Will Day Dangerous Tackle?

Remove this Banner Ad

lordbob

All Australian
Aug 21, 2009
613
758
AFL Club
Hawthorn
What part of will day's tackling action was incorrect and should be taught not to do? (here come a series of stills, which part is the part where his action/technique caused the sling tackle AND is avoidable?)

The below is as close to frame by frame as i could get the replay.

At which frame does Day commit the wrong technique/action that cause the dangerous tackle? What part of this tackle could have been done differently to not have had the this outcome? Not tackling is not an option. Is there something in this tackling action that can be taught not to do?

Before tackle starts
1681203196003.png

Close is running past Day and Day lunges to lay a tackle on the body
1681203274060.png

The tackle is laid and Day as a result of his lunge, loses his feet
1681203352384.png

During the tackle, both players feet entangle

Days feet are swining behind and under close as he holds onto him.
Day without any solid footing is falling to the ground.
Days right leg traps Close's such that Close loses his footing.
1681203481952.png

Day is still falling backwards
Close, having lost his footing now falls back in the same direction that Day is falling.
1681203589586.png

The fall continues. Close starts to pivot around his trapped foot

1681203726535.png

The pivot around the trapped foot continues as they both fall in a twisting motion.

1681203821907.png

Close's knee impacts the ground first. Day is already on the ground, but still holds the tackle. The foot is free now.
1681203911157.png
Close hits face 2nd into the ground as Days tackle sticks.

1681204119783.png
Closes momentum starts to pull Day off the ground
1681204286256.png


1681204338278.png

The outcome was dangerous, no question. Is it due to poor tackling or unfortunate accident?

Ironically a very similar tackling technique was done by Dangerfield 10 seconds before Days tackle but at a much slower speed on Nash. Ill put it in spoilers cos its not at all relevant to the Days, just some irony.

Dangerfield has a lot more control in this tackle than Day and it was at a significantly slower speed and Nash has 1 arm free. But the rotation and falling back with Nash falling next to him then rolling on top of Nash is the same motion from the Day tackle.
1681204745877.png
1681204761199.png
1681204774767.png
1681204869492.png
1681205528489.png
 

Attachments

  • 1681204264904.png
    1681204264904.png
    315.6 KB · Views: 34
  • 1681204791479.png
    1681204791479.png
    177.4 KB · Views: 33
Last edited:
Think it's dangerous outcome, surprised it's 2 weeks though. It wasn't two actions Day pinned the arms as they are trained too, but his momentum and closes momentum took out his legs and tipped him up mid air. With his arms pinned he had no way of stopping his fall.

It seems like they are cracking down on anything head regardless of intent. I'm not against it as a blanket rule.
 
Absolutely farcical that this gets two and Rohan gets one (FWIW I don't even think Rohan deserves a week).

Single action vs double.

Hopefully we appeal.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Absolutely farcical that this gets two and Rohan gets one (FWIW I don't even think Rohan deserves a week).

Single action vs double.

Hopefully we appeal.
I posted the same in the rohan thread that i dont think it deserves a suspension as well.
 
There is nothing in this tackle that deserves a suspension, unbelievable...and for Rohan to get 1 and this 2...be filthy if I was a hawk

Its bizarre. I would have thought both should be a fine because while dangerous, they were not really dangerous. The free kicks from the umpires were right. Neither chose to report the tackles.
 
Surely they appeal.

And surely it's time for the clubs to put in a joint submission to have the incompetent Christian sacked as MRO?
On what planet is this worse than Rohan's tackle?
 
There is no sling; no dual action; Close collapses in the tackle because he leg is trapped by Day.

Farcical MRO decision. Must appeal.

Also - if its' rated "high impact" then where is Geelong's duty of care given Close played the entire game? This on top of Bews not even being assessed for concussion. Throw the book at the people who deserve it ffs
 
I’m struggling to understand what a coach should instruct Will Day to do differently next time…
 
Watching the video, I can see 2 actions in the tackle.

I get that Day had to lunge to get his arms around him, but he doesn't just hang on from there and let gravity do all the work. It looks to me like he adds to the momentum of his lunge by shifting the weight of the tackle to his right arm/side which gets Close's head/body tipping over further and faster than it would otherwise. More a dumping action than a slinging action. Maybe even a slight push off the ground with his left leg there at the end but that's probably being overly critical. I don't agree that Close's leg being caught in the tackle caused or made any meaningful contribution to the second part of the tackle.

If Close got knocked out in the tackle I think less people would have a problem with the 2 week suspension. The new interpretation is going to take some getting used to. It's hard to accept a 2 week penalty when the bloke immediately springs to his feet and takes his free kick.

But it's even harder to accept inconsistency. No idea how Rohan only got 1 week when this got 2. Seems indefensible to me.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Hawks contesting. Be interesting to see if they push for a reduction in severity, or to simply have it thrown out because there was no other option for how he tackled.

We need to hire the scientists Sheedy used to alway rely to explain why it was not intentional for a thrown punch to have collided with the head of an opponent.
 
I get there is a duty of care when both arms are cant be braced by the person being tackled, so a fine or 1 week is appropriate, even though the tackle was 90 % correct, just the last stage should have been done with more care..... but how this gets 2 weeks and Rohan gets 1 is amazing. The Rohan tackle was done in two motions, the guy didn't have the ball and was a lot more of a sling rather than just not taking into account momentum etc.
 
Astonishing that people can compare the Rohan tackle and the Day tackle and attempt to equate them.

Rohan, after the ball has gone, the textbook example of a second action, actively swings Jiath causing his head to hit the ground. It's why they introduced the rule.

In Day's case, it's one tackling action (unless you believe there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll, or that there was a second spitter in the Keith Hernandez "back and to the left" incident) and the outcome is unfortunate.

The AFL's attempts to adjudicate both the intent and the outcome is farcical. Completely open to corruption and bias.

It's why that cynical turd Scott uses his press conferences to tell the AFL what to thinik, knowing full well his Old Xaverians Private School-Boys Club Mates will be right behind him. Scott is a whinger, a liar and a s**t bloke. And the AFL love him.

Everything that sucks about the AFL, in a nutshell.
 
Will Day should just leap off the ground and bump someone in the head next time.

Stupid campaigners.
 
AFL are crooks and only care about the money.

Cripps does that exact tackle and we all know its a fine not even a week.

Might as well have buried the guy head first, realising the POTENTIAL to full effect, for no worse punishment?

If anything the intent was to execute a perfect tackle landing under the guy
 
Be interesting to see how players adapt their tackling style.

You still need to wrap up the arms, so the only way to guarantee protecting their head is to try keep them upright and just act as a deadweight? Might start to see more ankle/knee injuries as legs get caught up/fallen on etc.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top