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

MELBOURNE draftee Clayton Oliver has avoided suspension for a sling tackle on Port Adelaide's Aaron Young, with the Match Review Panel handing him a $1500 fine.

Might just be me but I was kinda proud of him for that tackle.

What a joke. Nothing wrong with that tackle. Flogs at the AFL are Flogs!

1 minute ago, Gorgoroth said:

What a joke. Nothing wrong with that tackle. Flogs at the AFL are Flogs!

It really is a joke.  

So awesome to see Oliver cracking heads in his first ever game!

All of us behind the goals looked at each and said "WTF was the free kick for?"

Was as a ripping tackle from where we stood!

He did some very nice things on the weekend and that tackle was one of them.

I posted this in the Clayton Oliver thread and will repost here - it seems I am in the minority on this - I am shocked that so many see nothing wrong with the tackle ( when I say wrong I am mean on how the AFL are looking at these types of tackles - not my opinion on what should and shouldn't be legal). Again for the record - I dont want Oliver to stop tackling - I just want him to work on his technique. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 - Young 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. 

I'm with you Nutbean.  No surprise with the verdict at all.  I won't say I like the weight put on the outcome (injury) instead of the action itself, but that's the way its been for a long time.

The ground can no longer be used to hurt the opposition in the tackle.  The game (like most work places) has changed.  The players will modify their techniques to prevent penalty.  The game will survive.  There isn't anything wrong with protecting players from serious injury.

Notwithstanding - I love the way that Oliver hunts the ball and the opponents - just tighten up the tackling technique.

My view on this tackle. Oliver grabbed him by body. His arms were clear and he turned and handballed. Oliver followed him with the tackle making it appear more like a dangerous sling tackle. This young fellow playing his first game . The Port player was not hurt. I believe the  MRP are overreacting here. a caution on this occasion would have been more common sense. I thought dangerous tackles were when you pinned their arms and slung them.

 

Best headline yet -"Oliver fined for twist" - The Age

"Can I have some ... more!?"

 

How many players show the kind of aggression to get reported in their very first game? Not many I'd hesitate to guess, most would be nervous meek and probably would prefer to avoid physical contact until they're more accustomed to the speed and ferocity of senior football

I agree with nut. The sling tackle is like the bump. You can't control how much damage it will inflict, so you run the gauntlet of the MRP by using it. And it actually wasn't a great tackle because he allowed Young to free his arms and potentially dispose of the ball. With the stricter interpretation of holding the ball and incorrect disposal, pinning the players arms is what players should be taught.

arms aren't pinned. He tackles him with intent, not to deliberately hurt him.

FFS, people are going to get hurt. It happens, sure, if the arms are pinned and you make that double movement to slam the guy then I could understand. This is just revenue raising form the flogs at head office.

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

I posted this in the Clayton Oliver thread and will repost here - it seems I am in the minority on this - I am shocked that so many see nothing wrong with the tackle ( when I say wrong I am mean on how the AFL are looking at these types of tackles - not my opinion on what should and shouldn't be legal). Again for the record - I dont want Oliver to stop tackling - I just want him to work on his technique. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 - Young 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. 

Agree if this is the case. The Port player had his arms free and could protect himself though, that is why it is a joke. 

38 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Best headline yet -"Oliver fined for twist" - The Age

"Can I have some ... more!?"

 

O love how it was judged to have had a low impact on the port players head. More like no impact!

As I replied to Nutbeam in the other thread, I suspect  a tackle where you pin the arms but try to not bring the opponent to the ground and fail, is more likely to lead to injuries than a (modest) sling with the arms free.

6 minutes ago, Chris said:

O love how it was judged to have had a low impact on the port players head. More like no impact!

To simplify the system impact means both the result and the physical force (which they somehow use video to determine). 

So if I walked up and slapped you with an open hand and you were knocked out that would be high (or severe) impact. And if I king hit you Barry Hall style and you were ok that would probably still be high impact based on the force. 

Certainly though I think low impact is fair in this case. The only way to argue this one is to say it wasn't a reportable offense as Young contributed most of the sling. Which if it was the deciding factor of him missing a week I'd have a go at contesting. 

so good to see a first game player getting in trouble for being too rough.  can you imagine that happening to the draft class of 2009? [JT aside]

maybe change thread title from 'Oliver avoids ban' to 'Oliver gets BS fine'?

hate how the AFL comes out every year with issues they are "going to crack down on".  how about you just enforce the rules that are there fairly and consistently?

Viney and Vandaberg are gonna be suspended every third game at this rate

Just re-watched the tackle. Clear to me that most of the danger came from the Port player trying to spin out of the tackle.  I don't really see how the tackler can be responsible nor what they can do to avoid it except not tackle someone trying to spin.   Which is absurd.

55 minutes ago, mo64 said:

I agree with nut. The sling tackle is like the bump. You can't control how much damage it will inflict, so you run the gauntlet of the MRP by using it. And it actually wasn't a great tackle because he allowed Young to free his arms and potentially dispose of the ball. With the stricter interpretation of holding the ball and incorrect disposal, pinning the players arms is what players should be taught.

Pinning the arms to prevent correct disposal is what we have always been taught.....but now it may be deemed "wrong".  Pinned arms make a player "defenseless" in a fall.   

If you pun the arms of a strong player he may not go to ground: pin a skinny tint and he will, and could hit his head  

Typical MRP using a Demon in a test case. 

Move on.  

Regardless of whether the tackle and fine are bullsh1t or not, the players and clubs have to modify their tackling techniques

The insurance claims will see to that...

You cannot even kick a footy in a park these days in case you hit someone

I miss the 70's...

Right so once a player is tackled you cant make a second motion. Therefore players that are tackled shouldn't be able to move.

This is cr*p. The rule is designed to stop tacklers pile driving players into the ground or planting the fot and slinging the players head into the ground. Not remotely like what Oliver did.

But a chicken wing is OK or a ju jitsu chop or an elbow to the cheek bone.......if you are Chris Judd.......

 

 

8 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Pinning the arms to prevent correct disposal is what we have always been taught.....but now it may be deemed "wrong".  Pinned arms make a player "defenseless" in a fall.   

If you pun the arms of a strong player he may not go to ground: pin a skinny tint and he will, and could hit his head  

Typical MRP using a Demon in a test case. 

Move on.  

Players should be taught/told to pin the arms then go down to your knees. That prevents the "push in the back/driving tackle" scenario. Port were guilty of poor technique quite often on Saturday.

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

...

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. 

Agree with this, and it was the same player who tackled Brayshaw at the beginning of the game - Hartlett, who was beaten to the ball on both occasions.

For both these tackles, he made a second movement that was unnecessary in terms of the effectiveness of the tackle, but could have caused two serious knee injuries.

As you say, it's the "inconsistency" - in terms of tackles designed to hurt and not dispossess, and that could have caused serious injuries though they didn't (hopefully) - that's the problem. Until, perhaps, someone sues the AFL for a serious leg or arm injury caused by such a tackle.

32 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

So if I walked up and slapped you with an open hand and you were knocked out that would be high (or severe) impact. And if I king hit you Barry Hall style and you were ok that would probably still be high impact based on the force. 

To properly work out the level of impact and your intent, negligent or otherwise, would require you to approach this in the same way as the MRP ... ie with a set of dice.