Jump to content

Chandler Tackle

Redleg
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

Posted

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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 12
    • Love 1
     

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

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Author
    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?

  • Quote
    • Like 3
     
    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)

  • Quote
    • Haha 1

    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 by Lucifers Hero

  • Quote
    • Like 8
    • Love 2
    • Vomit 1

    • Author
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 7

    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 

  • Quote
    •  
    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 by loges
    wrong wording

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 6

     

    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

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Angry 1

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Love 1

    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    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.

     

  • Quote
    • Like 7

    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 by WalkingCivilWar

  • Quote

    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

  • Quote

    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!

  • Quote
    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.

  • Quote
    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.

  • Quote

    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 by Lord Nev

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    Two weeks is my estimate.

  • Quote

    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. 

  • Quote
    •  
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • NON-MFC: Round 13

      Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

        • Thanks
      • 29 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Collingwood

      Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

        • Thanks
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

        • Thanks
      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thanks
      • 241 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Thanks
      • 47 replies
      Demonland
    View All