Jump to content

Chandler Tackle

Redleg
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

1 hour ago, Lord Travis said:

Ryan only getting a week for a deliberate bump that hit the head is absurd. Chandler getting two weeks for an unlucky tackle at pace comparatively is even more absurd.

Why does the MRO exist at this point?

Why are the AFL not held accountable for their lies?
Protect the head… ok, then penalty for Ryan’s action is 10 weeks. To ignore the game around you and just hip and shoulder someone’s head is a basically the worst thing you could do on a footy field outside pulling a Barry Hall punch instead.

I don’t mind Chandler getting a two week suspension for the unlucky tackle. I do mind the deliberate head bump having less of a penalty!

The problem with Chandler getting two weeks is that another "more well known player" would have got off. Or received a fine at most. That explains Ryan only getting one and Lynch getting off. 

MRC is like Umpires your happy as long as it is consistent. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     
    • Author

    I think we should support Kade and appeal. 

    Win or lose it doesn’t matter, just show support for our player.

    FWIW the last few tackle suspensions appealed were successful,  if I recall correctly.

    Someone posted that Hawkins has concussed 3 players in tackles without suspension. He is much bigger than Kade and able to do more damage with heavy tackles, but has repeatedly got away with it.

    There are plenty of precedents to show to the Tribunal.

  • Quote
    • Like 7
    • Angry 1
     
    32 minutes ago, Redleg said:

    I think we should support Kade and appeal. 

    Win or lose it doesn’t matter, just show support for our player.

    FWIW the last few tackle suspensions appealed were successful,  if I recall correctly.

    Someone posted that Hawkins has concussed 3 players in tackles without suspension. He is much bigger than Kade and able to do more damage with heavy tackles, but has repeatedly got away with it.

    There are plenty of precedents to show to the Tribunal.

    Chandler accepts two-match sanction

  • Quote
    • Shocked 1
    • Sad 1
    • Vomit 1

    Pretty pi$$ poor in my mind.

    Deserved to be challenged on the ground the tackle was not unreasonable given the circumstances.

     

  • Quote
    • Like 5

    • Author
    49 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

    Chandler accepts two-match sanction

    Disappointing.

    Well we at least hold some records for MRO/Tribunal penalties.

    Only club to have a player suspended for 4 matches for a sling tackle ( twice - ANB and Jack Trengove)

    Only club to have a player suspended for rough play, without actual contact with the opposition player             ( Brent Moloney ) 

    Only player to be suspended for an elbow on the throat of an opponent ( Viney )

    One of few if any other clubs, to have a player suspended for 2 matches, for an otherwise legal tackle, that became illegal, only as a result of the opponent being concussed.

    Only club that has had a player suspended for standing still, while a player ran into him, bounced off and got a whiplash concussion without head contact ( May ). 

    I am sure I have missed a few other records we hold at the MRO/Tribunal.

    Edited by Redleg

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    1 hour ago, Action Jackson said:

    Pretty pi$$ poor in my mind.

    Deserved to be challenged on the ground the tackle was not unreasonable given the circumstances.

     

    Another reason to put down the shutters and plan the retribution reign of reckoning ie  our revonant.

  • Quote
    •  

    There is no justice in the penalties being handed out by the MRO at all on an individual level.  A two week suspension doesn't really hurt established players like Ryan and Hawkins etc.

    Thought Chandler was pretty good when he came on in the last quarter and although Luke Dunstan is probably the most likely replacement for Harmes, I thought Chandler put his best foot forward with his limited game time. Two weeks right now is potentally costing Chandler a chance at establishing his career, for something which was pretty accidental and based on the bad luck of the consequence to the opposition player.  Similar could be said for ANB when he was rubbed out in 2020.

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    We're a well run club so i'm sure the club considered it and thought better but I don't think we had anything to lose by challenging

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    Why would we challenge? he drove him into the ground and the bloke was concussed.  being non-deliberate is irrelevant

    most of the reasons to challenge by the brains trust on here seem to be coz a big name player wouldn't have been suspended and Ryan only got one week.  great arguments

    if people just venting then fair enough

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    4 minutes ago, DubDee said:

    Why would we challenge? he drove him into the ground and the bloke was concussed.  being non-deliberate is irrelevant

    most of the reasons to challenge by the brains trust on here seem to be coz a big name player wouldn't have been suspended and Ryan only got one week.  great arguments

    if people just venting then fair enough

    because precedents are important. less than 6 months ago hawkins did a very similar tackle causing concussion and not only was he not suspended, he wasn't even fined

    the mro never explained why these cases are different

    how do you train players to tackle if you can't properly define what is a suspendable tackle and what is just an unfortunate football action or even a non-culpable accident

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Love 1

    I just don't know what you're meant to do anymore. We want our players to tackle but if someone gets concussed well hey "It's in the rules". Why the hell would anyone want to lay a great tackle now if they are going to get rubbed out?

    I want the MRO to outline clearly what players must do, what is the correct way to tackle from behind, step by step in a way that if that player performs this tackle 20 times, none of them will be deemed suspension worthy. 

  • Quote
    38 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

    because precedents are important. less than 6 months ago hawkins did a very similar tackle causing concussion and not only was he not suspended, he wasn't even fined

    the mro never explained why these cases are different

    how do you train players to tackle if you can't properly define what is a suspendable tackle and what is just an unfortunate football action or even a non-culpable accident

    Don’t Pin the Arms. Head Slams into turf….

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    I think Chandler has been treated unfairly by the MRO

    I found some footage of tackles similar to Chandler's as a visual comparison 

    August 2021: Hawkins tackles Joyce (concussed). MRO decision: NO PENALTY

    August 2021: Cordy tackles Koschitzke (played on) MRO decision: $2000 PENALTY

    May 2022: Chandler tackles Foley (concussed) MRO decision: 2 WEEK SUSPENSION

    Footage below:

    https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/chandler-hits-foley/video/c180b325d3e3589d2116f5f72310ac56

    As I said, I think Chandler has been treated unfairly by the MRO.

    MFC should appeal.

     

     

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Angry 2

    1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

    because precedents are important. less than 6 months ago hawkins did a very similar tackle causing concussion and not only was he not suspended, he wasn't even fined

    the mro never explained why these cases are different

    how do you train players to tackle if you can't properly define what is a suspendable tackle and what is just an unfortunate football action or even a non-culpable accident

    Not arguing the MRO don’t need to change or how we can train players. Simply saying there is no purpose in challenging the suspension. 

  • Quote

    All he did wrong was pin the arms other than that it was a perfect tackle. Stiff to get 2 weeks. Hawkins is a protected species.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Angry 1

    Personally I think both are about right

    Chandler pinned the arms and tackled him head first into the ground. Crazy dangerous despite a lack of intent. By pinning the arms he has a duty of care to make sure the opponents head doesn't whack into the ground. Imagine the uproar here if it was the other way around and our bloke got ko'd or your son - would not be happy one bit. 

    Liam Ryan only takes 1-2 steps into the bump. It was certainly an intentional bump with bowzas head down. However ther really isn't much force in it and bowey isn't injured. Clumsy bumps happen regularly - he's lucky that he didn't generate more force into the bump and didn't connect. End result is a high contact low force knock - 1-2 weeks for mine - he got the lower end. I'm strangely OK with it

  • Quote
    7 hours ago, Sideshow Bob said:

    Personally I think both are about right

    Chandler pinned the arms and tackled him head first into the ground. Crazy dangerous despite a lack of intent. By pinning the arms he has a duty of care to make sure the opponents head doesn't whack into the ground. Imagine the uproar here if it was the other way around and our bloke got ko'd or your son - would not be happy one bit. 

    Liam Ryan only takes 1-2 steps into the bump. It was certainly an intentional bump with bowzas head down. However ther really isn't much force in it and bowey isn't injured. Clumsy bumps happen regularly - he's lucky that he didn't generate more force into the bump and didn't connect. End result is a high contact low force knock - 1-2 weeks for mine - he got the lower end. I'm strangely OK with it

    Surely the intentional part of it bumps it up

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    I hope the coaches can educate both Kade and the broader playing group on what Kade should have done. Looked textbook to me with unfortunate head contact.

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    8 hours ago, Sideshow Bob said:

    Personally I think both are about right

    Chandler pinned the arms and tackled him head first into the ground. Crazy dangerous despite a lack of intent. By pinning the arms he has a duty of care to make sure the opponents head doesn't whack into the ground. Imagine the uproar here if it was the other way around and our bloke got ko'd or your son - would not be happy one bit. 

    Liam Ryan only takes 1-2 steps into the bump. It was certainly an intentional bump with bowzas head down. However ther really isn't much force in it and bowey isn't injured. Clumsy bumps happen regularly - he's lucky that he didn't generate more force into the bump and didn't connect. End result is a high contact low force knock - 1-2 weeks for mine - he got the lower end. I'm strangely OK with it

    Whether sub-consciously or overtly you are focusing on the outcomes.

    How can you call the tackle "crazy dangerous" but the bump "clumsy" and "happens regularly" (the latter of which is irrelevant, indeed tackles happen far more regularly than off-the-ball bumps)?

    Even accepting the tackle was dangerous, the bump had equal potential to destroy Bowey's head/jaw. It didn't, and for that we should all be grateful, but of the two actions neither is more dangerous than the other. At least Chandler's is part of the game. If anything was clumsy it was Chandler's tackle.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Love 1

    the mro are the arbiter, rightly or wrongly

    the mro adjudicated hawkins (very similar) tackle as not even worthy of a fine. it's on the record.

    there's your case for an appeal

    meanwhile the afl can do a better job of defining exactly what is a suspendable tackle versus an unfortunate footy action.  and they can explain why they didn't appeal the hawkin's case if they are sincere.

    Edited by daisycutter

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

    the mro are the arbiter, rightly or wrongly

    the mro adjudicated hawkins (very similar) tackle as not even worthy of a fine. it's on the record.

    there's your case for an appeal

    meanwhile the afl can do a better job of defining exactly what is a suspendable tackle versus an unfortunate footy action.  and they can explain why they didn't appeal the hawkin's case if they are sincere.

    It's not just Hawkins v Chandler, too.

    What about Tom Lynch getting nothing for his elbow to Impey's head, but last year Toby Greene got 2 weeks for his elbow to Dangerfield's head?

    Again, like Hawkins v Chandler, I can find no material difference between the two.

    How are players supposed to know when something is a reportable offence and when something isn't? The MRO's statements do nothing to assist - how does this explain why Lynch got off?

    The incident involving Richmond's Tom Lynch and Hawthorn's Jarman Impey from the third quarter of Saturday's match between Richmond and Hawthorn was assessed. Lynch takes possession of the loose ball on the wing. Impey approaches to tackle from side on and high contact is made by Lynch on Impey. It was the view of the Match Review Officer that Lynch's actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.

    There's nothing in that paragraph which explains why Lynch's elbow was "not unreasonable in the circumstances".

  • Quote
    • Love 1
     
    10 hours ago, AC/DeeC said:

    I think Chandler has been treated unfairly by the MRO

    I found some footage of tackles similar to Chandler's as a visual comparison 

    August 2021: Hawkins tackles Joyce (concussed). MRO decision: NO PENALTY

    August 2021: Cordy tackles Koschitzke (played on) MRO decision: $2000 PENALTY

    May 2022: Chandler tackles Foley (concussed) MRO decision: 2 WEEK SUSPENSION

    Footage below:

    https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/chandler-hits-foley/video/c180b325d3e3589d2116f5f72310ac56

    As I said, I think Chandler has been treated unfairly by the MRO.

    MFC should appeal.

    Seeing these and the results the MRO is the most frustrating thing. If I had to guess the MRO has penalised Chandler heavier for two reasons.

    Firstly the optics of Foley after the tackle, he was out and looking in a bad way. These are images that the AFL hates as it goes against their policy of “head is sacrosanct” and all that has. Forget the fact that he was actually sitting up and looked a lot better than other concussed players, the initial aftermath of his teammates helping to shift his head around looked “ugly”. 

    Secondly he is a fringe player and so a hefty penalty gets shoved under the radar. Lyon made a strong point of the football act Chandler did getting penalised heavier than Ryan’s deliberate elbow to Bowser is ultimately wrong but that was the largest outcry I heard. 

    I’ve given up trying to rationalise the MRO findings. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    What utter BS from the hoax and farce that is the AFLs MRO

    There was zero malice in Chandlers tackle - how he gets a two match suspension and Hawkins consistently gets away with everything is a complete joke 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Vomit 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
      • 25 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
      • 232 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