Willie Rioli - Sling Tackle

(Log in to remove this ad.)

PendlesPremiers

All Australian
Sep 23, 2010
883
538
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Philadelphia 76ers, Arsenal
It's an obvious suspension. The way Rioli slings O'Riordan across his body makes it a textbook case of an illegal sling tackle.
 

D-N-R

Club Legend
Apr 4, 2005
2,436
2,612
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
WCE
Depends on how they assess the impact. Medium one week, high two. I've seen concussions assessed medium this year and he jogged off so here's hoping.
 

Wayne Swan

Premium Gold
Sep 9, 2013
1,609
2,224
AFL Club
Sydney
That action has be outlawed, the tackler takes responsibility for the outcome.

Rioli gets one week, Swans get the luxury of playing a man short for three quarters.
 

OnceWeWereKings

Club Legend
Oct 23, 2007
2,682
4,686
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Setterfield got two and didn’t sling. Has to be two if your looking at precedent.

Will go to the MRO and get a fine.

After the goal review system the MRO is the most broken thing in the game at the moment .
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Thewlis Dish

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 9, 2003
26,033
21,418
Five Star Laundry
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
FGR
It's exactly the type of tackle the league is trying to stamp out, so yeah he'll go. He already had the arms pinned, didn't need to sling him like that as well.

You have to have enough awareness to know when you have pinned the arms like that, your opponent has no means to protect his own head.
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2007
9,854
8,925
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
It's exactly the type of tackle the league is trying to stamp out, so yeah he'll go. He already had the arms pinned, didn't need to sling him like that as well.

You have to have enough awareness to know when you have pinned the arms like that, your opponent has no means to protect his own head.
agree he will get a week under the Auskick football league rules.

But one thing I noticed in this was that the AFL need to look at how long the umpires are taking to make a decision. He had tackled him, he has not disposed of it so its either Holding the ball or a ball up but as the umpire takes so long to make a decision the tackler will always think they need to do more to get a decision.
Not excusing Rioli, actually I am excusing him because it is not worthy of a free kick let alone suspension but under these rules he will get done. But have a look how long it takes the umpire to decide. They need to stop giving the player so much time to move the ball on and these simple hard tackles won't happen.

Another round, another suspension for nothing.
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2007
9,854
8,925
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
It's exactly the type of tackle the league is trying to stamp out, so yeah he'll go. He already had the arms pinned, didn't need to sling him like that as well.

You have to have enough awareness to know when you have pinned the arms like that, your opponent has no means to protect his own head.
PS the arms were not pinned
 

MrKK

Club Legend
Mar 11, 2012
2,392
2,951
City of churches
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Sturt, Southampton FC, LSU
agree he will get a week under the Auskick football league rules.

But one thing I noticed in this was that the AFL need to look at how long the umpires are taking to make a decision. He had tackled him, he has not disposed of it so its either Holding the ball or a ball up but as the umpire takes so long to make a decision the tackler will always think they need to do more to get a decision.
Not excusing Rioli, actually I am excusing him because it is not worthy of a free kick let alone suspension but under these rules he will get done. But have a look how long it takes the umpire to decide. They need to stop giving the player so much time to move the ball on and these simple hard tackles won't happen.

Another round, another suspension for nothing.
It's the AFL's obsession with avoiding stoppages that's causing these lingering tackles and subsequent 'second actions' IE slings. That ball was never coming out, should've been whistled for a ball up much sooner.

Also point out that the umpire called a ball up before they stopped play for treatment, then it turned into a Sydney free kick when play resumed.
 

OnceWeWereKings

Club Legend
Oct 23, 2007
2,682
4,686
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
It's the AFL's obsession with avoiding stoppages that's causing these lingering tackles and subsequent 'second actions' IE slings. That ball was never coming out, should've been whistled for a ball up much sooner.

Also point out that the umpire called a ball up before they stopped play for treatment, then it turned into a Sydney free kick when play resumed.
Player intent also plays a factor, player with the ball sole focus is on releasing the ball to advantage, there is zero intent on the players behalf to protect themselves in the tackle.
The combination of the length of time they are given, the intent to get the ball to advantage, and zero thought to protecting themselves are the major contributing factors that bring about these injuries.

The Ziebell / Martin incident is a perfect example of one player protecting himself in the contest ( Martin ) using perfect technique in the one on one contest for the ball, and the other ( Ziebell ) going to the contest without any thought about protecting himself from a potential body on body collision.
 

Chism

Moderator
Sep 7, 2008
29,509
24,196
Watching Robertson
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Cowboys, Pacers , HotSpurs ,Dodgers
Be interesting to see if this gets the same result. MRP has been punishing outcomes and looks over actions and intent for a long time now.
If you take Setterfields tackle for an example which got him 2 weeks off this has to be surely the same if not more.

Setters did not even use a slinging motion at all where as Rioli did.

Will be interesting to see what the MRP do.
 

arfadunger

All Australian
Apr 16, 2007
849
486
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Sadly, he'll get a week. It does s**t me that there seems to be no requirement on the person being tackled to protect himself. O'Riordan could have simply dropped the ball and put his arm out to protect himself and there would be no issue, but his desire not to let the ball fall free or give away a free kick will result in Rioli being suspended. It just seems wrong, but this exact same scenario has played out on more than one occasion with the tackler being suspended.
 

Gralin

Super Moderator
Apr 8, 2010
30,943
45,906
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Buffalo Bills
Sadly, he'll get a week. It does **** me that there seems to be no requirement on the person being tackled to protect himself. O'Riordan could have simply dropped the ball and put his arm out to protect himself and there would be no issue, but his desire not to let the ball fall free or give away a free kick will result in Rioli being suspended. It just seems wrong, but this exact same scenario has played out on more than one occasion with the tackler being suspended.
When the rule says not to sling and you choose to it's on you, only issue is how inconsistent the AFL is on it.
They only seem to suspend for a concussion and only if the tackler isn't too big a name
 

Gralin

Super Moderator
Apr 8, 2010
30,943
45,906
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Buffalo Bills
If you take Setterfields tackle for an example which got him 2 weeks off this has to be surely the same if not more.

Setters did not even use a slinging motion at all where as Rioli did.

Will be interesting to see what the MRP do.
If they did what they should and gave a week for every one of them regardless of outcome we'd see a lot less and we wouldn't be wondering about chook lotto.

Same with all the punches that are nothing one week, a fine another and a week off another.

Actions not outcomes should be the penalty. Insufficient force us as bulls**t as potential to cause injury.
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2007
9,854
8,925
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
Do you grant that at least one arm was pinned? Rioli had a firm grip on his right wrist.
Yes it did look like that. I am not disputing the outcome and not commenting as its my teams player, I hate any teams player being suspended for tackling.
Outcome based suspensions are just wrong in my opinion. As I said before this is auskick stuff.
 

Adelaide Hawk

Hall of Famer
Sep 21, 2002
46,329
35,278
Adelaide
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Norwood
I think the issue here is the tackle motion. I have never understood why players, after having laid a good tackle, need to sling the player to the ground in a second motion. The idea of the tackle is to render your opponent incapable of disposing of the football, there is no necessity to throw him to the ground.

Unfortunately for Rioli, there was a second motion, it was a sling tackle and he must be found guilty. Whether it deserves matches or not is debatable.
 

PendlesPremiers

All Australian
Sep 23, 2010
883
538
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Philadelphia 76ers, Arsenal
I think the issue here is the tackle motion. I have never understood why players, after having laid a good tackle, need to sling the player to the ground in a second motion. The idea of the tackle is to render your opponent incapable of disposing of the football, there is no necessity to throw him to the ground.

Unfortunately for Rioli, there was a second motion, it was a sling tackle and he must be found guilty. Whether it deserves matches or not is debatable.
Whilst I agree he's guilty and will get suspended, I think there is certainly logic to wanting to take your opponent to ground- O'Riordan still had the chance to get boot to ball while he was standing.
 
Top Bottom