His arms were pinned, meaning his head had no protection, 1 week Suspension will be the outcome 

From recent memory Hawkins and Niknat have got off after applying similar tackles that have caused similar injuries. 

Feel for Chandler, a little over exuberant and you could tell he felt bad after the event but imagine he'll have a week off. 

A few seasons ago Optus Oval was criticized for the firm ground has it improved over time?  

I'm no expert on grass, not sure if it was because it was new or the temperature over there or a mixture of both.

 

 

 

Chandler should not even be charged. It was a legitimate tackle.  As for Ryan he should get a month as it was deliberate and intended for the head.

1 hour ago, ucanchoose said:

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!

Of course it does matter, because it is wrong.

54 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

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,"

As stated by others, unless your name is Hawkins, or <insert other big name player> vs <unknown novice>!

Hawkins from Round 23 last year makes an interesting comparison. It's very similar: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/geelong-cats/afl-2021-tom-hawkins-dangerous-tackle-on-darragh-joyce-geelong-vs-st-kilda-video-incident-match-review-news/news-story/16452d3806dec072ea07f11b448e7d5d

He was cleared by the MRO despite Joyce leaving the ground with concussion:

“Joyce takes possession of the ball in St Kilda’s defensive 50 and runs towards the centre of the ground before handballing to a teammate,” the AFL said in a statement.

“While Joyce is disposing of the football, Hawkins runs from behind and applies a tackle – in one motion – on Joyce which carries both players forward.

“The momentum of the tackle results in Joyce’s left shoulder and then head making contact with the playing surface. It was the view of the Match Review Officer that Hawkins’ actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.”

Note the reference to "in one motion".

Maybe this isn't as clear-cut as I had previously thought.

Edited May 16, 20223 yr by titan_uranus

5 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Hawkins from Round 23 last year makes an interesting comparison. It's very similar: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/geelong-cats/afl-2021-tom-hawkins-dangerous-tackle-on-darragh-joyce-geelong-vs-st-kilda-video-incident-match-review-news/news-story/16452d3806dec072ea07f11b448e7d5d

He was cleared by the MRO despite Joyce leaving the ground with concussion:

“Joyce takes possession of the ball in St Kilda’s defensive 50 and runs towards the centre of the ground before handballing to a teammate,” the AFL said in a statement.

“While Joyce is disposing of the football, Hawkins runs from behind and applies a tackle – in one motion – on Joyce which carries both players forward.

“The momentum of the tackle results in Joyce’s left shoulder and then head making contact with the playing surface. It was the view of the Match Review Officer that Hawkins’ actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.”

Note the reference to "in one motion".

Maybe this isn't as clear-cut as I had previously thought.

One thing is clear cut: player 1 is Hawkins, player 2 is some unknown dude playing off the medisub bench (at least as far as the MRO thinks any way).

5 minutes ago, monoccular said:

One thing is clear cut: player 1 is Hawkins, player 2 is some unknown dude playing off the medisub bench (at least as far as the MRO thinks any way).

We can definitely use the Hawkins as precedent. That is very similar, the only main difference is that Chandler left the ground. I can see that [censored] of a QC Gleeson taking this line of argument. 

Just now, CYB said:

We can definitely use the Hawkins as precedent. That is very similar, the only main difference is that Chandler left the ground. I can see that [censored] of a QC Gleeson taking this line of argument. 

certainly use it as a precedent.......but this only applies if melbourne go to appeal

1 minute ago, CYB said:

We can definitely use the Hawkins as precedent. That is very similar, the only main difference is that Chandler left the ground. I can see that [censored] of a QC Gleeson taking this line of argument. 

Main difference for mine is how much the arms are pinned and that Joyce's shoulder hits the ground first (given Hawkins turns him a bit).

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

Main difference for mine is how much the arms are pinned and that Joyce's shoulder hits the ground first (given Hawkins turns him a bit).

I cannot see a material difference in either of those factors. Both Hawkins and Chandler grab and pin both arms. Both of them rotate slightly to avoid being in the back. Both Joyce and Foley have their shoulder hit the ground before their head. Both then have their head whack the turf and both are concussed.

Just now, titan_uranus said:

I cannot see a material difference in either of those factors. Both Hawkins and Chandler grab and pin both arms. Both of them rotate slightly to avoid being in the back. Both Joyce and Foley have their shoulder hit the ground before their head. Both then have their head whack the turf and both are concussed.

I might need to watch the replay again, but from memory Chandler certainly did not turn Foley and he went face first into the turf with both arms firmly pinned. The Hawkins one is pretty different to that IMO.

3 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

I might need to watch the replay again, but from memory Chandler certainly did not turn Foley and he went face first into the turf with both arms firmly pinned. The Hawkins one is pretty different to that IMO.

On this angle, I see rotation to the side and the shoulder hitting the ground at least at the same time as the head, if not before (given he's side on to the ground, it's hard for the head to hit the ground before the shoulder tbh).

Just now, titan_uranus said:

On this angle, I see rotation to the side and the shoulder hitting the ground at least at the same time as the head, if not before (given he's side on to the ground, it's hard for the head to hit the ground before the shoulder tbh).

You can't cherry pick 2 frames out mate.

And what you've shown there is if there's any 'turning' it's turning his head towards the ground.

Have watched the replay a fair few times now in the meantime and those frames you've picked out are not indicative at all of the whole incident IMO.

To contrast your two frames, here's another two:

Chandler looks to be throwing the Eagles player into the ground instead of just "bringing him down".

Won't be annoyed if he gets suspended. Just as I was furious that Hawkins was let off. Jesus that bastard gets away with blue murder.

I've just flipped a coin

Chandler gets off

3 hours 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. 

At first look I thought he was in trouble and I have to say I haven’t seen the other angle of Chandler letting his arms but it was mentioned by Daniel Harford on his brekky show and if the case I think he gets off. 

The argument that Hawkins or whoever would be let off because they’re a big name player or some other reason is a red herring. Other players being incorrectly let of is not a justification to let another player off incorrectly. 

3 hours ago, ucanchoose said:

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!

I was dealing with the principal of the issue.

However, you are probably correct, in that he could get a week and not really suffer any game loss.

He would however have been found guilty of an offence and been suspended and that might really matter to Kade.

3 hours ago, Nasher said:

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.

 

Nasher of course it is relevant to the case if he lets go of Foley before Foley hits the ground, as one is a fairly standard  tackle and the other then becomes more of a driving into the ground tackle. Clearly they are different tackles.

It is also not self evident that if the player could have softened the blow he would have, as there are many reasons for and factors that cause actions and reactions.

Anyway it is bringing the lawyer out in me and enough of that.

I actually feel sorry for both players.

 

2 hours ago, roy11 said:

 

A few seasons ago Optus Oval was criticized for the firm ground has it improved over time?  

I'm no expert on grass, not sure if it was because it was new or the temperature over there or a mixture of both.

 

 

 

Given our players were continually slipping, I wouldn't imagine it was a rock hard deck.

1 minute ago, Nasher said:

The argument that Hawkins or whoever would be let off because they’re a big name player or some other reason is a red herring. Other players being incorrectly let of is not a justification to let another player off incorrectly. 

It should matter though.  The AFL needs to start acting like a proper tribunal system where precedent does matter and they apply decisions consistently.  I think Chandler should get suspended but the rules need to be applied consistently.

The AFL seems to put commercial interests first and the MRO follow.  The AFL wants the best players from the biggest clubs on the field.  It will be interesting to see what happens when a Hawkins tackle results in a superstar missing games (the AFL don't want that).  We are lucky it didn't get tested last year after the tackle below in round 23.  

 

8 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Given our players were continually slipping, I wouldn't imagine it was a rock hard deck.

actually, red a rock hard surface with moisture on top is very slippery

i once played a gf in such conditions, it was strange and quite diabolical

Edited May 16, 20223 yr by daisycutter

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

actually, red a rock hard surface with a moisture on top is very slippery

i once played a gf in such conditions, it was strange and quite diabolical

Daisy, I bow to your superior horticultural knowledge.

Why were so many of our players slipping over and not the Eagles? Do they wear different footwear? We do seem to slip over a fair bit in some games.

Just now, Redleg said:

Daisy, I bow to your superior horticultural knowledge.

Why were so many of our players slipping over and not the Eagles? Do they wear different footwear? We do seem to slip over a fair bit in some games.

not sure. you were probably more focused on our players, maybe wc slipped as much?

heard somewhere that the ground had been watered unnecessarily.....don't know if true

i think there is a trend to wear short stops but couldn't say for sure