Such is our form over the last few weeks I expected the worst. When I read the title I immediately assumed he'd been busted for drinking, a late night out or the like.

It was somewhat of a relief to find that he'd been suspended by the MRP for a tackle.

Is that bad?

If Jackson bounced back up straight away we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That said, how is that Jack gets knocked out and Jackson gets off. Rough conduct charge for mine.

I am livid.

Slammed his head into the astro turf when on 1st look they were both out of bounds, Jackson stayed down and was very groggy afterwards. Was always going to get 2 weeks (now 1 for guilty plea) based on Trenners outcome. Disappointing to lose him (even if he was fit) but I think fair as he did sling Jackson when he didn't need to, he tried the same later and ended up the knocked out one.

I'd say it was all part of the action of the original tackle begun inside the oval. Whether it is classified as a sling tackle seems to depend on how hard a player's head hits the turf and this, except in very violent slings, is a matter of chance. Thus unfair to the tackler even without the additional bad luck of landing on fake grass.

All arguable, but to go on to say that he tried the same again and got knocked out! What evidence do you have for that? Given how they ended up, seems more likely Grimes was trying to ensure the other bloke didn't hit the ground.

No surprise if the players might lose morale with supporters that don't support. Reality is one thing, looking for the worst is another.

With the first tackle - i dont think it was the sling - it was over the boundary line - but I wonder if Grimes had awareness of where he was ?

As someone else pointed out, Jackson deadset threw all his weight in some sort of wresting move and knocked Jack out cold and gets nothing. Bot incidents are on the link i psoted above. Watch Jackson grab Grimes by the shirt and grimace in effort to throw weight back on him.

That's how I saw it - but it happened too quickly to prove any malicious intent. I think he was frustrated to be caught in the tackle and dropped his weight on Grimes, but I doubt he meant to land on his head.

I'd say it was all part of the action of the original tackle begun inside the oval. Whether it is classified as a sling tackle seems to depend on how hard a player's head hits the turf and this, except in very violent slings, is a matter of chance. Thus unfair to the tackler even without the additional bad luck of landing on fake grass.

All arguable, but to go on to say that he tried the same again and got knocked out! What evidence do you have for that? Given how they ended up, seems more likely Grimes was trying to ensure the other bloke didn't hit the ground.

No surprise if the players might lose morale with supporters that don't support. Reality is one thing, looking for the worst is another.

Sorry Sue, might have this totally wrong, but are you saying because I agree with the decision that I'm not supporting our players?

Such is our form over the last few weeks I expected the worst. When I read the title I immediately assumed he'd been busted for drinking, a late night out or the like.

It was somewhat of a relief to find that he'd been suspended by the MRP for a tackle.

Is that bad?

Me too and relieved in a way.

I think that mrp looks at a game in slow motion that is played at a frenetic pace

That's how I saw it - but it happened too quickly to prove any malicious intent. I think he was frustrated to be caught in the tackle and dropped his weight on Grimes, but I doubt he meant to land on his head.

Frustrated to be caught? He was less than a metre inside the field, he stepped over the boundary, and Grimes tackled him. He was frustrated, but due to Jack's momentum and the speed he was travelling at, it was a pretty solid tackle, which Jackson wasn't fully impressed about, especially considering there was potential to be taken to the ground heavily again.

I'm starting to feel like Ben Hur - I watch this game in a different way to most on this thread. Would love to hear Ben's thoughts on the matter.

Sorry Sue, might have this totally wrong, but are you saying because I agree with the decision that I'm not supporting our players?

I'm not saying that. I said the decision was arguable (and in my view is too dependent on the outcome rather than the act).

But I did object to your assumption that he tried to do it again for which I saw no evidence. If I was a player I'd hope supporters wouldn't think the worst unless there was clear evidence.

I cannot believe Jones got done for that!!!

He is running out of the way and his heel is clipped by the umpire?

Unbelievable!!!!!!!!

I'm not saying that. I said the decision was arguable (and in my view is too dependent on the outcome rather than the act).

But I did object to your assumption that he tried to do it again for which I saw no evidence. If I was a player I'd hope supporters wouldn't think the worst unless there was clear evidence.

I didn't say he tried to do the initial sling either. The first case was careless. The 2nd case had the potential to be careless, and as it was teh same bloke he was tackling, he avoided the potential of a similar outcome. That's in no way saying that I believe Grimes did it intentionally.

FWIW - I challenge anyone to try and lay a tackle, like the 2nd one for example, at the pace and with the momentum that Jack had, and see if you can lay a "safe" tackle. I know when I've played footy it's bloody hard to stop your own momentum.

I didn't say he tried to do the initial sling either. The first case was careless. The 2nd case had the potential to be careless, and as it was teh same bloke he was tackling, he avoided the potential of a similar outcome. That's in no way saying that I believe Grimes did it intentionally.

FWIW - I challenge anyone to try and lay a tackle, like the 2nd one for example, at the pace and with the momentum that Jack had, and see if you can lay a "safe" tackle. I know when I've played footy it's bloody hard to stop your own momentum.

OK. I assumed that when you said 'he tried' to do the same again you meant he tried intentionally. I'll accept you didn't mean that.

So the message from the afl to the kids is a hit to the face is fine (Maric) but a tackle is not.... Great message

OK. I assumed that when you said 'he tried' to do the same again you meant he tried intentionally. I'll accept you didn't mean that.

Struggling to find where I said he tried to do it again.

No one "tries" to execute a sling tackle, well, they shouldn't. Most players are trained to bring a tackle to the ground if you get the opportunity, which is what Grimes "tried" to do on both occasions.

I didn't say he tried to do the initial sling either. The first case was careless. The 2nd case had the potential to be careless, and as it was teh same bloke he was tackling, he avoided the potential of a similar outcome. That's in no way saying that I believe Grimes did it intentionally.

FWIW - I challenge anyone to try and lay a tackle, like the 2nd one for example, at the pace and with the momentum that Jack had, and see if you can lay a "safe" tackle. I know when I've played footy it's bloody hard to stop your own momentum.

But I don't think Grimes' pace was excessive - Jackson absorbed the tackle and instead of dropping to the ground he turned his weight on to Grimes. I doubt this was an act of self-preservation, but you may see it differently.

Edited April 16, 201213 yr by wisedog

Tackled just inside the field of play, was taken over the boundary line and then swung after the ball was dead. Fair decision, especially given the astr-turf stuff is like cement.

That's an OHS issue FCS. Mind you it wouldn't surprise me that on planet AFL employees are responsible for the consequences of an unsafe workplace!

And the AFL endorses '[censored] slaps' like the one Maric gave Jordie.

I thought they'd ask the question of that tackle.

Whats the difference between Lake's hit on Ray and Scarlett's hit on Ballantyne? Is it a different outcome because of prior history or because Ballantyne hit the deck like a sack of spuds?

EDIT: Haha just say Marc Murphy $900 for an "obscene gesture" as well - as far as I can tell he just fist pumped the crowd after a goal, perhaps stuck a finger up int he air also though it was so quick it was impossible to tell and no way you could say he flipped them off. This competition is so over-governed it is a joke.

Edited April 16, 201213 yr by Dr. Gonzo

The Henderson and the Kieren Jack ones were classical sling tackles and not penalised. They picked the opponent up off the ground and threw him down.

The Grimes on was a classic hard single action tackle.

The Jackson one - well he fell onto Jack's head in the course of play. Still, these days at least when our guys are under scrutiny it seems the result is (usually) more important than the action.

Just no consistency at all. Nor "integrity", Vlad!

The Goodes one to me looked like two players sliding in for the ball and had a collision. WTH??

Whats the difference between Lake's hit on Ray and Scarlett's hit on Ballantyne? Is it a different outcome because of prior history or because Ballantyne hit the deck like a sack of spuds?

EDIT: Haha just say Marc Murphy $900 for an "obscene gesture" as well - as far as I can tell he just fist pumped the crowd after a goal, perhaps stuck a finger up int he air also though it was so quick it was impossible to tell and no way you could say he flipped them off. This competition is so over-governed it is a joke.

I think you would have to say that Scatrlett's was a major brain fade and a hard hit (on an annoying little rat mind you).

But Lake's one looked to me just like Maric's on McKenzie - one reported, one not??? WTH????

I'd say it was all part of the action of the original tackle begun inside the oval. Whether it is classified as a sling tackle seems to depend on how hard a player's head hits the turf and this, except in very violent slings, is a matter of chance. Thus unfair to the tackler even without the additional bad luck of landing on fake grass.

All arguable, but to go on to say that he tried the same again and got knocked out! What evidence do you have for that? Given how they ended up, seems more likely Grimes was trying to ensure the other bloke didn't hit the ground.

No surprise if the players might lose morale with supporters that don't support. Reality is one thing, looking for the worst is another.

Sue how did you get "I don't support", I was there watching just like most weeks and thought he would get suspended. I also thought he tried to do it again and unfortunately got landed on and looked in a world of trouble knocked out. I was NOT saying “ooohhh geeess look he is doing it again ohhh I hope he gets knocked out for being a naughty boy:... ridiculous.

There is a major problem with the MRP. In this instance, and in pretty much every decision they made today, their decision was made based in part (or fully) upon the impact to the victim.

This is not how it should be done.

The act which the AFL is trying to outlaw is the sling tackle. It should not matter if a player is injured or not as a result of being tackled. If Jackson had gotten up and walked away completely uninjured, then the MRP would probably have let Grimes off the hook. But this doesn't do the job that needs to be done (let's ignore the separate issue of whether we want the sling tackle in or out of the game).

If someone commits an offence, be it a sling tackle, a bump, or a strike, they should be noted as having done it, but then their penalty should be assessed based on how severely they did it. Your guilt or innocence should not be determined by the impact to the person. Thus Ivan Maric should at the very least have been found guilty of striking (because that's exactly what he did), but his penalty should have been weighted based on how severely he hit McKenzie (which wasn't very severely at all).

I don't like the MRP saying 'well, Jackson was injured, so it therefore means Grimes should be suspended'. You can tackle someone perfectly legally and they can do their knee in the process, but no one is going to call for you to be suspended. That's because it's not the consequence, but the action, which we care about.

Rant over.