WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB - CLAYTON OLIVER

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

8 hours ago, Mad_Melbourne said:

100% this will be encouraged by the coaches, his ability to handball through congestion or to moving targets in space is not necessarily picking his first option but the best option. 

It's not a criticism, just an observation about how he plays which is similar to McKenzie.

I love the guy and after his highlights were posted here was one of the first to get on his bandwagon.

[Mad_Melbourne 877]

14 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

It's not a criticism, just an observation about how he plays which is similar to McKenzie.

I love the guy and after his highlights were posted here was one of the first to get on his bandwagon.

I was just creating a distinction between first option and best option more than anything, too often for the last 5-6 years Melbourne players will panic and handball to the first option which is often someone immediately under pressure. To me this is Clayton Olivers greatest asset, that he can pick out the best option and has great awareness in congestion.

 

[Demon_JB 1,385]

25 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

It's not a criticism, just an observation about how he plays which is similar to McKenzie.

I love the guy and after his highlights were posted here was one of the first to get on his bandwagon.

He plays nothing like McKenzie...

[Elusive Tunbridge 795]

Any ginger wearing 13 is all right with me.

[sue 9,144]

$1000 fine for the "sling" tackle.

[daisycutter 29,738]

7 minutes ago, sue said:

$1000 fine for the "sling" tackle.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-29/young-demon-avoids-ban-for-sling-tackle

i reckon that is stiff myself. why wasn't just a free kick sufficient. i didn't think it was that much of a sling. over-reaction by mrp

can see a lot of controversy on that this year if they get that strict. there are plenty of other tackle types just as risky which only get a free kick

[DubDee 26,117]

what a joke.  Oliver didnt pin his arms.  the bloke went to kick the ball like an overhead kick type motion, so he was moving that way and off balance.

 

hope the senior players pay the fine for him.  he would barely have gotten a pay cheque yet!

[nutbean 8,838]

Just now, daisycutter said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-29/young-demon-avoids-ban-for-sling-tackle

i reckon that is stiff myself. why wasn't just a free kick sufficient. i didn't think it was that much of a sling. over-reaction by mrp

can see a lot of controversy on that this year if they get that strict. there are plenty of other tackle types just as risky which only get a free kick

As said earlier - they are targeting this sort of slinging tackle so I was not surprised. If it caused damaged it would have been weeks. 

Check back on his highlight reel - he does a few of these tackles in the TAC and I am pretty sure that the coaches will be onto him about it. I love the fierce desire to tackle - i just dont want him rubbed out.

 

 

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

5 minutes ago, DubDee said:

what a joke.  Oliver didnt pin his arms.  the bloke went to kick the ball like an overhead kick type motion, so he was moving that way and off balance.

 

hope the senior players pay the fine for him.  he would barely have gotten a pay cheque yet!

That is the biggest thing that should make it a legal tackle. The opposition had the opportunity to break their own fall.

[daisycutter 29,738]

13 minutes ago, nutbean said:

As said earlier - they are targeting this sort of slinging tackle so I was not surprised. If it caused damaged it would have been weeks. 

Check back on his highlight reel - he does a few of these tackles in the TAC and I am pretty sure that the coaches will be onto him about it. I love the fierce desire to tackle - i just dont want him rubbed out.

 

i'm not surprised either with typical mrp over-reaction.

i just can't see that what he did was reportable fcs

tackle on brayshaw was just as "dangerous" (rode him into the ground) but no report. where is consistency

Edited February 29, 2016 by daisycutter

[Slartibartfast 17,625]

Just now, daisycutter said:

i'm not surprised either with typical mrp over-reaction.

i just can't see that what he did was reportable fcs

Oh for heavens sake. They're sending a message 

[daisycutter 29,738]

Just now, Baghdad Bob said:

Oh for heavens sake. They're sending a message 

duh. thanks captain obvious

so why not a suspended fine?

Edited February 29, 2016 by daisycutter

[dazzledavey36 55,348]

Oliver has avoided suspension and been $1000.

 

[nutbean 8,838]

16 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i'm not surprised either with typical mrp over-reaction.

i just can't see that what he did was reportable fcs

tackle on brayshaw was just as "dangerous" (rode him into the ground) but no report. where is consistency

The AFL wants to encourage more and more kids to play the game - they are trying to remove anything that results in head injuries/concussions and the most obvious area is tackling.

I think the way it is heading is any tackle where the player can't protect himself from hard contact with the ground will more or less be rubbed out ( and yes there will be inconsistencies) . Oliver swung Young around - there was force in the tackle - he could have been hurt. Had he bounced and hit his head he would have been suspended.

The new tackling technique will be to pin the arms so the ball drops but not bring them to ground.

The old message of make a tackle "hurt" is a thing of the past - the AFL wants you to tackle to make your opponent drop the ball and nothing more.  

The real inconsistency to me is the tackle on Tyson - tackle and fall backwards. Too many times you see the tackled player get his leg caught and hyper-extend. I held my breath when Tyson went over backwards, leg trapped and grasped his knee. It seems that this is ok because it is the knee not the head. 

[DeeSpencer 26,081]

4 minutes ago, nutbean said:

The AFL wants to encourage more and more kids to play the game - they are trying to remove anything that results in head injuries/concussions and the most obvious area is tackling.

I think the way it is heading is any tackle where the player can't protect himself from hard contact with the ground will more or less be rubbed out ( and yes there will be inconsistencies) . Oliver swung Young around - there was force in the tackle - he could have been hurt. Had he bounced and hit his head he would have been suspended.

The new tackling technique will be to pin the arms so the ball drops but not bring them to ground.

The old message of make a tackle "hurt" is a thing of the past - the AFL wants you to tackle to make your opponent drop the ball and nothing more.  

The real inconsistency to me is the tackle on Tyson - tackle and fall backwards. Too many times you see the tackled player get his leg caught and hyper-extend. I held my breath when Tyson went over backwards, leg trapped and grasped his knee. It seems that this is ok because it is the knee not the head. 

You can't have tackling without bringing players to ground. The only way to stop someone like Ablett or Fyfe is to hit them hard enough with initial force to get them to ground, otherwise they'll get their arms free and get the ball out eventually. Not brining the player to the ground is cuddling not tackling.

The AFL should focus on dangerous lifting tackles and dangerous pile driving tackles when a player has their arms locked up. Slinging is dangerous as well, but they'd want to be very careful when pinging someone like Oliver for a sling where the player with the ball really initiated the slinging motion, had his arms free and wasn't lifted. Having watched it yet again I can concede it wasn't the perfect tackle, but there were enough contributing factors that even if Young was injured I'd be angry if it came with a suspension. 

The focus shouldn't only be on the tackler, the player getting tackler has to know how to look after themselves as well and that goes for AFL players and kids.

I'd tell Clarry to try and cut down the rotational slinging motion in his tackle, but to keep using his weight and the players own body weight to bring guys to ground. 

[nutbean 8,838]

10 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

You can't have tackling without bringing players to ground. The only way to stop someone like Ablett or Fyfe is to hit them hard enough with initial force to get them to ground, otherwise they'll get their arms free and get the ball out eventually. Not brining the player to the ground is cuddling not tackling.

. 

In fact there is the contradiction - I want to  tackler  to pin the arms so the tackled opponent  cannot get the ball away and even better if you can bring them to ground as that hopefully takes them out of the contest - the AFL do not want the arms pinned and player brought to ground as they cant protect themselves - there's the dilemma.

Whilst I agree with your sentiment - you rarely get concussed in a tackle if you are not brought to ground - the AFL wants head injuries and concussions out of the game. Make no mistake players brought to the ground with force with no real chance of protecting themselves will get looked at. 

[DeeSpencer 26,081]

19 minutes ago, nutbean said:

In fact there is the contradiction - I want to  tackler  to pin the arms so the tackled opponent  cannot get the ball away and even better if you can bring them to ground as that hopefully takes them out of the contest - the AFL do not want the arms pinned and player brought to ground as they cant protect themselves - there's the dilemma.

Whilst I agree with your sentiment - you rarely get concussed in a tackle if you are not brought to ground - the AFL wants head injuries and concussions out of the game. Make no mistake players brought to the ground with force with no real chance of protecting themselves will get looked at. 

I want both, the arms pinned and a player taken to ground. But I want the player taken to ground on their side and with their weight going through their hips. The grounds won't be so hard as to have many broken hips! 

It's the dangerous motions of getting a player to ground that causes the head injuries. So if the arms are pinned don't drive the player through the ground. Don't lift them and put them over horizontal and don't sling. Particularly don't do all 3 which Gibbs did to Robbie Gray last year!

I still don't think the AFL have gone in to enough explanation about what tackling techniques they are banning. The definition on slinging and driving players in to the ground seems very much based on how it looks and not on technical points. If they explained it more everyone would get a reference point for what is a good hard tackle that can still result in injury but is legal and what is deemed dangerous.

[sue 9,144]

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

The AFL wants to encourage more and more kids to play the game - they are trying to remove anything that results in head injuries/concussions and the most obvious area is tackling.

I think the way it is heading is any tackle where the player can't protect himself from hard contact with the ground will more or less be rubbed out ( and yes there will be inconsistencies) . Oliver swung Young around - there was force in the tackle - he could have been hurt. Had he bounced and hit his head he would have been suspended.

The new tackling technique will be to pin the arms so the ball drops but not bring them to ground.

The old message of make a tackle "hurt" is a thing of the past - the AFL wants you to tackle to make your opponent drop the ball and nothing more.  

The real inconsistency to me is the tackle on Tyson - tackle and fall backwards. Too many times you see the tackled player get his leg caught and hyper-extend. I held my breath when Tyson went over backwards, leg trapped and grasped his knee. It seems that this is ok because it is the knee not the head. 

Nutbean, seems to me that that new tackling technique is more likely to cause injuries (when the not bringing to ground fails) than a sling where the player's arms are free. 

Edited February 29, 2016 by sue

[Barney Rubble 1,576]

His arms weren't pinned in the tackle.

Therefore he was able to protect himself from impact with the ground if needed.

He got up dusted himself off and played on no problems. So why the fuss.

[Demon_JB 1,385]

Oliver's first game on debut he lays a strong tackle and gets reported for it. This is the stuff I like to see. 

[beelzebub 23,383]

1 hour ago, Barney Rubble said:

His arms weren't pinned in the tackle.

Therefore he was able to protect himself from impact with the ground if needed.

He got up dusted himself off and played on no problems. So why the fuss.

Why the fine ?

[nutbean 8,838]

1 hour ago, Barney Rubble said:

His arms weren't pinned in the tackle.

Therefore he was able to protect himself from impact with the ground if needed.

He got up dusted himself off and played on no problems. So why the fuss.

Because every season the AFL's seems to be tightening their stance on tackling and injuries.

They looked at if a player was hurt and acted accordingly. Now they are looking at "Could a player have got hurt".

The slinging motion happens quite quickly  - whether the hands are free or not there is a risk of damage if the hands don't get in the right position to break the fall.

Is anyone under any illusion that had Young hit his head Oliver would have got rubbed out ? The AFL are now taking it one step further - the sling could have hurt.

I think it is pretty simple - just don't sling - whether the hands are free or not.   

(BTW I don't agree with the interpretations at all - it is a physical game and players will get hurt. Whilst I don't want any player getting hurt, my mind is telling me that the amount of players that get head injuries from a tackle are minuscule. The head bump i absolutely get - but tackling causing head injuries ? I still believe more knee injuries are caused in tackles than head injuries) 

[beelzebub 23,383]

AFL

Where you have a very physical style of play , gladiatorial contact all at a zillion miles an hour and they want players to execute play with the finesse of Eddie Charlton on the black or Daniel Riccardo overtaking  at Monaco.

Another well thought through and reasoned position AFL 

[nutbean 8,838]

11 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

AFL

Where you have a very physical style of play , gladiatorial contact all at a zillion miles an hour and they want players to execute play with the finesse of Eddie Charlton on the black or Daniel Riccardo overtaking  at Monaco.

Another well thought through and reasoned position AFL 

couldn't agree more - and seeing certain incidents over and over in slo mo moves us further away from the fact the game is played at a frenzied pace and decision are made in fractions of seconds and can go horribly wrong.

[monoccular 17,573]

46 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Why the fine ?

FCS why the free...unless TO Oliver for incorrect disposal / holding the ball?