surely gets off on appeal, different type of tackle but the same thing as the Holman one. No second motionDo we not want players to tackle at all for risk of them falling over?
That’s the only conclusion I can draw from this supposed suspension.
What a mess.
It’s fairly consistent with what we’ve seen from the MRO this year. Maybe Hawthorn could argue down to low impact and a fine but essentially if you tackle someone and they end up with a sore head, no matter how incidental, you are in trouble.No chance getting this overturned.
One free arm isn't much use against a combined 160kg+ getting yanked to the ground, probably not worth worrying too much about Ralphy but the armed pinned aspect of tackles is overrated. Perfectly fine tackles have both arms pinned. Terrible tackles have 2 arms free some times.John Ralph "Because of the pinned arm he is not able to defend himself"
Shows replay of him using non pinned arm to defend himself
View attachment 1153799
So he can't defend himself but defends himself? which is it?
Unfortunate circumstances, would say that worpels legs taking out cunninghams as worpel fell backwards probably contributed to the fall more than the wrist being held as it meant he was unable to keep his feet and pull the arm away.
1. It’s a sling tackle, when he could have drop his knees to pull him down in a tackle.It’s fairly consistent with what we’ve seen from the MRO this year. Maybe Hawthorn could argue down to low impact and a fine but essentially if you tackle someone and they end up with a sore head, no matter how incidental, you are in trouble.
Thats actually a worse tackle as its a double action where as worpels was a single action. Secondly, this is worse because he is swung in such a way taht worpels free hand isnt able to protect his head due to the movement of the body and position of the swans player. Thirdly, the swans player has worpel by the arm AND the jumper at the chest and intetionally slings him into the ground. But its a good tackle when someone tries to fend you off.