i thought it was more accidental. anb only had a tenuous grip on him, he was falling away and just hanging on. i'm not sure what he could have done except try and totally release him. multiple weeks would just be a crucifixion and highly political.

i'm hoping they referred it upstairs just because it was quite different from your usual sling tackle

and i hope the club go in hard for him

Edited August 6, 20205 yr by daisycutter

I understand they want to eliminate the sling/double action tackle and I think 2 is fair, but seriously sending Nibbler straight to the tribunal reeks of double standards when Burgoyne has escaped twice 

On the plus side, ANB was putrid anyway so forces Goodwin's hand. 

If the club has balls they should argue the case on its merits, wait for the Tribunal to hand out its garbage, and then appeal with the Burgoyne case as TWO sighted examples of the rules being applied with much more leniency.

But they won’t, which is so weak.

6 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

I understand they want to eliminate the sling/double action tackle and I think 2 is fair, but seriously sending Nibbler straight to the tribunal reeks of double standards when Burgoyne has escaped twice 

Burgoyne a star Hawk should have gone twice, ANB a no name Demon an example, it’s that simple & WRONG.
Hawkins elbow just lucky didn’t take out opponents head!

 

Isn't the key difference here that Hamill spent the entire game on the bench with concussion, whereas Burgoyne's two targets weren't injured?

In other words, yet again, the AFL is focusing on the outcome not the action.

IMO the failure isn't ANB being suspended - don't pin someone's arm and then sling them into the ground. The failure is Burgoyne escaping without suspension, twice.

23 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

If the club has balls they should argue the case on its merits, wait for the Tribunal to hand out its garbage, and then appeal with the Burgoyne case as TWO sighted examples of the rules being applied with much more leniency.

But they won’t, which is so weak.

They should do it, not because it will cut any mustard with the tribunal, but because it will be reported in the papers and embarrass the useless umpiring department.

58 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

I understand the issue with concussion but IMO the whack Tom Lynch gave to the back of Alex Witherden’s head was much dirtier and more worthy of suspension than ANB’s tackle. 

Agre 100%.

Hearing Eddie, King and Brereton last night going on about how important it is to stamp out taunting but then seeing "stars" like Lynch get away with dog acts like that is ridiculous.

let's not forget the umpire was close by and in a perfect position......yet he did not charge him, just paid a free kick

This happens every season without fail.

"Nothing to see here" when a name player does something wrong, then when the media outrage is sufficient they wait for an ANB type to infringe and make an example of him. 

28 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Agre 100%.

Hearing Eddie, King and Brereton last night going on about how important it is to stamp out taunting but then seeing "stars" like Lynch get away with dog acts like that is ridiculous.

I think of a sling tackle as a football action, tackling is part of the game. Albeit with the ability to cause serious harm. Football actions do need to be punishable, ie ear massages, sling tackles, chicken wing tackles etc. however these items should have a discount applied. Not a loading.
The loading should be placed on none football actions, ie tripping, spitting, jumper punches, open hand punches, and any other off the ball actions. 

Lynch should get 4 weeks. For a game that is struggling for revenue, you don’t want parents pushing their kids towards soccer over AFL, but optics like his dog act are pushing more and more to the round ball. 

3 hours ago, Demonland said:

You mean the world that lets Burgoyne get away with a fine? Twice.

1st Offence

2nd Offence

 

Nibbler threw a guy down by dragging his jumper. 
Burgoyne twice body slammed his opponents into the ground.

Nibbler’s was trivial by comparison.

If he gets any more than Burgoyne then the tribunal is officially corrupt. 

7 minutes ago, Gunna’s said:

I think of a sling tackle as a football action, tackling is part of the game. Albeit with the ability to cause serious harm. Football actions do need to be punishable, ie ear massages, sling tackles, chicken wing tackles etc. however these items should have a discount applied. Not a loading.
The loading should be placed on none football actions, ie tripping, spitting, jumper punches, open hand punches, and any other off the ball actions. 

Lynch should get 4 weeks. For a game that is struggling for revenue, you don’t want parents pushing their kids towards soccer over AFL, but optics like his dog act are pushing more and more to the round ball. 

Agree with this too.

I think ANB should be suspended (and Burgoyne should have been too), but when we talk about "needing to stamp these things out", what Lynch did needs stamping out far more than ANB.

What would happen if ANBs name was changed to something like Dustin Martin ?

They changed the wording in the rules after Burgoyne's both tackles so that it covers instances where one arm is free also. Previously it had to be both arms pinned, which is apparently why he "got away with it"

It will be 2 weeks. If there was no concussion + player sitting rest of game off then i would hope it'd be a fine.

8 minutes ago, Hellish Inferno said:

They changed the wording in the rules after Burgoyne's both tackles so that it covers instances where one arm is free also. Previously it had to be both arms pinned, which is apparently why he "got away with it"

This.

Which is why ANB will be copping a suspension plus the weeks they couldn't get Burgoyne for 

1 hour ago, Hellish Inferno said:

They changed the wording in the rules after Burgoyne's both tackles so that it covers instances where one arm is free also. Previously it had to be both arms pinned, which is apparently why he "got away with it"

Plus Dangerfield stuck up for him, saying it was "just football". What a guy!

People will see this as victim blaming but Nibbler had Hamill by the wrist and by a stretched piece of jumper.

Hamill had an arm, both legs and his core free.

It was Hamill’s decision to spin with the tackle and get a kick off and his slight build that saw him go flying. 
 

Not to say Nibbler isn’t responsible for part of it but the idea that he’s all of a sudden some kind of destroyer is really misrepresentation of what occurred 

Also Derm said many times throughout the call that a player pinning one arm and driving a player in to the turf was ‘the perfect tackle’.

Commentators need to be educated about the dangers of the Cyril arm grab tackle and how it is not perfect, it’s very dangerous. 

Will lose my merde if he goes for this, while the impact was severe, he only had hold of the jumper, he did not drive the head into the ground, and the way he had the arm pinned was not a causes of the head going into the ground. Lastly the other bloke still had the ball. There was no reckless in this.

 

PS Radar defective, get a clue, he had a solid game, laid heaps of tackles and put his body on the line consistently, was a good in. 

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

People will see this as victim blaming but Nibbler had Hamill by the wrist and by a stretched piece of jumper.

Hamill had an arm, both legs and his core free.

It was Hamill’s decision to spin with the tackle and get a kick off and his slight build that saw him go flying. 
 

Not to say Nibbler isn’t responsible for part of it but the idea that he’s all of a sudden some kind of destroyer is really misrepresentation of what occurred 

Agree with this 100%. Hamill still had an arm free and could have used it to protect himself from hitting his head. He chose to use it to try to get a kick away. It was his choice, effectively, that led to his head hitting the ground. I don't see why Nibbler (or anyone else in a similar situation) should be penalised for someone else's bad decision. 

8 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Agre 100%.

Hearing Eddie, King and Brereton last night going on about how important it is to stamp out taunting but then seeing "stars" like Lynch get away with dog acts like that is ridiculous.

From my memory king and brereton were some of the worst offenders. Hypocritical much. 
 

God I hate some commentators and the absolute dribble that comes out of their mouths. 

57 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

From my memory king and brereton were some of the worst offenders. Hypocritical much. 
 

God I hate some commentators and the absolute dribble that comes out of their mouths. 

Brereton ... nothing more ridiculous than a meathead trying to sound intelligent ... or a thug being sanctimonious.

Who remembers Rayden Tallis?

The unlucky thing for Nibbler (which I would’ve thought would constitute it being a straight forward two weeks) was that he had the jumper so he wasn’t in full control of the tackle or the player. As always luck plays the biggest role in this, the Crows player landed badly and got injured. 

But straight to the tribunal and a minimum 3 weeks is a clear indication the AFL using a no name player (pretty consistently seems to be a Melbourne player too) to “send a message”. Meanwhile Burgoyne must be laughing.