News Worpel given a week for tackling opponent

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
26,206
28,272
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Medium impact to a guy who wasnt even injured.

This after high impact why Walsh wasnt injured...
 

It Just Is

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 25, 2012
8,034
15,328
On cloud 9
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Can suck it!
No chance getting this overturned.
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.
 

lordbob

Senior List
Aug 21, 2009
241
229
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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
1623527171087.png


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.
 

master bate

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 13, 2006
13,925
12,383
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Alex Neal-Bullen put 1 hand on the jumper, 1 hand on the arm and rotated a player attempting to kick and got 4 weeks.

Worpel's got 3 less.

Not a lot in it but if you look at it closely Cunningham is looking to kick and Worpel gets his foot under his other leg and takes him clean off his feet. Combined with the dumping motion that's going to be a week.

The only way to argue is to say he didn't mean to take his legs out from under him and expected him to be stronger. Which is probably true. Unfortunately I don't think that's much of a defence.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

master bate

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 13, 2006
13,925
12,383
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
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.
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.

You're absolutely right about the legs, just not sure that's much of a defence.
 

Kezza86

Club Legend
Sep 28, 2014
1,329
946
AFL Club
Adelaide
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.
1. It’s a sling tackle, when he could have drop his knees to pull him down in a tackle.
2. He had 1 arm pinged
3. He is lucky he was not knocked out.

The intent and act is worth 1 game.
 

lordbob

Senior List
Aug 21, 2009
241
229
AFL Club
Hawthorn

One gets a week and another doesn't get a mention
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.

Neither should get looked at for a suspension. Both are good tackles. Worpel is just tougher so its not as noticeable.
 

Chaisa

Premium Platinum
Jun 2, 2013
12,654
12,073
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
The Exers
Yeah that shouldn't be a suspension. It's more of a slinging act than Holman's was but it's a legitimate tackle IMO.
 

Remove this Banner Ad