After the 1 week suspension of Dangerfield for his tackle on Kreuzer... Tackling and concussion will come under increased scrutiny from here in. It is only time until spinal injury will be brought up aswell. 

For the record. I believe the MRP got the 1 week suspension for Dangerfield correct. WHY? Refer to Grundy tackle on Brown below.

If anybody has watched the movie 'Concussion' with Will Smith you will understand why. Brilliant movie and needs to be watched if you hav'nt.

We have played one round (Round 20) after the precedent has been set with Dangerfields suspension. 

Which incidents will come under review by the MRP this week? Two incidents that come to mind are below; Thoughts?

Brodie Grundy tackle on Ben Brown - Easy one for the MRP. Same tackle and KO result as Dangerfield suspension and should be given 1 week. Why? Arms pinned and taken to ground without ball carrier being able to protect themselves. Resulting in KO. It was far from a perfect tackle!

Shane Mumford tackle on Corey Maynard- Tackle was same as above but Maynard played on. Mumford should be given a fine and a strike.

Players have a 'duty of care' for each other. 

Tackles by Dangerfield, Grundy and Mumford all have an element of taking the ball carrier to ground with momentum.

Part solution- Players need to tackle and hold where possible. 

 

 

Dangerfield got 2 weeks, downgraded to 1 for early plea.

Grundy should get two as well, and Mumford 1 week potentially, plus a week for his bump on Gawns face (seriously how was no free given for that???)

I actually think the solution to all this is for umpires to pay holding the ball quicker. 

 

At the moment, players get ages to dispose to the ball. If in a typical situation when the player has had prior opportunity, holding the ball was paid as soon as the player is tackled and retarded (as per the laws), players wouldn't be so keen to wrap the arms info the tackle.

The laws of footy only give allowance to a player to dispose of the ball if he hasn't had prior opportunity, even though it isn't umpired that way. 

To generate an incorrect disposal, it helps to pin the arms. Problem is when you pin the arms and drive someone into the ground, their head can easily hit the turf at a terrifying force. I agree the onus needs to be on the tackler not to take the opponent to the ground. 

It's not tough to drive someone's head into the turf with their arms pinned. It's tough picking up that ball knowing Mumford is ready to give you a concussion. It's not a tough tackle. It's a cowards tackle. Time to protect our kids. Time for an Aussie culture change. 

I think Grundy will get off. Grundy was hanging off Brown for a long time without being able to bring him down, Brown then tried to kick the ball, going from having feet spread and grounded to pivoting on one leg with 100kgs still hanging off him, contributing to how and why he crashed to the ground. ?

14 hours ago, deanox said:

I actually think the solution to all this is for umpires to pay holding the ball quicker. 

It will end up turning into touch football.

Edited August 7, 20177 yr by Dee tention

Good tactics in a grand final sling a couple to the bench but Id be saving it as suspension can be big since Trengove a few years back .

As with all of these issues, the question is whether you want kids throwing other kids (who are half their size) into the ground and causing serious injuries. 

I'm more than happy for the AFL to take a strong stance on this and put the onus back on the tackler. 

No different to the NRL suspending players for tackles that put their opponents on their heads and necks.

On 06/08/2017 at 11:03 PM, deanox said:

I actually think the solution to all this is for umpires to pay holding the ball quicker. 

 

At the moment, players get ages to dispose to the ball. If in a typical situation when the player has had prior opportunity, holding the ball was paid as soon as the player is tackled and retarded (as per the laws), players wouldn't be so keen to wrap the arms info the tackle.

The laws of footy only give allowance to a player to dispose of the ball if he hasn't had prior opportunity, even though it isn't umpired that way. 

The onus still must surely be on the tackler making a correct tackle, and the incorrect tackle such as riding the ball carrier in the back  into the ground must take priority over holding the ball.

But driving an opponent head first into the ground must be stamped out.

On 06/08/2017 at 10:11 PM, Dee tention said:

 

Players have a 'duty of care' for each other. 

 

 

 

No they don't.

Two of the greatest marks I have ever seen were by Reivolt and Jonathan Brown. Both flying with the direction of the ball with no regard for anyone's safety,let alone their own.

When a player walks onto the field if they are considering duty of care it won't be an AFL field they are stepping on to.