Nibbler Suspended for 4 Weeks

[Clintosaurus 7,926]

Should be a $1000 fine. This is Jack Trengove all over again.

[Pickett2Jackson 3,904]

Burgoyne got 0 weeks for his sling tackle, and so should ANB.

Or do they AFL tribunal favor one team over another?   Wait dont answer that....

[In Harmes Way 7,840]

My beef with all of this is that the AFL are now changing the rules mid season so one club gets a different and better outcome for exactly the same act than another team.

Another layer of farce. 

[titan_uranus 25,174]

8 hours 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 

I agree that we should be refraining from calling ANB a "destroyer" or anything similar. I would suggest that any anger/vitriol should be directed towards players like Tom Lynch (both of them), for off-the-ball strikes.

Part of the problem is the HTB rule. The OTT focus on it recently has led to players feeling compelled to dispose of it. So Hamill felt like he had to get boot to ball and his focus was on disposing of it, not protecting himself.

ANB didn't need to drag him to ground, or spin him, and that's where the issue will be IMO. If you're pinning someone's arm, that's fine, but you then have to be mindful that they may not be able to protect their head if you choose to take them to ground.

[Redleg 41,933]

As you all know, I am not a fan of ANB and the AFL clearly wants to get rid of dangerous tackles and rightly so.

But, as many have posted, ANB who is not a star player, will have the book thrown at him, as an example, that the AFL is doing the right thing by its players.

There is no reason the MRO couldn't have simply given him 2-3 weeks and end of story, but they are clearly milking the coverage by the media on this, showing how caring and protective they are of their players. Who would have complained if a 2-3 week penalty was given?

I think quite possibly Hocking could have told Christian to send him straight to the Tribunal. Hocking has admitted he is involved in the MRO process previously.

In ANB's favour was the fact he left one arm free, only grabbing one arm and the jumper, allowing the player to brace for a fall with his other arm. The fact that the player didn't come back on, obviously goes against him. But it is far from the worst of these incidents, that don't usually go to the Tribunal. 

The Burgoyne incidents earlier this year were a disgrace, as they were far more dangerous and yet because of who he is, he got off.

I recall Jack Trengove getting 4 weeks for a sling tackle on Burgoyne's first victim, who was allegedly never going to play again and then the next week played and was BOG. Since then, worse sling tackles have never received 4 weeks, with many getting off completely.

We have seen so called "clean star players" like Cotchin, repeatedly commit dirty acts, resulting in players being put out of games, even finals and nothing happens.

With the AFL, I think the words inconsistent and corrupt may be interchangeable

 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

1 hour ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

Or do they AFL tribunal favor one team over another?   Wait dont answer that....

No, no favouritism. The whole AFL refereeing & tribunal system is corrupted, in the sense of damaged, warped. Without clear direction from the top, they just drift form mini-crisis to mini-crisis and don't even seem to notice.

The reporters & journos are either jumped-up fanboys, or compromised & beholden to their masters, so no real scrutiny or accountability.

 

 

1 hour ago, In Harmes Way said:

My beef with all of this is that the AFL are now changing the rules mid season so one club gets a different and better outcome for exactly the same act than another team.

I'm not following. Is there a problem?

THIS WEEK IN AFL SURVIVOR: WHO WILL BE VOTED OUT OF THE HUB? AND YOU WON'T BELIEVE THE DRAMA AT THE CAPTAINS' DINNER PARTY

[Wiseblood 24,637]

12 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.

Which is not too dissimilar to Rance when he belted Watts in the back of the head for no reason - I remember Carey trying super hard to defend Rance's action by saying he is just 'frustrated' after a tough night at the office.

If it was someone else they would have been condemning it from the moment it happened.

[Deemania since 56 6,763]

14 hours ago, gs77 said:

Wow. 3 weeks would be absurd, surely. Players get merely twice that for thumping players in the face behind play.

Unbalanced on purpose at the moment of being tackled by ANB - he wore the consequences because the tackle completion was to reduce the impact on the ground, with ANB attempting to absorb and hold back the force of the turn. It is unfortunate that he hit the ground so heavily; however, ANB is not a big bloke - yet he still attempted to limit the impact of his opponent on the ground albeit unsuccessfully - the umpire should realise that he does not have the responsibility to 'carry the weight' of a player in the throes of staging (that worked out for the worst). ANB does have the contested responsibility to tackle an opponent in possession of the ball - there really is no sense in the interpretation that the impact with the ground and hence, injury, was ANB's purpose. ANB was correctly determined to tackle, then in a split second, determined to reduce the ground impact of the staging player in the throes of milking by not letting go (absorbing the fall impact and weight). It was a desperate attempt for a 'free', rather than be pinged for incorrect disposal / dropping the ball once caught, and both had limited control of what might be considered as an umpire misinterpretation. I hope that the young fella is OK - but it is unlikely that he will perform that balletic manoeuvre many more times in the future, once caught with the ball. 

[In Harmes Way 7,840]

18 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Which is not too dissimilar to Rance when he belted Watts in the back of the head for no reason - I remember Carey trying super hard to defend Rance's action by saying he is just 'frustrated' after a tough night at the office.

If it was someone else they would have been condemning it from the moment it happened.

And (rightly) Rance got 2 weeks for the hit on Watts, where Lynch gets a $500 fine. Same act, therefore the AFL must not be as worried as as they used to be with respect to protecting player's heads (esp. when they can't defend themselves).   

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,009]

12 hours 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. 

 

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

I agree that we should be refraining from calling ANB a "destroyer" or anything similar. I would suggest that any anger/vitriol should be directed towards players like Tom Lynch (both of them), for off-the-ball strikes.

Part of the problem is the HTB rule. The OTT focus on it recently has led to players feeling compelled to dispose of it. So Hamill felt like he had to get boot to ball and his focus was on disposing of it, not protecting himself.

ANB didn't need to drag him to ground, or spin him, and that's where the issue will be IMO. If you're pinning someone's arm, that's fine, but you then have to be mindful that they may not be able to protect their head if you choose to take them to ground.

I think there's a bigger issue at play here rather than the specific incident and what penalty ANB might get. The reason players get tackled and then slung to the ground, fairly or not, is the holding the ball rule. Perhaps we need to think through exactly what we want this rule to be? The reason for the second action, the 'sling to the ground', is because the player with the ball is given time to dispose of the ball. What would happen if the player with the ball was given less time to do so? Would that remove the need for the second action? Also, why don't we change the rule so that a ball knocked out in a tackle is included in the category of 'incorrect disposal'. 

In short, a wholesale reconsideration of what we want the holding the ball/incorrect disposal rule to be might do more to eliminate dangerous tackles than penalising players.  

[DubDee 26,296]

13 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

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.

Absolutely agree.

The main difference I see if that Hamill is a skinny kid and Danger is a 30yo bull so one was concussed and the other not. Burgoyne's action was equivalent to ANBs on the first offence and he got off.  anything more than 1 week - now that've apparently changed the rule is a [censored] joke

[Redleg 41,933]

48 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Absolutely agree.

The main difference I see if that Hamill is a skinny kid and Danger is a 30yo bull so one was concussed and the other not. Burgoyne's action was equivalent to ANBs on the first offence and he got off.  anything more than 1 week - now that've apparently changed the rule is a [censored] joke

Get ready to laugh, because cases aren't sent to the Tribunal for a 1 game penalty.

[old dee 23,998]

43 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Get ready to laugh, because cases aren't sent to the Tribunal for a 1 game penalty.

They make examples of lesser players not important rating gaining players.

[demoniac 1,337]

We have to protect the head and the spine.

Nibbler needs to be suspended.

 

Yes. The AFL is inconsistent.

[Ethan Tremblay 31,243]

If they’re serious about stamping out the sling/dangerous tackle, then they can’t penalise based just on the outcome. I expect ANB to be made an example of and get 3-4 weeks. 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Ethan Tremblay

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,009]

Of all the players in the AFL, I would expect ANB to have the most tangible understanding of the impact of spinal injuries. Isn't his grandmother (or mother?) paralysed from a fall when working as a jockey? If so, I would assume his intent was not to cause harm. Even so,  I expect that tackle will see him miss at least the next 3 weeks. 

[Diamond_Jim 12,686]

Here's the live link to the AFL tribunal blog

ANB's hearing has been running for the last half hour

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-tribunal-news-live-updates-tonight-2020-alex-nealbullen-tackle-news-chairman-results-panel/news-story/1ef8ab1f643035a4a2ba07cb7bb36886

[Lucifers Hero 40,509]

Alex Neal-Bullen has pled guilty to rough conduct, but the case is being made the incident should be deemed 'high' impact rather than 'severe'.

Crikey, the Adelaide medical report doesn't help at all! 

"Immediate treatment for concussion, Hamill will miss likely 7 days of training and will miss at least one game. Hamill "will not play for at minimum two weeks" according to the club doctor".

It must be the same lot of docs that condemned Jack T a few years back for the Danger tackle.  Played the next week!

[Age 485]

I believe ANB won't get weeks, instead he will probably get given the chair seeing as he isn't one of the 'name' players. 

[leave it to deever 17,591]

21 hours ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

will cop four

4 would be bery tough. Hope not.

Hate the sling tackle but I think its hard at time for players stuck in the moment.

Was hoping Nibbler would get back in the team and show some old form.

2 is fair but the tribunal never is.

[Pates 9,667]

9 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Alex Neal-Bullen has pled guilty to rough conduct, but the case is being made the incident should be deemed 'high' impact rather than 'severe'.

Crikey, the Adelaide medical report doesn't help at all! 

"Immediate treatment for concussion, Hamill will miss likely 7 days of training and will miss at least one game. Hamill "will not play for at minimum two weeks" according to the club doctor".

It must be the same lot of docs that condemned Jack T a few years back for the Danger tackle.  Played the next week!

I might be wrong but I’m 99% sure he has had concussion issues this year. If that is the case then those reports should be put with that caveat that they are going to take things slower with him. It’s not ANB’s responsibility to know if a player has had a recent concussion and should go easy on him. 

Really feels like another opposition medical staff stitch up. 

[Diamond_Jim 12,686]

Got the maximum.... four weeks

[Demonland 73,465]

4 weeks. 

 

[Cards13 9,117]

What a disgrace the AFL is. Ffs how he gets that and the Burgoyne gets nothing.

[Sir Why You Little 37,296]

So burgoyne got 0

ANB deserved 4 btw

but burgoyne got 0 on 2 occasions 

Over to you Gill