Forget that Chandler is a Demon and look at the tackle.

He brings down Foley at full pace and as shown from the behind vision left side, lets go of him before they hit the ground. It’s not a bump, or a sling and is one action at full pace, where he released the player before ground contact. On that basis he has done everything reasonably expected of a player.

According to Simpson, Foley is fine and I am unsure as to whether he was concussed.

There is absolutely no basis for a suspension or fine on that tackle and I would say that about any player.

That said, the MRO has proven itself to be inconsistent and hypocritical in dealing with incidents.and nothing would surprise me. Given Chandler is not a star player he will be treated differently and harsher than if he was one.

If suspended we should appeal. 

I disagree with this,  but that's ok.    I think he should get a week

2 minutes ago, ucanchoose said:

I disagree with this,  but that's ok.    I think he should get a week

No worries, but on what basis should he be suspended ?

Which rule has he infringed?

Just now, Redleg said:

No worries, but on what basis should he be suspended ?

Which rule has he infringed?

He has a duty of care to the tackled player all the way to the ground,  he pinned the arms,  leaving him nowhere to go. Then he hit his head.    The AFL are rightly tough (mostly)on pinned tackles.   He deserves a week.    (Much like Trengrove back in the day)

The MRO will get him on 'potential to cause damage' rule which they invoke when it suits them.

Meanwhile the Tom Lynch raised elbow to the head of the Hawks player was judged to 'not be unreasonable!!  Ignored the potential for damage rule!!

Lynch - premiership player

Chandler - a kid starting out.

No guessing who will be the sacrificial lamb.

Chandler may get a week but if the MRO was consistent so should Lynch, who has a heap of priors.

Edited May 15, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

2 minutes ago, ucanchoose said:

He has a duty of care to the tackled player all the way to the ground,  he pinned the arms,  leaving him nowhere to go. Then he hit his head.    The AFL are rightly tough (mostly)on pinned tackles.   He deserves a week.    (Much like Trengrove back in the day)

Well we can disagree, but Trengove slung Dangerfield and that is different.

Also, just to highlight some of the inconsistencies, the Tribunal was told that Dangerfield was injured and wouldn’t play the next game. He in fact did and was BOG.

So poor Jack got a very heavy penalty for a new rule infringement, based on incorrect evidence. 4 weeks for that sling was an absolute joke. ANB will agree, after his suspension was completely out of kilter with his offence as well.

Anyway we will see what happens.

He will probably get a week, even though I don’t believe he deserves one.

Was a nice square up for Ryan’s hit on Bowey in the end 

DeGoey was worse

13 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

The MRO will get him on 'potential to cause damage' rule which they invoke when it suits them.

Meanwhile the Tom Lynch raised elbow to the head of the Hawks player was judged to 'not be unreasonable!!  Ignored the potential for damage rule!!

Lynch - premiership player

Chandler - a kid starting out.

No guessing who will be the sacrificial lamb.

Chandler may get a week but if the MRO was consistent so should Lynch, who has a heap of priors.

Players who lift their forearm to fend off should have the duty of care as those who elect to bump.

Edited May 15, 20223 yr by loges
wrong wording

I feel for Chandler as it was a good tackle gone wrong. Nothing could have been done while it was already in motion. Considering how little Chandler is, I think it was just accidental and hope the player he tackled is ok. It’s never nice to see anyone concussed. 

However if Chandler cops a week then Ryan should cop 3. Chose to bump, got Bowey high, could have had severe consequences.

But given it’s the AFL, they’ll both get a week. 

 

24 minutes ago, ucanchoose said:

He has a duty of care to the tackled player all the way to the ground,  he pinned the arms,  leaving him nowhere to go. Then he hit his head.    The AFL are rightly tough (mostly)on pinned tackles.   He deserves a week.    (Much like Trengrove back in the day)

You must be kidding about the afl being tough on these sort of tackles.  Exhibit 1, late tackle, player concussed, no penalty.

Tom Hawkins tackle

My view is that he shouldn't be suspended, but he will be.

The MRO will say Chandler had both of Foley's arms pinned, which makes his head vulnerable to hitting the ground, and so he needed to do more to avoid driving him down head-first.

I don't agree with it, but I reckon it's highly likely.

I'm equally interested in seeing whether Ryan gets weeks for bumping Bowey in the head, and whether McGovern gets anything for pushing his elbow into Viney's throat.

I think there’s an argument that if the tackle occurs in a manner that causes the player to hit his head on the turf without being able to protect himself, then it can’t possibly have been a safe or legal tackle, the two conditions are mutually exclusive. The fact as argued by Redleg that Chandler let go before Foley hit the ground is a technicality, which is not relevant to the case. If he let go, it wasn’t early enough to prevent the result that occurred, and it is self evident that if the player could have softened his own blow, he would have.

I think Chandler will serve time, and I think that’s right. I feel sorry for Chandler as this was an accident and he was clearly upset by it, but I believe there is an ongoing need to incentivise players to take as much care as practicable when tackling. 

Just now, Nasher said:

I think there’s an argument that if the tackle occurs in a manner that causes the player to hit his head on the turf without being able to protect himself, then it can’t possibly have been a safe or legal tackle, the two conditions are mutually exclusive. The fact as argued by Redleg that Chandler let go before Foley hit the ground is a technicality, which is not relevant to the case. If he let go, it wasn’t early enough to prevent the result that occurred, and it is self evident that if the player could have softened his own blow, he would have.

I think Chandler will serve time, and I think that’s right. I feel sorry for Chandler as this was an accident and he was clearly upset by it, but I belong there is an ongoing need to incentivise players to take as much care as practicable when tackling. 

But once again, the inconsistency is the issue.

If he was a big name, the AFL would say it was a good tackle and an unfortunate outcome.

The only way we are going to incentivise players is by actually punishing ALL players in this situation, not just the ones that are not deemed to be big enough names by the AFL.

 

I don’t know whether or not it was a legal tackle, nor if it should attract a penalty, and if so, to what degree. 
What I do know is the poor kid was devastated. It made for heartbreaking viewing. 😢

Edited May 16, 20223 yr by WalkingCivilWar

10 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

 

You must be kidding about the afl being tough on these sort of tackles.  Exhibit 1, late tackle, player concussed, no penalty.

Tom Hawkins tackle

I said mostly mate, never said they get it right all the time

One other thing. Does it really matter if he gets a week.   Bedford is likely as the sub next week,  and casey have a bye, so no real penalty anyway!

5 minutes ago, Nasher said:

I think there’s an argument that if the tackle occurs in a manner that causes the player to hit his head on the turf without being able to protect himself, then it can’t possibly have been a safe or legal tackle, the two conditions are mutually exclusive. The fact as argued by Redleg that Chandler let go before Foley hit the ground is a technicality, which is not relevant to the case. If he let go, it wasn’t early enough to prevent the result that occurred, and it is self evident that if the player could have softened his own blow, he would have.

I think Chandler will serve time, and I think that’s right. I feel sorry for Chandler as this was an accident and he was clearly upset by it, but I believe there is an ongoing need to incentivise players to take as much care as practicable when tackling. 

I think this is the key issue.

IMO the type of tackle was fine - a run down tackle where he grabs Foley around his body. But he pins both arms, and when you do that, you have to realise that you are exposing the player's head. As opposed to an unnecessary sling motion tackle from a standing start.

Again, this is a football move executed poorly that we only are talking about because Foley came off the ground (i.e. the outcome is speaking louder than the action), but the pinned arms will be what Christian uses to say the tackle was dangerous.

There was no malice but his tackle still resulted in the player hitting his head with arms pinned. These tackles need to be removed from the game.

He’s gone.

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Forget that Chandler is a Demon and look at the tackle.

He brings down Foley at full pace and as shown from the behind vision left side, lets go of him before they hit the ground. It’s not a bump, or a sling and is one action at full pace, where he released the player before ground contact. On that basis he has done everything reasonably expected of a player.

According to Simpson, Foley is fine and I am unsure as to whether he was concussed.

There is absolutely no basis for a suspension or fine on that tackle and I would say that about any player.

That said, the MRO has proven itself to be inconsistent and hypocritical in dealing with incidents.and nothing would surprise me. Given Chandler is not a star player he will be treated differently and harsher than if he was one.

If suspended we should appeal. 

You forgot that he launched himself at Foley, had both feet off the ground, tried to turn him side on and let go before he hit the ground. All in one motion.

 

Quite an achievement actually. No way he should get suspended for that.

People get too caught up in the public labeling it a 'sling tackle' rule. That's not the only thing the rules cover. It's more of a dangerous tackle rule, and one of the things it covers is the pinning of arms.

They tweaked the rule in 2020 to make it more broad in classification (ie - changed to 'dangerous tackle' from previous 'spear tackle' or 'sling tackle'), but the main focus remained to the head. Chandler will get 1 week minimum.

The AFL's rules say:

"The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (i.e. arm(s) pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself,"

Edited May 15, 20223 yr by Lord Nev

Two weeks is my estimate.

AFL like to make examples of lessor known players. I'm expecting 3 down to 2 - using the potential to cause injury reasoning. 

Unfortunately, potential to cause injury doesn't apply to 'name' players though. 

30 minutes ago, Nasher said:

I think there’s an argument that if the tackle occurs in a manner that causes the player to hit his head on the turf without being able to protect himself, then it can’t possibly have been a safe or legal tackle, the two conditions are mutually exclusive. The fact as argued by Redleg that Chandler let go before Foley hit the ground is a technicality, which is not relevant to the case. If he let go, it wasn’t early enough to prevent the result that occurred, and it is self evident that if the player could have softened his own blow, he would have.

I think Chandler will serve time, and I think that’s right. I feel sorry for Chandler as this was an accident and he was clearly upset by it, but I believe there is an ongoing need to incentivise players to take as much care as practicable when tackling. 

Agree. I’m constantly amazed at how good players have been at adapting tackling techniques to minimise frees for in the back and to minimise head contact. Kade’s tackle was from the old days, and sadly he’ll pay the price for what looked like over-enthusiasm to put his mark on things.

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

He brings down Foley at full pace and as shown from the behind vision left side, lets go of him before they hit the ground. It’s not a bump, or a sling and is one action at full pace

Doesn't matter. The rule doesn't say 'sling tackle' it says 'dangerous tackle'.

  

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

According to Simpson, Foley is fine and I am unsure as to whether he was concussed.

Doesn't matter. The basis of the rule is around potential to cause injury.

  

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

There is absolutely no basis for a suspension or fine on that tackle and I would say that about any player.

There 100% is. Pinning the arm(s) is clearly covered in the dangerous tackle rule.