Tom Hawkins dangerous tackle, Darragh Joyce concussed

Remove this Banner Ad

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
22,634
21,431
Who's asking?
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.
You have no argument from most if not all Geelong supporters. Why do we have to grasp anything? Surely this is for the AFL and MRO?
 

Roosurgence

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 25, 2006
12,349
17,511
Mount Waverley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
You cannot suspend a player for a perfect tackle. Hawkins did nothing wrong.
What was perfect about it?

The AFL has made it pretty clear that tackling with a force that slams an opponents head into the ground is not a perfect tackle at all.

What makes matters worse in this case is that the St Kilda player in this instance doesn’t even have the ball when the tackle is executed.

I have no issue with Hawkins not getting cited. I take issue with virtually every other player in the league being cited for tackles of the same nature.

If Christen does his job he makes the same call he has on other incidents and let’s the tribunal make the call, just like every other case.

If this is the road we are going to take things then it’s an absolute sham that Toby Greene was suspended because he executed a fend off that caused injury, just like Hawkins executed a tackle that cause injury.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Duskfire

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 30, 2007
7,175
6,184
Perth
AFL Club
Geelong
I think it is simply a matter of the Match Review Panel saw that the Holman tackle got thrown out at the Tribunal, so they adjusted their views based on that. Even if Hawkins got suspended, the exact same thing would have happened and he would have gotten off anyway.

Regardless, the lack of inconsistency sucks, but that tackle is not worth a ban (and neither was the Holman one.) The whole system needs a serious overhaul because you have players elbowing other players in the head and getting off, but accidental head clashes and whatnot getting suspended.
 

Generalissimo

His Excellency
Jul 14, 2002
5,499
5,088
Somewhere
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
The Mighty Cats
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.
This. Just because the MRO has gotten other things wrong doesn't obligate them to get the Hawkins one wrong as well.
 

Maddo11

Premiership Player
Apr 17, 2010
4,144
4,890
AFL Club
Sydney
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.
This is a dumb take because it now gives ammo to every other "both arms pinned" tackle that DOES get suspended to use as ammo to get off.
 

Roosurgence

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 25, 2006
12,349
17,511
Mount Waverley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
This. Just because the MRO has gotten other things wrong doesn't obligate them to get the Hawkins one wrong as well.
That is actually incorrect.

The MRO is actually obligated to apply the same process that it did to all the similar incidents that it actually found worthy of fines and suspensions.

Unless they make a change they can’t just decide that the Hawkins decision is correct and all the others are wrong.

It’s the tribunals job to make the correction if it doesn’t see the incident worthy of the MRO’s grading.

If we are using this as the example it’s an admission that the MRO has pretty much got every dangerous tackle ruling wrong.
 

Generalissimo

His Excellency
Jul 14, 2002
5,499
5,088
Somewhere
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
The Mighty Cats
The MRO is actually obligated to apply the same process that it did to all the similar incidents that it actually found worthy of fines and suspensions.
So when Holman was cleared it set the precedent that Hawkins had to be cleared too. :thumbsu:

It's all academic anyway. Even if Christian had given Hawkins a week off, we'd have taken it to the Tribunal and been certain of success- because the tackle was perfectly fine.
 

Stealth69

Debutant
Apr 14, 2014
136
286
AFL Club
Richmond
Pinned both arms fine, but then you have taken any chance the tackled player has from defending injury, so then the tackler has taken responsibility and in this case Hawkins body goes down driving Joyce down with him and unluckily Joyce’s head smashes into the turf and subbed out due to concussion

2 weeks minimum

It was always the perfect tackle until the players head is unprotected and impacted
 

Chocoholic

Senior List
Nov 24, 2016
250
180
AFL Club
Geelong
Surprised he got off with no suspension honestly but I feel the Tribunal over ruling all dangerous tackles this year made the MRO just give up.

We got 2 weeks, one week, a fine, no suspension or fine. It is waaaay too inconsistent.
 

hawkman

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 7, 2007
22,738
27,429
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur
So when Holman was cleared it set the precedent that Hawkins had to be cleared too. :thumbsu:

It's all academic anyway. Even if Christian had given Hawkins a week off, we'd have taken it to the Tribunal and been certain of success- because the tackle was perfectly fine.
Except he followed his own ruling on the Fritsch fend last week in charging Greene
The MRO is in the biggest mess it has ever been
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
22,634
21,431
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
Here’s the official MRO statement:

‘The tackle laid by Geelong Cats’ Tom Hawkins on St Kilda’s Darragh Joyce from the fourth quarter of Saturday’s match between the Geelong Cats and St Kilda was assessed. Joyce takes possession of the ball in St Kilda’s defensive 50 and runs towards the centre of the ground before handballing to a teammate. While Joyce is disposing of the football, Hawkins runs from behind and applies a tackle – in one motion – on Joyce which carries both players forward. The momentum of the tackle results in Joyce’s left shoulder and then head making contact with the playing surface. It was the view of the Match Review Officer that Hawkins’ actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.’
 

powerrrrrrrrrrrr

Premiership Player
Feb 17, 2010
3,569
6,501
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Really don’t understand how the MRO came to this decision. It’s his role to follow the guidelines set but the AfL and not make subjective decisions on his views of the incident.

I cannot see how this is not:

A- Careless (pinned both arms and therefor has the onus of care on himself and drove Joyce forward in the tackle)
B- High impact (concussion and out of the game)
C - High contact (see above as hit head)

It’s the MROs role to apply those guidelines and if they disagree it’s for the tribunal to determine further.

However on those guidelines alone, I cannot see how this is not 2 weeks or 1 if assessed medium impact
 
Last edited:

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Suspended
Feb 4, 2008
3,491
10,056
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Holman pinned one arm. Hawkins pinned 2.

Your eyes are so bad? Or you just cant count ?
Well done on your arguments in this thread. You have correctly identified the issues and distinguished the differences between the various tackles referred to in this thread. You have also gone above and beyond keeping your cool with the Geelong mafia coming at you from all angles, making little sense as usual whilst trying to pretend your perfectly reasoned and supported arguments are not rational.

Geelong supporters asking what Hawkins could have done in the alternative should be asking what chance was Joyce given to avoid having his head slammed into the turf. The answer is the tackle gave Joyce no possible chance to protect himself and therefore the tackle was properly dangerous by any reasonable definition. Players with at least one arm free have at least some chance to stop their head being smashed into the ground.

Yet another player badly concussed or having serious facial injuries inflicted against Geelong, yet another no case to answer.

Let’s see.

Dangerfield on Vlastuin.

Duncan on Hall.

Hawkins on May.

Henderson on Marshall.

Hawkins on Joyce.

Selwood on Mansell.

Plus:

Selwood’s various line ball suspendable indiscretions.

Those are just the ones I recall. Not all of those should have been suspended but imo Dangerfield v Vlastuin, Hawkins v May, Hawkins v Joyce certainly should have been suspended to be tested at the Tribunal as a bare minimum.

And in that period only two suspensions, both so obvious even the strangely Geelong friendly establishment could not overlook them:

Rohan hooking Neal from behind

Dangerfield shocking top speed head first late bump smashing Jake Kelly’s face beyond recognition.

When you then look at the MRO treatment of Nick Holman, David McKay, Taryn Thomas, James Worpel, Marlion Pickett and sundry others it just isn’t adding up.

It is a mess this whole process, but that is saying nothing, everyone who follows the AFL knows it.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad