Sling tackles everywhere

[Toorak 108]

Just finished watching the last quarter of the Suns - Crows game. Saw a couple of sling tackles that closely resemble JT's tackle.

Will they be sighted? Probably not.

[Guest 36DD]

Just finished watching the last quarter of the Suns - Crows game. Saw a couple of sling tackles that closely resemble JT's tackle.

Will they be sighted? Probably not.

Mate, you are gunna be in a straight jacket by the end of the season if you keep lookin at these. Seen plenty in all the games this week, even a couple by Nev Jett, expecting consistency from the AFL will inevitably lead to despondancy

Edited May 14, 2011 by 36DD

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

Just finished watching the last quarter of the Suns - Crows game. Saw a couple of sling tackles that closely resemble JT's tackle.

Will they be sighted? Probably not.

The rule has to do with concussion, so unless those tackles in the crows-suns games resulted in concussion, then there is no reason for them to be sighted under the rules as they stand.

Tackling technique is not under question and nothing in the game will change because of these decisions. It just means that the odd unlucky player will be rubbed out for a couple of games.

[Akum 2,660]

By the way, expect Pratt to get far less weeks off than Dunn. By the time the MRP is finished with Pratt's hit, it will be a mere playful slap. While Dunn's will be just this side of a decapitation.

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

By the way, expect Pratt to get far less weeks off than Dunn. By the time the MRP is finished with Pratt's hit, it will be a mere playful slap. While Dunn's will be just this side of a decapitation.

And that's the way it should be. What Dunn did was not only negligent but it was significantly more dangerous than the little slap Pratt gave Juice.

[Guest oldman emubitter]

juice should take up the round ball game. he hit the deck like he'd been shot or like a weak a#sed soccer player. he should be embarresed

[frankie_d 1,471]

Tons of them on the Fifth Quarter.

Bllokes hitting their heads on the ground. Darcy saying the a legal tackle should be just that - and that the consequences shouldn't be taken into account.

The next story was Dangerfield kicking 6 against the Suns.

What a crap judicial system the game has - we see the same phenomena with the umpiring - a "legalistic" interpretation which over-penalises the little things, and under-penalises the thuggery. Too much management speak, smugly satisfied with process, and no feel for the desirable outcome.

[Demonic Ascent 0]

Yep the AFL administration, from Demetriou down to Mclachlan, Anderson, Gieschen and the rest of the bananas who run the competition, all have the same middle-management wankery about them. They all look like they just came back from a marketing and advertising convention all talking the same corporate PR crap and I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw them. They have their agendas and they'll use any obtuse argument they can to defend what as plain as day is indefensible.

The problem for club supporters and fans of the game is that onced Demetriou gets sick of his $2M+ every year Mclachlin will be the one to step into the role and god help us when that happens.

[Melbournepotter 383]

Yep the AFL administration, from Demetriou down to Mclachlan, Anderson, Gieschen and the rest of the bananas who run the competition, all have the same middle-management wankery about them. They all look like they just came back from a marketing and advertising convention all talking the same corporate PR crap and I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw them. They have their agendas and they'll use any obtuse argument they can to defend what as plain as day is indefensible.

The problem for club supporters and fans of the game is that onced Demetriou gets sick of his $2M+ every year Mclachlin will be the one to step into the role and god help us when that happens.

The AFL....a multi million dollar organisation run by amateurs. Frequent rule changes, knee jerk reactions, inconsistent rulings...it's just a constant line of stuff ups.

[Choko 493]

Tons of them on the Fifth Quarter.

Bllokes hitting their heads on the ground. Darcy saying the a legal tackle should be just that - and that the consequences shouldn't be taken into account.

The next story was Dangerfield kicking 6 against the Suns.

What a crap judicial system the game has - we see the same phenomena with the umpiring - a "legalistic" interpretation which over-penalises the little things, and under-penalises the thuggery. Too much management speak, smugly satisfied with process, and no feel for the desirable outcome.

Great post. Exactly right. A legal tackle should be exactly that.

[Yokozuna 1,004]

Having a go at Juice for a "dive", at least there was contact made.

Not like Daniel Wells who dived in the 3rd quarter and got a downfield decision when we were back in the contest. He acted as if he was hit in the head, lay on the ground, heard the whistle, jumped up quickly and sprinted to the bench. The umpire was 3 metres away and still fell for it!

On a separate issue, it was really hard to "appreciate" the umpires yesterday with the crap they pay. They pull out ticky touchwood decisions, call holding the ball on Tapscott when he had 0.0001 seconds to dispose of it prior to being covered by 2 players yet players can be spun 720 degrees and get away with it.

I am really hating the new "interpretation" of tackling, where you can tackle players for 5 seconds, then they place the ball on the ground or drop the ball, and as long as the umpire says they were making an attempt, it is fine.

The game is changing for the worse with the new umpiring rules and interpretations, dont know how much more I can take.

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

On a separate issue, it was really hard to "appreciate" the umpires yesterday with the crap they pay. They pull out ticky touchwood decisions, call holding the ball on Tapscott when he had 0.0001 seconds to dispose of it prior to being covered by 2 players yet players can be spun 720 degrees and get away with it.

I am really hating the new "interpretation" of tackling, where you can tackle players for 5 seconds, then they place the ball on the ground or drop the ball, and as long as the umpire says they were making an attempt, it is fine.

I think Tappy was extremely stiff and I think the umpire would admit a mistake on that one. Those jumper tackles that spin players around are just not effective tackles and, in my opinion, shouldn't be rewarded.

[Pates 9,660]

Having a go at Juice for a "dive", at least there was contact made.

Not like Daniel Wells who dived in the 3rd quarter and got a downfield decision when we were back in the contest. He acted as if he was hit in the head, lay on the ground, heard the whistle, jumped up quickly and sprinted to the bench. The umpire was 3 metres away and still fell for it!

On a separate issue, it was really hard to "appreciate" the umpires yesterday with the crap they pay. They pull out ticky touchwood decisions, call holding the ball on Tapscott when he had 0.0001 seconds to dispose of it prior to being covered by 2 players yet players can be spun 720 degrees and get away with it.

I am really hating the new "interpretation" of tackling, where you can tackle players for 5 seconds, then they place the ball on the ground or drop the ball, and as long as the umpire says they were making an attempt, it is fine.

The game is changing for the worse with the new umpiring rules and interpretations, dont know how much more I can take.

I was incensed when the umpire payed high contact in (i think) the third quarter when the North couldn't have more clearly ducked his head, no excuse for that one there was no one blocking his line of sight, it was an unquestionable stuff up. (And how bad were the bounces ALL DAY)

[pitchfork 181]

Bounces?! They were 'umpire assisted centre clearances'.

[Redleg 41,405]

Bounces?! They were 'umpire assisted centre clearances'.

So true but will not show in the stats.

[Redleg 41,405]

There is an Interview with JT on AFL site and they show plenty of sling tackles from this weekend. JT said he wanted consistentcy but was resigned to not seeing it. I will be staggered if they put one up, yet it is hard to see any difference, other than the alleged "severe concussion" as stated in the Crows Medical Report, which was later recanted and then you guessed it, best on ground and 6 goals.

[jacey 333]

There is an Interview with JT on AFL site and they show plenty of sling tackles from this weekend. JT said he wanted consistentcy but was resigned to not seeing it. I will be staggered if they put one up, yet it is hard to see any difference, other than the alleged "severe concussion" as stated in the Crows Medical Report, which was later recanted and then you guessed it, best on ground and 6 goals.

The Travis Varcoe and Kurt Tippett are very similar.

They've said like the bump, you can still bump but there is a duty of care not to hit the head. Hence why Campbell Brown was suspended when he hit Barry Hall. Hall wasn't injured but he hit Hall's head and was suspended.

Varcoe and Tippett tackled and their oppponent's head hit the turf. They should be suspended. Didn't someone say Judge the act not the consequence.

Of course nothing will happen.

Edited May 15, 2011 by jacey

[Dockett 32 1,239]

Seemed like no one wanted to lay a glove on Dangerfield. Perhaps they couldn't take a chance he'd be concussed again.

[daisycutter 29,703]

Seemed like no one wanted to lay a glove on Dangerfield. Perhaps they couldn't take a chance he'd be concussed again.

seems that opposition players were just exercising a "duty of care" to Dangermouse whilst he recovers

[GawnWithTheWind 604]

I think the interesting one will be Heath Hockings elbow on Polkinghorne.

He deliberatly elbowed Polks jaw, and then Polk had to be subbed off midway through the first quarter.

1) It was deliberate

2) More reckless then JT

3) Both had to be subbed off

According to the MRP, it should be at least 3 weeks

[Dockett 32 1,239]

"seems that opposition players were just exercising a "duty of care" to Dangermouse whilst he recovers"

Would seem that way DC. Colin Sylvia may have covered it in his twitter message on the subject.

But who knows , maybe the Dangermouse is an OHS basket case and has 'huge AFL payout later' written all over him, or perhaps as he was just being trounced by Beamer and Trengove the week before, he simply thought he needed a mechanism to call it a day?

Either way I bet his mother is so proud of him kicking 6 goals 6 days later, while Jack sits in the stand.

Lets see how the match review panel perform tonight. Is it the sling ( chicken wing) tackle thats a problem ( if so there should be a few holidays), is it the head thats the problem, could it be both?

Should be a hoot.

Why do I have this feeling however that I'll be disappointed with their performance?

[daisycutter 29,703]

You can expect there will be a 10 metre exclusion zone around Dangermouse for the rest of the season

[Hobbits's 17]

I think the interesting one will be Heath Hockings elbow on Polkinghorne.

He deliberatly elbowed Polks jaw, and then Polk had to be subbed off midway through the first quarter.

1) It was deliberate

2) More reckless then JT

3) Both had to be subbed off

According to the MRP, it should be at least 3 weeks

heard that bombers may consider challenging the length of penalty. jt's wasn't reckless, was deemed negligent.

yet the whole world deemed it an accident, except the mpr.

[Tigers Dayz 2]

Koschitzke sling tackle on Duncan tonight... 3 weeks.

[Sir Why You Little 37,120]

Koschitzke sling tackle on Duncan tonight... 3 weeks.

one would think so if there is any consistency.