Daniels slamming Kosi's head in to the turf after Kosi had taken a mark. To me that was FAR worse than Cordy's tackle because it was a cheap shot and nothing to do with football.

In the Swans Hawks game he pinged Worpel a week despite no damage done but ignored Worpel getting tackled literally the same way.

Its not even within the round there is no consistency. Its within games.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
22,634
21,432
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
The rule says pinning both arms in the tackle is dangerous. There is no "except under thr following circumstances".

They are choosing not to fight it because they may win. And then they will lose the ability to let Coleman medallists and Brownlow favourites off.

Which is far more important to them than caring about player welfare.
Did you write to Clarko and Mitchell and demand they stop tackling drills where the tackled player's arns are pinned?
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
27,761
29,971
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Did you write to Clarko and Mitchell and demand they stop tackling drills where the tackled player's arns are pinned?
The AFL did. 4 years ago.

Which Hawks players in the last 4 years have pinned both arms and concussed someone?

Burgoyne pinned 1 arm and concussed someone and the AFL tightened the rules but they let the tribunal rewrite the rule.

Do you have any examples of Hawk players concussing players in 1 or 2 pinned arm tackles ?
 

Romeoh1

All Australian
Apr 27, 2021
921
1,137
AFL Club
Geelong
That is the point that all these Geelong supporters cant grasp.

We have players getting suspended / fined for actions that are no worse than the Hawkins one.

The fact that the same bloke who makes all of the decisions can grade the Hawkins tackle as lower than any of the others he chose to fine / suspend is just farcical.

I have no issue with the Hawkins tackle not being a fine or suspension, but if that is the case none of these other tackles should be penalised.

Robbie Tarrant was fined this weekend for a dangerous tackle that showed it was the shoulder that contacts the ground.
Pretty sure most of ‘these Geelong supporters’ recognise there is inconsistency. That’s not our fault. Just because they get others wrong, doesnt mean they should get all of the mro decisions wrong does it? The Hawkins tackle was perfectly legit- end of story. Fix the other ones they got wrong rather than insisting he be punished too.
 

Whiskers

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 16, 2006
6,719
5,925
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
I’m glad the right outcome did occur BUT I oddly find myself agreeing with the non cats fans on the ridiculous inconsistency.

I can’t grasp how Christian even fined or suspended the other tackles and let this one off.
He is blindly throwing darts and we are finally getting the rub of the green with the MRO.
It’s only taken a decade.

I couldn’t be stronger in my belief as I’ve had since Christian started that he needs the sack.
It’s taken a couple of Geelong players to get off charges for the rest of the nuffy public to finally catch on.
 

Romeoh1

All Australian
Apr 27, 2021
921
1,137
AFL Club
Geelong
The AFL did. 4 years ago.

Which Hawks players in the last 4 years have pinned both arms and concussed someone?

Burgoyne pinned 1 arm and concussed someone and the AFL tightened the rules but they let the tribunal rewrite the rule.

Do you have any examples of Hawk players concussing players in 1 or 2 pinned arm tackles ?
Sheesh hairy- Do you ever stop sooking about geelong? Your dreams must be filled with Geelong every night.
 

Roosurgence

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 25, 2006
12,349
17,511
Mount Waverley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
The AFL judicial system is an absolute joke.

One week the 'possibility' of causing harm means a suspension and yet here we are, arms pinned, slams head into turf is no suspension.
The fact that the possibility to cause harm is used as reason is an absolute joke.

All indiscretions have the possibility to cause harm.

Christen uses this garbage to try and validate his position rather than use it to make a decision. Let’s face it, in most cases he has already decided his preferred sanction and then goes about picking random points to validate it.

If he didn’t, there would be some semblance of consistency.
 

Tyrian Lonestar

Team Captain
Dec 8, 2020
450
1,205
AFL Club
St Kilda
The fact that the possibility to cause harm is used as reason is an absolute joke.

All indiscretions have the possibility to cause harm.

Christen uses this garbage to try and validate his position rather than use it to make a decision. Let’s face it, in most cases he has already decided his preferred sanction and then goes about picking random points to validate it.

If he didn’t, there would be some semblance of consistency.
P1sses me off the lame aarss decisions that are made.
There is no such thing as an even competition in the AFL
 

JackFlash

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 28, 2012
8,961
7,625
Docklands
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
QPR, Buffalo Bills, McLaren F1
That is the point that all these Geelong supporters cant grasp.

We have players getting suspended / fined for actions that are no worse than the Hawkins one.

The fact that the same bloke who makes all of the decisions can grade the Hawkins tackle as lower than any of the others he chose to fine / suspend is just farcical.

I have no issue with the Hawkins tackle not being a fine or suspension, but if that is the case none of these other tackles should be penalised.

Robbie Tarrant was fined this weekend for a dangerous tackle that showed it was the shoulder that contacts the ground.
You cannot suspend a player for a perfect tackle. Hawkins did nothing wrong.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad