Tom Hawkins dangerous tackle, Darragh Joyce concussed

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Duskfire

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 30, 2007
7,175
6,184
Perth
AFL Club
Geelong
If ever you needed any more evidence that the Cats are looked after by the AFL. What a joke.
Hawkins gets suspended a lot, and Danger got suspended in a potential Brownlow year for a dangerous tackle (and earlier this year.) People can be unhappy with the outcome, but I think bringing up conspiracy theories is a bit strange and shallow.

If the AFL truly looked after Geelong, finals would be played at Skilled.
 

Romeoh1

All Australian
Apr 27, 2021
921
1,137
AFL Club
Geelong
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 s mess this whole process, but that is saying nothing, everyone who follows the AFL knows it.
lol- suggest you find yourself a new yoga teacher.
 

Hoops

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 30, 2004
8,303
4,920
Danger! Ive got Wood
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Vixens
Hawkins gets suspended a lot, and Danger got suspended in a potential Brownlow year for a dangerous tackle (and earlier this year.) People can be unhappy with the outcome, but I think bringing up conspiracy theories is a bit strange and shallow.

If the AFL truly looked after Geelong, finals would be played at Skilled.
Remember the tanking but not tanking debacle. You would think Dee supporters would have a better handle on their own recent history when talking favouritism.
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
22,634
21,432
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
Hawkins gets suspended a lot, and Danger got suspended in a potential Brownlow year for a dangerous tackle (and earlier this year.) People can be unhappy with the outcome, but I think bringing up conspiracy theories is a bit strange and shallow.

If the AFL truly looked after Geelong, finals would be played at Skilled.
But in a twisted way the GMHBA stadium argument seems to be part of the favouritism equation according to some posters. Because we don't get home finals the AFL has to look after Geelong FC in other ways
 

flyinghi64

Premiership Player
Dec 7, 2006
3,207
2,697
perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
Anyone remember NicNat being suspended for performing a near on perfect tackle because he didn't take into account his height and weight differential as apposed to the person he was tackling, Geelong player I believe.
He copped his week, unfairly I believe, and I am yet to see the "NICNAT" rule invoked since.
This probably was a little closer sized players but action and result was near on the same.
 

Spearman

Club Legend
Sep 15, 2017
2,634
3,996
expatriated in East Asia
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Ohio State Buckeyes
If ever you needed any more evidence that the Cats are looked after by the AFL. What a joke.
You're right, Hocking had Chavez retask the Dominion lottery machines that the MRO uses to formulate their decisions. You're insight was too good for them, you can see Hocking is a lizard person. :rolleyesv1:

welease the Kwaken! :tongueoutv1:


I don't suppose any of you guys had a talk with Sam Newman on a sidewalk before? :laughv1:
 

Hoops

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 30, 2004
8,303
4,920
Danger! Ive got Wood
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Vixens
Anyone remember NicNat being suspended for performing a near on perfect tackle because he didn't take into account his height and weight differential as apposed to the person he was tackling, Geelong player I believe.
He copped his week, unfairly I believe, and I am yet to see the "NICNAT" rule invoked since.
This probably was a little closer sized players but action and result was near on the same.
It wasn't a Geelong player at all
 

Whiskers

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 16, 2006
6,719
5,925
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
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
The Greene incident was different as it sent Danger to hospital. There was no getting off it. Raised elbow, high, high impact. Downgraded to medium at the tribunal.

The MRO has been a huge mess for years and it’s only now because Geelong has finally got the good end of the stick that the rest of you nuffs have finallly caught on.
 

Purplrrr

All Australian
Jun 15, 2011
665
564
AFL Club
Fremantle
Hawkins gets suspended a lot, and Danger got suspended in a potential Brownlow year for a dangerous tackle (and earlier this year.) People can be unhappy with the outcome, but I think bringing up conspiracy theories is a bit strange and shallow.

If the AFL truly looked after Geelong, finals would be played at Skilled.
um… raises hand in Fremantle…
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
27,761
29,971
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The Greene incident was different as it sent Danger to hospital. There was no getting off it. Raised elbow, high, high impact. Downgraded to medium at the tribunal.

The MRO has been a huge mess for years and it’s only now because Geelong has finally got the good end of the stick that the rest of you nuffs have finallly caught on.
But they havent even had fines for elbow fends. Which means the elbow means nothing. Its only the injury the care about.

Except with tackles they are fining and suspending players who do zero damage and have no penalty for players who cause concussions.
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
8,325
19,304
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
Anyone remember NicNat being suspended for performing a near on perfect tackle because he didn't take into account his height and weight differential as apposed to the person he was tackling, Geelong player I believe.
He copped his week, unfairly I believe, and I am yet to see the "NICNAT" rule invoked since.
This probably was a little closer sized players but action and result was near on the same.
It was Karl Amon.
 

kidkenobi

Club Legend
May 3, 2008
1,356
1,794
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Anyone turning this into a 'Geelong' thing are clearly just letting their biases show. This is a system that has repeatedly proven itself to be completely incompetent and inconsistent. You can take individual cases to try and prove how one club is looked after/discriminated against, or you can realise the bigger picture shows that this is just a terrible system with every club getting burned at times and lucky at other times.

The MRO has contradicted itself so many times it's impossible to have any faith in their decision making.
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
8,325
19,304
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
Anyone turning this into a 'Geelong' thing are clearly just letting their biases show. This is a system that has repeatedly proven itself to be completely incompetent and inconsistent. You can take individual cases to try and prove how one club is looked after/discriminated against, or you can realise the bigger picture shows that this is just a terrible system with every club getting burned at times and lucky at other times.

The MRO has contradicted itself so many times it's impossible to have any faith in their decision making.
What they’ve done is given themselves precedents to act upon both ways.

We suspended player X for action Y because it was just like player A who got suspended for action B…

or…

We didn’t suspend player X for action Y because it was just like player C who didn’t get suspended for action D.

The AFL need to recognise the mess that the MRO/tribunal is, the lack of faith that football fans have in it and start again.
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
22,634
21,432
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
Anyone turning this into a 'Geelong' thing are clearly just letting their biases show. This is a system that has repeatedly proven itself to be completely incompetent and inconsistent. You can take individual cases to try and prove how one club is looked after/discriminated against, or you can realise the bigger picture shows that this is just a terrible system with every club getting burned at times and lucky at other times.

The MRO has contradicted itself so many times it's impossible to have any faith in their decision making.
And for those who really think Geelong gets favourable treatment just check where we are on the Suspensions ladder - No. 1
 

The Dodger

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 12, 2010
6,991
6,419
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Anyone remember NicNat being suspended for performing a near on perfect tackle because he didn't take into account his height and weight differential as apposed to the person he was tackling, Geelong player I believe.
He copped his week, unfairly I believe, and I am yet to see the "NICNAT" rule invoked since.
This probably was a little closer sized players but action and result was near on the same.
Yeah I thought about that comparison as well. NN only pinned 1 arm and Amon still had the ball in his but still copped a week.
 

JackFlash

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 28, 2012
8,961
7,625
Docklands
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
QPR, Buffalo Bills, McLaren F1
Holman pinned one arm. Hawkins pinned 2.

Your eyes are so bad? Or you just cant count ?
It was a football accident, for once the MRO described it perfectly. Hawkins was a perfect tackle and the injury was caused by the momentum of a 105kg man and the hardness of the playing surface. Good decision and nothing to answer.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
27,761
29,971
AFL Club
Hawthorn
It was a football accident, for once the MRO described it perfectly. Hawkins was a perfect tackle and the injury was caused by the momentum of a 105kg man and the hardness of the playing surface. Good decision and nothing to answer.
Heaps of players bump and accidentally hit the head. So now we ahould allow incidental head contact in bumps and undo years of changes ?

You keep saying perfect tackle but the rule explicity has said that pinning both arms is a dangerous tackle and if a player gets injured the tackler is responsible.
 

JackFlash

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 28, 2012
8,961
7,625
Docklands
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
QPR, Buffalo Bills, McLaren F1
Heaps of players bump and accidentally hit the head. So now we ahould allow incidental head contact in bumps and undo years of changes ?

You keep saying perfect tackle but the rule explicity has said that pinning both arms is a dangerous tackle and if a player gets injured the tackler is responsible.
The MRO didn't think so, it was not unreasonable and i agree with that. The injury was caused by the momentum of the tackle which was already in motion when Joyce had the ball. The hardness of the ground didn't help. It was an accident.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
27,761
29,971
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The MRO didn't think so, it was not unreasonable and i agree with that. The injury was caused by the momentum of the tackle which was already in motion when Joyce had the ball. The hardness of the ground didn't help. It was an accident.
The MRO is universally considered an idiot.
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
8,325
19,304
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
The MRO didn't think so, it was not unreasonable and i agree with that. The injury was caused by the momentum of the tackle which was already in motion when Joyce had the ball. The hardness of the ground didn't help. It was an accident.
Regardless of the MRO’s decision you have to stop going on about the hardness of the ground. Every player knows it is hard. If you choose to throw a player into the ground you don’t blame the ground for the injury. If you pushed an opponent into the fence the fence doesn’t get the blame. If you run into an umpire you don’t blame the umpire, do you? Do you want the game played on an over-sized marshmallow?
 

Demonic Ascent

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 21, 2006
16,857
13,512
Muckertal
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
Hawkins gets suspended a lot, and Danger got suspended in a potential Brownlow year for a dangerous tackle (and earlier this year.) People can be unhappy with the outcome, but I think bringing up conspiracy theories is a bit strange and shallow.

If the AFL truly looked after Geelong, finals would be played at Skilled.
Hawkins - off
Selwood - off

Two incidents that clearly should have been suspensions.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad