Clint Bartram's "Sling" Tackle

[deanbarber 37]

Watching The Sunday Footy Show, and theyre saying clint bartram's tackles on nick winmar, which drove his head into the ground will be looked at. Its a disgrace. theres nothing you can do!

What i dont get, is thats its not the act itself, but the concequence of the victim. if thats the case, whelan should have got weeks for the smother on nathan brown. but it shouldnt. thats just an example. It's bullocks!

[jabberwocky 2,301]

My understanding is that the recklessness aspect is supported by actual injury. If there is no injury there is no case to answer.

Winmar got up a little groggy but unless there is a medical report to suggest an "injury" occurred there won't be a report.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Non-event.

[Jamarized 0]

doesnt help that Wimar hit his head on the fake grass. Still, I expect Bartram to be punished by the mrp none the less.

[Jaded No More 68,692]

As soon as the kid didn't get up, I though 8 weeks suspension, and possible life ban.

It was a good tackle and would have been a non event if it wasn't for the rubbish turf at the rubbish concrete wasteland that is Etihad. But given our luck right now, and the way the MRP loves to bend us over, I'd say 2 weeks. And I'd contest it on the grounds of the AFL allowing their players to play on such a hard surface. No duty of care there really

Edited May 22, 2011 by Jaded

[45HG 1,539]

Winmar got up a little groggy but unless there is a medical report to suggest an "injury" occurred there won't be a report.

And they didn't lose by 96 points so I don't think we have to worry about that...

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Pretty sure Winmar had hurt his shoulder earlier, and would have hurt it again in that tackle, hence he was slow getting up.

[Apocalypse XXXI 243]

The television programmes last week showed several incidents of sling tackles that were executed in similar fashion to Trengove's on Dangerfield . The point of difference was that the player in question didn't go off the ground for the rest of the match and the club in question didn't furnish a medical report suggesting he was concussed. In this case, the St. Kilda club doctor won't issue such a report so Bartram's in the clear.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

It was not a sling tackle. It was a perfect tackle, with the momentum taking both players forward and Winmar hitting his head on the ground. No case to answer.

[alpha33 306]

The AFL is not concerned with whether it's a perfect tackle or not. If someone's head hits the turf and that person is rendered senseless according to his own club's doctor, then it's illegal. The same tackle is legal if he avoids damage to the head. Simple as that.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

The AFL is not concerned with whether it's a perfect tackle or not. If someone's head hits the turf and that person is rendered senseless according to his own club's doctor, then it's illegal. The same tackle is legal if he avoids damage to the head. Simple as that.

No case to answer!!!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Agree. No injury and no case. Next.

[monoccular 17,354]

The AFL is not concerned with whether it's a perfect tackle or not. If someone's head hits the turf and that person is rendered senseless according to his own club's doctor, then it's illegal. The same tackle is legal if he avoids damage to the head. Simple as that.

........and it doesn't matter, it seems, even if the deceased goes out and kicks a bag the following week!

[Pates 9,626]

He should be fine, there was no second action and the player got up (albeit a little groggy). I think the bigger issue here is the fake turf on the side, if that'd been on grass he would've been fine.

[Supermercado 2,789]

Would be laughable if somebody getting their head thrown into that surface was blamed on the player. It's a car park roof with a thin layer of grass across it :o

[jnrmac 19,940]

Exactly. Fake grass covering concrete probably.

What about the duty of care by the providers of the stadium????HMMMM????

Unsafe workplace????

As if.

[DaveyJones'sLocker 647]

I hope he gets weeks. We lose next week anyway.

I want to be angry at the AFL

[The Great One 99 125]

If you look at both tackles, Bartram and Trengove, then Bartram was to me more dangerous. He had both of Winmars arms pinned as the players went to ground, and so Winmar had no chance to stop the impact.

However, I think Bartrams will not even be looked at. And rightly so.

[Deeman 1,479]

If you look at both tackles, Bartram and Trengove, then Bartram was to me more dangerous. He had both of Winmars arms pinned as the players went to ground, and so Winmar had no chance to stop the impact.

However, I think Bartrams will not even be looked at. And rightly so.

Not according to the Match Review Panel which has set Clint Bartram free:-

"Contact between Melbourne's Clint Bartram and St Kilda's Nick Winmar from the fourth quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. The panel said Winmar had taken possession of the ball and was moving quickly toward the boundary when Bartram tackled the St Kilda player. The Melbourne player takes Winmar to the ground with the momentum of his tackle in a continuous motion. It was the view of the panel that the force used was not unreasonable in the circumstances. Winmar was not slung to the ground with excessive force. No further action was taken."

[bing181 9,146]

"Contact between Melbourne's Clint Bartram and St Kilda's Nick Winmar from the fourth quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. The panel said Winmar had taken possession of the ball and was moving quickly toward the boundary when Bartram tackled the St Kilda player. The Melbourne player takes Winmar to the ground with the momentum of his tackle in a continuous motion. It was the view of the panel that the force used was not unreasonable in the circumstances. Winmar was not slung to the ground with excessive force. No further action was taken."

... not unreasonable in the circumstances. I particularly like that. Where were the "circumstances" in regards to Trengove!!!

Still fuming.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Not according to the Match Review Panel which has set Clint Bartram free:-

"Contact between Melbourne's Clint Bartram and St Kilda's Nick Winmar from the fourth quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. The panel said Winmar had taken possession of the ball and was moving quickly toward the boundary when Bartram tackled the St Kilda player.

The Melbourne player takes Winmar to the ground with the momentum of his tackle in a continuous motion. It was the view of the panel that the force used was not unreasonable in the circumstances. Winmar was not slung to the ground with excessive force. No further action was taken."

Good interpretation.

I was concerned how this would play out. It makes sense the way they've explained it.

[Whispering_Jack 29,369]

... not unreasonable in the circumstances. I particularly like that. Where were the "circumstances" in regards to Trengove!!!

Still fuming.

This decision makes a mockery of the rule, the MRP and the Tribunals that decided the Trengove cases.

The "not unreasonable in the circumstances" part is ridiculous. The penalty had nothing to do with the tackle but rather, the consequences of the tackle.

[beelzebub 23,254]

Joke...joke...its all nothing but a bloody joke.

Trengove further vindicated

MRP..further shamed !!

bloody joke

[DeeSpencer 24,962]

We all know why Trengove got suspended - because the AFL hates concussions at the moment. But it's now very clear to me that Trengove got found guilty for 2 reasons.

1. The slinging action

Any sling action or pile driving action, especially when delivered in 2 motions or with the arms pinged is illegal. See the AFL rules video for this. I've got no issue with this.

2. Unreasonable force

Tackles delivered with unreasonable force will be punished. I have no problem with this, however, I will staunchly argue that Trengove's tackle was not delivered with unreasonable force. I will also argue that the resultant injury is not a fair method of measuring force.

Either way if penalty fit the crime (ie. reprimand due to good record or at most 1 week) I would not have a major problem with the Trengove decision.

The Bartram decision (hopefully) clears this up now, and we don't have to be calling for more suspension when players tackle hard and fair.

Edited May 23, 2011 by the master

[RalphiusMaximus 6,013]

Bartram was never going to be in trouble. Take a look at the tackle. He drives the player's shoulder into the turf, not his head. He stayed down because he had already injured that shoulder and the tackle made it worse.