hi Enforcer, I agree with you about the inherent risks and that one tackler can do as much damage. But I believe as the game is getting more dangerous, unnecessary risks should be minimised. Three tacklers is overkill. The way football is developing there will be an unsustainable number of injuries in the future. And if it gets to that stage then the game will be killed off by lawyers and replaced by something like netball.

Another point, I thought Neil Craig's comments were a bit cheeky when making his point about substitutes. He said he was forced to keep players on the field with injuries because he couldn't rotate them. Spoke about the occupational health and safety issues. If he really cared about their welfare he would have taken them off anyway. His actions were the OH&C issue. In the old days teams always played short when they had too many injuries. The game was played like that for over a 100 years.

i think the AFL should seriously look at how tackles are executed. The three Melbourne players each individually did nothing wrong. Their weight of numbers overwhelmed him. Perhaps there should be the two man rule for tackling. Third man in gets pinched. The way the game is going there will be serious injuries from gang tackling in the future. The tackled player has no chance to protect himself. Players don't have time to think. They pounce on conditioning and instinct. If they dare reflect or back off from their efforts to the contest they risk fury as seen at Bennell's treatment after his one bad effort against the Pies. This is an issue that can be more easily resolved than the heavy collision problem that also occurs in the ultra fast modern game.

As I recall, D'field was tackled by 3 players concurrently and the players fell awkwardly. In that case it was not the third person in that caused the problem. So making rules about that is unworkable and does not address the issue.

I dont think this incident is referable for rule change. It was an inconsequential and unfortunate outcome.

hi Enforcer, I agree with you about the inherent risks and that one tackler can do as much damage. But I believe as the game is getting more dangerous, unnecessary risks should be minimised. Three tacklers is overkill. The way football is developing there will be an unsustainable number of injuries in the future. And if it gets to that stage then the game will be killed off by lawyers and replaced by something like netball.

It was not the number of tacklers that were the problem. It was the way they fell. It could happen with only two tacklers. What if one of the four in the tackle is a teammate?

Another point, I thought Neil Craig's comments were a bit cheeky when making his point about substitutes. He said he was forced to keep players on the field with injuries because he couldn't rotate them. Spoke about the occupational health and safety issues. If he really cared about their welfare he would have taken them off anyway. In the old days teams always played short when they had too many injuries. The game was played like that for over a 100 years.

Why was it cheeky? Adelaide were at complete disadvantage when exhausted players could not be rotated off. It was a huge benefit to MFC. How could Neil Craig make realistic assessments of players welfare in the heat of battle in the last. How exposed were thay beyond just physical fatigue. The issue is that fatigue players are at greater risk of injury that non fatigue players. Whats the solution? Take them all off! If Neil Craig pulled one player off for a rest, the player would be villified and Craig should be sacked for flying the white flag.

He said he had to keep injured players on the field. Not fatigued ones. Thats the difference. In the old days I recall, teams playing with 16-17 players and still beating the odds and winning.

And you shouldn't brush of serious injuries as unfortunate outcomes, not when they are happening nearly every round for a variety of reasons. One day it will be an issue. Someone will sue and the vulture lawyers will kill the game. No one has to work under the same risky conditions as footballers do. Nannyism will pounce and take its opportunity if let so. Only in the military do persons have to take more serious physical risks but they are afforded all the protection that they need to survive.

I think it was a potentially dangerous tackle and very close to a "spear". It definitely warranted investigation, the AFL needs to highlight that driving players into the ground like that is a no-no. NRL officianados say it would've been closely scrutinised in the NRL.

I think it was a potentially dangerous tackle and very close to a "spear". It definitely warranted investigation, the AFL needs to highlight that driving players into the ground like that is a no-no. NRL officianados say it would've been closely scrutinised in the NRL.

I have played both games, a 'spear' tackle is when the players legs are lifted above the horizonal and his head is driven into the ground, I am glad Dangerfield is not seriously hurt, but he fought the tackle and Juice came in from the side, it made a pleasant change not to see a player plop forward looking for an in the back, he just landed awkwardly and has probably strained a couple of neck muscles.......there is also a topic full of hysteria on 'Ology, it is a contac/physcial sport, if he had broken the tackle and got away, Bailey would have been furious with the players.........we have had sickening collisions, head clashes etc last weekend.....nobody died...they are fit young men who are used to body contact......it is usually Joe Average who tries sommething stupid who ends up in a wheelchair.....let's make it a non contact sport and you get a free kick if somebody looks at you the wrong way.sigh

He said he had to keep injured players on the field. Not fatigued ones. Thats the difference. In the old days I recall, teams playing with 16-17 players and still beating the odds and winning.

What sort of injuries were they?

And the old days...hmmm they kicked drop kicks. Given where the game is and the speed at which it is played there is little chance in the world that an undermanned AFL team could beat a fully fit team where both sides were even at 3rd time

And you shouldn't brush of serious injuries as unfortunate outcomes, not when they are happening nearly every round for a variety of reasons. One day it will be an issue. Someone will sue and the vulture lawyers will kill the game. No one has to work under the same risky conditions as footballers do. Nannyism will pounce and take its opportunity if let so. Only in the military do persons have to take more serious physical risks but they are afforded all the protection that they need to survive.

D'field injury is potentially the worst injury this year. Just because I said it was unfortunate does not undermine the seriousness. I will make it simple. If there are rule changes that address these matters then make them. Banning the third man in the tackle wreaks of the nannyism you clearly oppose.

I have played both games, a 'spear' tackle is when the players legs are lifted above the horizonal and his head is driven into the ground, I am glad Dangerfield is not seriously hurt, but he fought the tackle and Juice came in from the side, it made a pleasant change not to see a player plop forward looking for an in the back, he just landed awkwardly and has probably strained a couple of neck muscles.......there is also a topic full of hysteria on 'Ology, it is a contac/physcial sport, if he had broken the tackle and got away, Bailey would have been furious with the players.........we have had sickening collisions, head clashes etc last weekend.....nobody died...they are fit young men who are used to body contact......it is usually Joe Average who tries sommething stupid who ends up in a wheelchair.....let's make it a non contact sport and you get a free kick if somebody looks at you the wrong way.sigh

Not sure about the suggestion the game is becoming a non contact sport because the AFL investigated an incident that could have lead to a serious injury. The Game is played at such intensity and pace these days it is harder and tougher than ever before. Just look at the Jordan Lewis incident on the weekend.

The AFL did and should have looked at the Dangerfield tackle, it would have been irresponsible not to. The right decision was made but it is a fine line between what is deemed a legal or illegal tackle.

What sort of injuries were they?

And the old days...hmmm they kicked drop kicks. Given where the game is and the speed at which it is played there is little chance in the world that an undermanned AFL team could beat a fully fit team where both sides were even at 3rd time

D'field injury is potentially the worst injury this year. Just because I said it was unfortunate does not undermine the seriousness. I will make it simple. If there are rule changes that address these matters then make them. Banning the third man in the tackle wreaks of the nannyism you clearly oppose.

We'll we wait and see. When someone is crippled or worse in an incident which could have been prevented, [censored] will hit the fan. Remember last year Jack Watts in the first 30 seconds of his career was viciously gang tackled by 3 Collingwood opponents in much the same way. He got a free for being tackled without the ball. Lucky he wasn't injured. Happened 30 metres in front of me. If he was hurt like Dangerfield or worse imagine what would have happened.

I still don't think there's nothing wrong with banning the third tackler for this reason alone as no player can protect himself even without any malice intended by the tacklers. As an aside it may help clear some of the ugly packs too.

As for forcing players to continue with injuries, someone will eventually test the OH&S laws and it will cost some clubs plenty when they do. These laws are very strict in the workplace for most of us. There will be also past players coming in to collect for retrospective injuries. They would say I can't walk now because so and so made me play with a dicky knee. Granted the game was slower in the old days. Makes it more of a questionable issue to play players with injuries in the modern game. I'm all for the substitute rule. Will stop this kind of dangerous tactic by coaches.

We'll we wait and see. When someone is crippled or worse in an incident which could have been prevented, [censored] will hit the fan. Remember last year Jack Watts in the first 30 seconds of his career was gang tackled by 3 Collingwood opponents in much the same way. He got a free for being tackled without the ball. If he was hurt like Dangerfield or worse imagine what would have happened.

Rather than hyperventilate on the issue, please explain in the context of the situation that actually happened how this incident could have been prevented? And Watts tackle has nothing to do with this...oh that right there were 3 tacklers...

I still don't think there's nothing wrong with banning the third tackler for this reason alone as no player can protect himself even without any malice intended by the tacklers. As an aside it may help clear some of the ugly packs too.

Its stupid because the incident did not occur because there was a third tackler. I note you have not address the issue if one of the other players is a player for the opposition. The same issue could arise with two tacklers. And it will do little to quell the ugly packs at all. If you want to slow down the movement of vast numbers of players at the fall of the ball then you must reduce thenumber of interchanges a side can have during a quarter or match.

As for playing with less men, someone will test the OH&S rules and it will cost some clubs plenty when they do. Granted the game was slower in the old days. Makes it more of an issue to play players with injury in the modern game. I'm all for the substitute rule. Will stop this kind of dangerous behaviour by coaches.

What dangerous behaviour of the coaches is there and what injuries were at risk? Lots of hyperbole ...little fact.

I'd prefer if you stuck to the topic and refrain from using personal comments. If you have to use words like stupid, hyperventilate, hyperbole directed at others who have differing opinions then you are not worth considering.

As I said in a previous thread. They(Colingwood) ambushed and mugged Watts. Dangerfield was road kill. One incident was deliberate aggression the other was an accident. But both dangerous because of overwhelming force used.

As I said in a previous post. They(Colingwood) ambushed and mugged Watts. Dangerfield was road kill. One incident was deliberate aggression the other was an accident. But both dangerous because of overwhelming force used.

Watts has got nothing to do with the D'field incident. Talk about sticking to the topic...

First game highly ranked player gets physically pushed around by opposition. Shock horror. Watts incident was not in the least dangerous. The tackle was crude at worst. The intent was no worse than the intent on the D'field tackle.

The issue with D'field was the manner in which the tackle applied resulted and not the number of tacklers. The incident can happen with fewer involved in the tackle. I have seen bigger tackle groups and the risk to D'field hasn't happened. I am all for rules that actually protect the head the neck and the spine but not rules that appeases torch lighters but does not address the risk.

Watts has got nothing to do with the D'field incident. Talk about sticking to the topic...

First game highly ranked player gets physically pushed around by opposition. Shock horror. Watts incident was not in the least dangerous. The tackle was crude at worst. The intent was no worse than the intent on the D'field tackle.

The issue with D'field was the manner in which the tackle applied resulted and not the number of tacklers. The incident can happen with fewer involved in the tackle. I have seen bigger tackle groups and the risk to D'field hasn't happened. I am all for rules that actually protect the head the neck and the spine but not rules that appeases torch lighters but does not address the risk.

The Dangerfield tackle was applied within the rules IMO. On Watts no because he did not have the ball and one player came in late. Both incidents are similar because of overwhelming force applied by 3 players. A good player could break 2 tacklers but has virtually no chance with 3. Serious injuries will certainly occur with 2 or even 1 tackler but much more likely IMO with 3 which is overkill. The weight element combined with momentum can cause serious injury with something like 300kg or more falling on you. Thats why there has been so many crippled rugby players who had scrums fall on top of them. Rugby is acting on these kind of gang tackles and scum tactics. So should the AFL.

The Dangerfield tackle was applied within the rules IMO. On Watts no because he did not have the ball and one player came in late. Both incidents are similar because of overwhelming force applied by 3 players. A good player could break 2 tacklers but has virtually no chance with 3. Serious injuries will certainly occur with 2 or even 1 tackler but much more likely IMO with 3 which is overkill. The weight element combined with momentum can cause serious injury with something like 300kg falling on you. Thats why there has been so many crippled rugby players who have scrums fall on top of them.

A good player will struggle to get away from one tackle correctly applied, There have numerous incidents of that.

The facts dont correlate that there is any higher likelihood of injury in a 3 tackle as opposed to 1 or 2. How many congested packs are there in a game of football? And how many injuries have come out of them?

The burning issue is where the head connects with another hard object where the arms are pinned. This is particularly the case where the head strikes the ground initially before the rest of the body. They have outlawed spear tackles and taking the legs out from underneath a player leaping for a mark for that very reason.

Now the issue with D'field was not the number of tacklers but the fact his head struck the ground first with his arms pinned. As we both agree the tackle was correctly applied with no malice. I am still not sure what the relevance of Watts is. The issue with him was that one of the three tacklers Maxwell tackled him high and a free was given. The issue was not danger of the three tacklers.You seem to dislike a younger player being welcomed to AFL football with little more than a handshake.

And we dont have scrums in AFL like in rugby so once again you are bringing a set play from another sport that does not occur in AFL.

A good player will struggle to get away from one tackle correctly applied, There have numerous incidents of that.

The facts dont correlate that there is any higher likelihood of injury in a 3 tackle as opposed to 1 or 2. How many congested packs are there in a game of football? And how many injuries have come out of them?

The burning issue is where the head connects with another hard object where the arms are pinned. This is particularly the case where the head strikes the ground initially before the rest of the body. They have outlawed spear tackles and taking the legs out from underneath a player leaping for a mark for that very reason.

Now the issue with D'field was not the number of tacklers but the fact his head struck the ground first with his arms pinned. As we both agree the tackle was correctly applied with no malice. I am still not sure what the relevance of Watts is. The issue with him was that one of the three tacklers Maxwell tackled him high and a free was given. The issue was not danger of the three tacklers.You seem to dislike a younger player being welcomed to AFL football with little more than a handshake.

And we dont have scrums in AFL like in rugby so once again you are bringing a set play from another sport that does not occur in AFL.

Hi Rhino, as you also say the game is speeding up. Players are getting to the contest quicker, with greater ferocity and in greater numbers too. In this hyper aggressive and furious environment players with the ball have to be protected more so than in the past. Pinning the arms is not illegal and a players head hitting the ground in a tackle could be incidental. Forcing Dangerfield down with numbers and weight like that is just as dangerous as a spear tackle. As to the Watts relevance. I know the players were giving him a friendly welcome but they went a bit too far. I saw it and it was brutal. He could have easily ended up like Dangerfied or worse.

I know comparisons with other sports may not be appropriate but in Gridiron they used to have a move called the "flying wedge" where two or more backfield players locked arms with the ball carrier and charged at the linemen. This was banned because the momentum generated by the moving mass colliding with stationary players caused very serious injuries and killed many players though nothing illegal was done under their rules. The ferocity and mass of the Dangerfield tackle is comparable in force. These kind of gang tackles did not seem to be around in the old days and I've been around a while. Things used to happen a lot slower then. The AFL game is developing too fast, the rules on player safety have to keep up too.

Hi Rhino, as you also say the game is speeding up. Players are getting to the contest quicker, with greater ferocity and in greater numbers too. In this hyper aggressive and furious environment players with the ball have to be protected more so than in the past. Pinning the arms is not illegal and a players head hitting the ground in a tackle could be incidental. Forcing Dangerfield down with numbers and weight like that is just as dangerous as a spear tackle. As to the Watts relevance. I know the players were giving him a friendly welcome but they went a bit too far. I saw it and it was brutal. He could have easily ended up like Dangerfied or worse.

It was not a consequence of the third tackler. You are trying to fantasise the fact to fit your proposed. And the Watts incident happened in front of where I sitting. It was a high tackle by Maxwell and not the consequence of three tacklers. And your perpetuating the Watts issue only further dims your grasp of the matter.

I know comparisons with other sports may not be appropriate but in Gridiron they used to have a move called the "flying wedge" where two or more backfield players locked arms with the ball carrier and charged at the linemen. This was banned because the momentum generated by the moving mass colliding with stationary players caused very serious injuries and killed many players though nothing illegal was done under their rules. The ferocity and mass of the Dangerfield tackle is comparable in force. These kind of gang tackles did not seem to be around in the old days and I've been around a while. Things used to happen a lot slower then. The AFL game is developing too fast, the rules on player safety have to keep up too.

Your gridiron reference is once again irrelevant because the three MFC did not lock arms and charge at D'field. FFS, the reason for the D'field was that his head hit the ground before his body. It could have happened with one tackler let alone three. There was no gang co ordinated tackle by MFC players and its got nothing to do with why D'field was injured. I know youve been around because you seem to pine for the old days.

What do you mean by that comment? Are you saying he was rammed into the turf on several occasions by multiple blokes with his arms pinned? You say you noticed that was the approach we took, when did you notice it and to what incidents did it relate?

I hope you are not referring to Hentchel's bruised knee, Bock's strained hamstring or Tippet's sprained ankle.

If you can't back it up, it is pretty poor to suggest we went out there to deliberately hurt players.

What I meant was, I think Dangerfield was seen by our coaches as a key play maker and was often tackled by more than one person. Dangerfield's arms were often pulled behind him. I'm not saying that they went out to get him but he was often tackled by more than one player. Dangerfield is very strong in the body and I think our coaching panel were aware of that. I was not saying that they deliberately set out to injure him but if the practice of gang tackling in this manner is part of team strategy across the league then it will ultimately end in serious injury to somebody. It is a coordinated approach where the collective strength of two or three is pitted against one man. The person being tackled cannot protect themselves against falling awkwardly or having their head rammed into the ground. This is why the NRL banned spear tackles.

Where the incident is derived from a tackle on a player, they look at it

You're slow on the uptake, Moose. Green's incident was a collision injury in the play not a consequence of one players intended or actual action on another player. You might also get an inkling of how things work by the fact they did not review the Jordan Lewis collision. Hmmmm now what does that tell you?

How would they know unless they look at it. Ugh!

Rhino,

Please get your facts RIGHT.

I should not have to do the research for you and I am not here for a 'to & fro [censored] fight' with you but once again you are wrong! They DID review the Jordan Lewis decision! So keep you little digs to yourself and keep to the facts!

Here's the link for you (again!)

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/92147/default.aspx

Your reasoning for the 'non-review' of the Green incident is deluded - it was as the result of an "actual action" - how else would it happen? Green just didn't fall down and bump his head on the turf all by himself - spare me! Here's a link to the photo of the incident! Not a collision injury! LMAO!!!!!

http://www.triplem.com.au/sydney/sport/blog/hard-yakka-toughest-player-of-the-week//blog/hard-yakkas-toughest-player-round-1/20100330-7zox.html

It was not a consequence of the third tackler. You are trying to fantasise the fact to fit your proposed. And the Watts incident happened in front of where I sitting. It was a high tackle by Maxwell and not the consequence of three tacklers. And your perpetuating the Watts issue only further dims your grasp of the matter.

Your gridiron reference is once again irrelevant because the three MFC did not lock arms and charge at D'field. FFS, the reason for the D'field was that his head hit the ground before his body. It could have happened with one tackler let alone three. There was no gang co ordinated tackle by MFC players and its got nothing to do with why D'field was injured. I know youve been around because you seem to pine for the old days.

9288 posts wow you will be at 10000 soon rhino maybe in 2 days.

.....

Thanks for the heroics Moose.

Just makes your whole bleat about "Why are they looking at the D'field incident" look even sillier.

But I am sure you have already worked that out. B)

SO from that weak response Rhino I assume you concede that the facts out-weighed your deluded statements.

A simple 'you're right & i was wrong' would have sufficed - not necessarily about my opinion of the tackle being reviewed but about your errors!

SO from that weak response Rhino I assume you concede that the facts out-weighed your deluded statements.

A simple 'you're right & i was wrong' would have sufficed - not necessarily about my opinion of the tackle being reviewed but about your errors!

Some people never are wrong in there own minds.

I agree with you moose

The whole point of my argument is that given the speed and intensity of the game, players are now at risk to forces which are on the limits that a human being can withstand. Having 3 players apply a ferocious tackle at the intensity of the modern game is kamikaze stuff. I don't think they mean't it either, it just happened but it has to be policed.

Yes Rhino, I've been around and had a few broken bones on the way. Knees are a little tender also and so 's the ticker. Used to love the drop kick too. If I got on to one right I could get 70 metres plus. Very accurate kick but not great percentage in getting it off right. Phil Rhoden from our beloved Dee's was one of the best at it. Used to kick out from full back and always put it on the wing at the MCG. Not suitable for the modern game I admit. Though I'm surprised it's little brother version is not still around. The stab kick, low, fast and accurate and easily kicked on the run would be perfect for spliting zones in the modern game.

Well done on your forthcoming 10,000 but have something nice to say to mark the memorable occasion.

Well the good news is that Dangerfield was on TV tonight and said he was fine and hopes to play this week.

I am glad to hear that. Wish he was playing for us.