30 minutes ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

what would Sidney Stack have received if Viney had have been concussed from the bump he dished out? Genuine question....I have no issue with Stack's bump, it was perfectly executed. But, the media were quick to scrutinise Jack for the potential harm a tackle 'could have' caused. If we are heading down that road, its arguable that every bump and/or tackle is in trouble. This is like the old 'attempted striking' debate. There was a reason why they got rid of it. It's a can of worms. Maybe if the umpires were quicker to blow the whistle and stop play sooner there wouldn't be these issues. Hawthorn, in particular' were given an eternity to 'get the ball out' the other night. I understand the AFL want the game to flow, but by allowing the tackled player too much time to dispose of the football, you are forcing players to drive their opponents into the turf, so as to ensure the ball doesn't come out. Just my take. 

def agree. they let the packs go on for too long and let off a lot of cheap rough stuff. and when did tackling the tackler become ok

go back a few decades and the umps were very quick in breaking up a pack with a ball up. letting packs continue for so long also increases the number of players involved and actually causes congestion. need to reduce the time given to dispose of ball when tackled as it used to be. it's not rugby

2 hours ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

what would Sidney Stack have received if Viney had have been concussed from the bump he dished out? Genuine question....I have no issue with Stack's bump, it was perfectly executed. But, the media were quick to scrutinise Jack for the potential harm a tackle 'could have' caused. If we are heading down that road, its arguable that every bump and/or tackle is in trouble. This is like the old 'attempted striking' debate. There was a reason why they got rid of it. It's a can of worms. Maybe if the umpires were quicker to blow the whistle and stop play sooner there wouldn't be these issues. Hawthorn, in particular' were given an eternity to 'get the ball out' the other night. I understand the AFL want the game to flow, but by allowing the tackled player too much time to dispose of the football, you are forcing players to drive their opponents into the turf, so as to ensure the ball doesn't come out. Just my take. 

It's not 'the tackle' that is in danger. There's a pretty big difference between a normal tackle and pinning someone's arms and flinging them head first into the ground.

 

17 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

Yes, I see your point clearly, and like any organisation the focus is on reducing litigious capacity now due to the current climate, and reducing culpabilities for past wrongs.  

I disagree that it is purely about reducing litigation. The AFL and Clubs are doing alot of work in the areas of player welfare and creating an environment that is good for the players and their mental health. It's a pretty cynical view that the standard is to prevent litigation, rather than a higher standard of caring for players and their physical and mental health and overall quality of life.

40 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

It's not 'the tackle' that is in danger. There's a pretty big difference between a normal tackle and pinning someone's arms and flinging them head first into the ground.

 

pinning the arms is what every kid was taught from an early age. It's the only way to [censored] the player from correctly disposing of the football. I can take the driving the player into the ground argument, but as pointed out earlier, if the umpires stopped play sooner and rewarded the tackler, there would be far less instances of what you describe. 

 

For the record, Viney did not 'fling' a player into the ground. Ridden or drove him into the ground, more accurately. 

18 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

I rarely defend the AFL, but reading about the scary (and still largely unknown) post-career effects of repeated concussions on athletes, I've changed my tune on this issue. It's worth reading recent news interviews with our own Shaun Smith for an insight into the impacts it can have. The AFL have no choice but to take action to reduce the risks, and I think they're heading in the right direction with this one. The key is applying the rules consistently (no doubt this is where they will fail). 

Agree.

Then how does the AFL not challenge Christian's ridiculous decision to only fine couch for his hit on Oliver. Chose to bump Oliver to stop his run at the ball. Hit him flush on the chin. Olicer didn't even have the ball. Two weeks minimum.

The AFL should have appealed and take it to the tribunal as is their right. Make the message that the head sacrosanct crystal clear.

And if necessary change the rules making suspension mandatory where a player has anorher option and elects to bump and hits rhe opposition plsyer in the head. And sack Christian.

The melksham incident is different though. It was a complete accident, with neither player being reckless or negligent.

I have to look at it again but I can't recall him running over the b a 'll as suggested by rjay. If he did (And i assume rjay has watched it a few times) then perhaps a fine is warranted.

But eirher way a fine in this incident just shows how ridiculous the crouch  penalty was. 

 

8 minutes ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

pinning the arms is what every kid was taught from an early age. It's the only way to [censored] the player from correctly disposing of the football. I can take the driving the player into the ground argument, but as pointed out earlier, if the umpires stopped play sooner and rewarded the tackler, there would be far less instances of what you describe. 

 

For the record, Viney did not 'fling' a player into the ground. Ridden or drove him into the ground, more accurately. 

100% flinged him. He clearly uses his strength and body weight to change the trajectory of Stratton.

https://www.theroar.com.au/afl/video/hawks-players-object-after-jack-vineys-risky-tackle-on-their-skipper-1066528/

And please understand the point that it's the complete action. It's not just the pinning the arms obviously, which is why I made it clear it was the pinning the arms and flinging them head first into the ground that is problematic, not just pinning the arms.

3 hours ago, chookrat said:

I disagree that it is purely about reducing litigation. The AFL and Clubs are doing alot of work in the areas of player welfare and creating an environment that is good for the players and their mental health. It's a pretty cynical view that the standard is to prevent litigation, rather than a higher standard of caring for players and their physical and mental health and overall quality of life.

cheers Chook, you may have not taken in my previous post. I am cynical, and I agree,  yes they are legitimately doing from a perspective of care AND to reduce litigation, though I can't be bothered to quibble over how much is driven by either reason.

23 hours ago, In Harmes Way said:

Christian should apologise for scrubbing May last year based on his guidelines for what constitutes a reportable offence

May has spent his fair share of time in a suit on a Tuesday night over the years, that’s why he gets dealt with harshly