when are we going to discuss bryce gibbs' tackle?

not sure i believe the locker room stories

Looking back on the Trengove tackle after so many years I still felt it was a harsh penalty but I see what the AFL was trying to do and what they are trying to do now. Concussion is becoming an increasingly concerning issue and the clubs and the AFL are taking it very seriously. Look at Daniel Bell, his post game issues have been made very public. The way we have been cautious with Bail and now with Jetta shows me that we as a club are getting the idea.

First thought when I saw Gibb's tackle was two weeks, the guy was knocked out and clearly two motions. Not 3 down to 2, just straight 2 weeks.

when are we going to discuss bryce gibbs' tackle?

not sure i believe the locker room stories

The full story is that Robbie felt the full brunt of it and is still bruised.

Swelling to the head.

Gibbs playing without the helmet.

It's in an article titled

"50 Shades of Robbie Grey".

The problem with this though is that if he wasn't knocked out, he wouldn't have been banned. That is the only difference. If he had tackled a bigger bodied person he would be playing next week.

And that's where the whole system falls apart... if there was intent, then surely he should be out regardless of whether an injury is incurred or not. If they want to rub out a particular form of play, then the penalties MUST be the same regardless of the outcome (injured or not injured).

apparently bbo's tackle took quite a flogging

makes BeeGee's tackle look like "i started a joke"

David Parkin at a coaching clinic 10 years ago said the only legitimate means left to hurt your opponent

was to trap his arms and drive his a/c joint into the ground!

Great way to rid the game of champion players!

David Parkin at a coaching clinic 10 years ago said the only legitimate means left to hurt your opponent

was to trap his arms and drive his a/c joint into the ground!

Great way to rid the game of champion players!

Cam Bruce says hello

David Parkin at a coaching clinic 10 years ago said the only legitimate means left to hurt your opponent

was to trap his arms and drive his a/c joint into the ground!

Great way to rid the game of champion players!

Special Cyril did a mirror image of Trengoves tackle a few weeks ago .

Don't know if he got week or not.

Love the consistency between the Trengove and Gibbs decisions. Makes a good change for once. For those knuckleheads like "Duck" Carey out there that think banning Gibbs is turning our sport into soccer and getting rid of physicality, you can get your fill of neanderthals trying to hurt each other in a vast number of other sports like Boxing, MMA, and the rugby codes.

"Duck's" point was that Gibbs was tackling his opponent which is a massive part of the game compared to some of the players on the weekend who were given fines only for striking which clearly isn't a part of the game...look at Viney's tackle on Ablett in round 1..arm pinned ..could of easily been Abletts head hitting the ground instead of his shoulder..

I dont like the rule...there are so many small variables in a tackle that determine where the head falls and when....the main reason a sling tackle causes injury is because the arms are pinned and the player cannot protecy themselves..but Gibbs was holding the ball into Gray so it shouldnt be seen as the typical sling tackle....

..bad decision

Has anyone been rubbed out for a sling tackle since Trengove...cant think of any of the top of my head..

The week after Trengove's suspension, Jeremy Laidler laid a sling tackle on Allen Christensen, Christensen wasn't knocked out but was dazed and confused. There was't any particular attention drawn to it, although you could clearly see Christensen in trouble. He missed the next week with concussion, unlike Dangerfield and we'll wait and see with Gray.

Going on the Trengove incident, Laidler should've got weeks, but it wasn't singled out by the commentators.

The week after Trengove's suspension, Jeremy Laidler laid a sling tackle on Allen Christensen, Christensen wasn't knocked out but was dazed and confused. There was't any particular attention drawn to it, although you could clearly see Christensen in trouble. He missed the next week with concussion, unlike Dangerfield and we'll wait and see with Gray.

Going on the Trengove incident, Laidler should've got weeks, but it wasn't singled out by the commentators.

The penalty shouldn't be determined by the injury, even the ugliest of sling tackles can result in no injury and therefor no penalty...

The penalty shouldn't be determined by the injury, even the ugliest of sling tackles can result in no injury and therefor no penalty...

For some reason in the past year or so the players injury report has more of a say than the action itself. Unless you're kicking or marking every other injury caused by contact is virtually a suspension nowadays

The penalty shouldn't be determined by the injury, even the ugliest of sling tackles can result in no injury and therefor no penalty...

?

For some reason in the past year or so the players injury report has more of a say than the action itself. Unless you're kicking or marking every other injury caused by contact is virtually a suspension nowadays

Yea it is good to protect the player..but imagine if the tackler was Viney...had the ball pinned to Grays stomach in a hard tackle, yet gets the same penalty as a Leqis or Hodge against North Melb for dirty high hits..hardly fair.

The penalty shouldn't be determined by the injury, even the ugliest of sling tackles can result in no injury and therefor no penalty...

Of course the outcome determines the penalty. It's a common principle in law.

If I point a gun at you and miss, I'll get a few years for attempted murder. If I hit you, I'll get up to life for murder.

If I drive through a red light I'll get a few hundred dollars fine and lose a few demerit points. If I injure or kill someone in doing so, I'll get jail for at least culpable driving or manslaughter.

Of course the outcome determines the penalty. It's a common principle in law.

If I point a gun at you and miss, I'll get a few years for attempted murder. If I hit you, I'll get up to life for murder.

If I drive through a red light I'll get a few hundred dollars fine and lose a few demerit points. If I injure or kill someone in doing so, I'll get jail for at least culpable driving or manslaughter.

No one congratulates you when you point a gun at someone and miss though

Its pretty clear that unless you are protecting yourself from a collision that if you take action which causes a player to be concussed you are going to be in trouble.

To wit you can't drive a player whose arms you have pinned into the ground, you gotta release.

Be easier if they policed the action rather than just those that lead to concussion.

Of course the outcome determines the penalty. It's a common principle in law.

If I point a gun at you and miss, I'll get a few years for attempted murder. If I hit you, I'll get up to life for murder.

If I drive through a red light I'll get a few hundred dollars fine and lose a few demerit points. If I injure or kill someone in doing so, I'll get jail for at least culpable driving or manslaughter.

Yes..but if you are driving in a car race and kill another racer..it is a completely differnt thing to driving through a red light killing someone..this is being penalised for tackling which kids are brought up practicing, it is a massive part of the game and players should not be discouraged from doing it.

Of course the outcome determines the penalty. It's a common principle in law.

If I point a gun at you and miss, I'll get a few years for attempted murder. If I hit you, I'll get up to life for murder.

If I drive through a red light I'll get a few hundred dollars fine and lose a few demerit points. If I injure or kill someone in doing so, I'll get jail for at least culpable driving or manslaughter.

Just say..two players have a head collision...one player is concussed and misses the next week with concussion...should we suspend the other player for not watching where he was going and not avoiding the contact...point is, it is a contact sport...i dont really want to bring up Phil Hughes, but should we suspend the bowler for choosing to bowl a bouncer, which is a completely normal part of the game?