28 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Mate come on..

You can clearly see now he's slung around with such momentum that he doesnt even have time to protect himself hence he's smacked his head hard on the ground.

It's easily a 1 week suspension. 

 

4 umpires who had a better view didn't think so

can't see what sparrow did wrong

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

4 umpires who had a better view didn't think so

can't see what sparrow did wrong

Stole dem words straight out of my tryping fingers.

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by Monbon

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

4 umpires who had a better view didn't think so

can't see what sparrow did wrong

Umpires routinely miss dangerous tackles, one is trained to keep their eyes inside attacking 50, the 2 in the centre of the ground are watching the ball, so their eyes naturally follow the footy not the tackle (which went it a completely different direction) and they might be obscured by players.
 

It’s really up to the one umpire in the defensive 50 to see it and they might not have seen it from 70m away. Or with enough confidence to call it.
 

The umps on the weekend missed at least 20 frees so it’s hardly a surprise. 

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by DeeSpencer

15 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

It will be, but the sling is initiated by Day, feeling pressure behind him and rather than kicking or handballing to the ruck who’s running free, Day (who’s had plenty of prior) raises his arms and spins 180 degrees attempting to burst through a tackle from behind and leaves Sparrow who’s locked on his hips with little option. The league will say Sparrow has a duty to lower him softly and they’ll win, even though that’s nearly impossible to do.

It’s pretty crazy to me that a skinny young player like Day has immunity to attempt to shred a tackle and doesn’t have the strength to protect his head at the end of it. 

If we’re really keen to stamp out all dangerous tackles and head knocks then the MRP should start issuing statements on both players involved.

Well picked up DS because with the full vision it looks damning for Sparrow

So if Day contributes to the sling (as you've said) then not so damning

I must say I do like the aggressive nature of Sparrow's tackle.  Old school and he creates a presence for himself

That same type of tackle isn't always going to end up with the players head hitting the ground.  His arms weren't pinned so he's got his arms to protect himself

23 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

My less lame excuse is that I’m gayer than Christmas morning. I was worried our romantic candlelit dinner would get awkward when I turned up in a kaftan with my ‘emotional support Maltese terrier’, and the penny finally dropped for you. 😘

Pfft a flimsy excuse. 😤

Just now, DeeSpencer said:

 

The umps on the weekend missed at least 20 frees so it’s hardly a surprise. 

true, but surely 1 out of 4 had a decent view

imo day caused the slinging by turning backwards against his and sparrows momentum

 

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

This is why @The heart beats trueis the only poster I follow. His posts are either funny af and/or exactly my views. Except for that one time I told him I like romantic walks on the beach and candlelit dinners for two (I don’t really, it was for the purpose of the topic) and he totally knocked me back with the reason being candles are dangerous, they can result in fires. Couldn’t even afford me the dignity of a less lame excuse. 😭😭😭

I have had enough of you, you fickle female.

I thought I was your one true love, but you seem to want to spread it around.

 

1 minute ago, Macca said:

Well picked up DS because with the full vision it looks damning for Sparrow

So if Day contributes to the sling (as you've said) then not so damning

I must say I do like the aggressive nature of Sparrow's tackle.  Old school and he creates a presence for himself

That same type of tackle isn't always going to end up with the players head hitting the ground.  His arms weren't pinned so he's got his arms to protect himself

That same tackle is required for Cripps or Dangerfield (or Petracca and Viney who Sparrow routinely trains with).

Its an issue with the rules and the game.

We’ve got midfielders built like rugby players or NFL running backs who play that way. 

Then we’ve got guys like Day who is really only starting to fill out his lanky frame attempting a similar rugby style move. Footballers didn’t use to try to break tackles in this way before they did a heap of core strength and weight training. The game was about evading tackles not breaking them and moving the ball on. Now coaches are so afraid of turnovers they tell players to hold the ball. Rugby players can absorb these tackles cause they have 10kg+ more muscle on them. 

It’s why I think holding the ball has to go back to something that sadly resembles bit like kids playing tiggy. If you’ve had prior and get caught you’re gone. The footage shows what easily used to be construed as a throw too, there’s very little fist on that handball.

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

I have had enough of you, you fickle female.

I thought I was your one true love, but you seem to want to spread it around.

 

Awww, you ARE my one true love, Red. I don’t say that about anyone else, I promise.
 

1 hour ago, Jaded No More said:

I reckon the swinging action is what got him because Day couldn’t protect himself and his head was always going to hit the ground. 
Don’t think we contest. Sparrow could probably use a week off to refresh. 

Swing tackle?

 

For those complaining that you can't tackle, that's not true. Sparrow needed to pull him down in the tackle, not swing him around. This is the difference between an acceptable tackle and a dangerous tackle now. It's been that way for a while.

If you swing a player, you better hope that you land them softly on their side. If you swing them and they hit the ground hard or their head hits the ground, you are gone.

There is no point contesting this charge. Even Geelong players have copped suspensions for these types of tackles, so you know we are no chance. 

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

For those complaining that you can't tackle, that's not true. Sparrow needed to pull him down in the tackle, not swing him around. This is the difference between an acceptable tackle and a dangerous tackle now. It's been that way for a while.

If you swing a player, you better hope that you land them softly on their side. If you swing them and they hit the ground hard or their head hits the ground, you are gone.

There is no point contesting this charge. Even Geelong players have copped suspensions for these types of tackles, so you know we are no chance. 

watch it again.

he didn't swing him around. day swung around himself against the momentum to handball backwards. sparrow just pulled down as he was already off his feet

probably all moot now as no sign of club going to tribunal

1 hour ago, The heart beats true said:

My less lame excuse is that I’m gayer than Christmas morning. I was worried our romantic candlelit dinner would get awkward when I turned up in a kaftan with my ‘emotional support Maltese terrier’, and the penny finally dropped for you. 😘

 

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Pfft a flimsy excuse. 😤

Some comfort food after that door-in the-face rejection WCW.  Hopefully this helps you to forget & move on with your next banner build!  ...

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

I have had enough of you, you fickle female.

I thought I was your one true love, but you seem to want to spread it around.

 

Didn't listen to much 60s pop Mr Leg? (apologies to McQueen et al in advance...back to topic promise!!)

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by Demon Dynasty

1 hour ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Does anyone know the deadline for accepting or challenging them to a duel?

Dunno, sundown?

29 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

watch it again.

he didn't swing him around. day swung around himself against the momentum to handball backwards. sparrow just pulled down as he was already off his feet

probably all moot now as no sign of club going to tribunal

I think daisycutter has nailed it.

What starts off as a pretty meat and potatoes tackle changes in .001 secs because Day elects to turn whilst being tackled.

He can do that, but the loss of balance that results was the cause of the injury. Had Day stayed the course he was on...no problem.

Day could have protected himself by handballing forward, or not getting caught.

So, just another example of the difficulty the AFL has in tinkering with the Rules to try and reduce risk. This tackle would not have resulted in a problem if players didn't run so fast, tackle from an angle other than directly behind, change direction once tackled or swivel to handball back. Perhaps touch football? I don't think so.

Another problem the AFL has is that after the jvr incident, it seems the rule needs to change. If the rule doesn't, the liability issue has worsened. The AFL helped create that problem. Presumably they have a QC looking at that problem. Hopefully not Gleeson.

Play on.

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by Bystander
Spelling

1 hour ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Does anyone know the deadline for accepting or challenging them to a duel?

I take it was 11am this morning going by this.

0. A Player charged with a Reportable Offence may:

   • »  Submit an early guilty plea by 11am (Melbourne time) on the day following notification of the charge to the Player’s Club, in which case the relevant sanction for the Reportable Offence will apply subject to any reduction available as a result of the early guilty plea (see applicable reductions in section 3); or

   • »  Contest a charge or plead guilty to a lesser charge by 11am (Melbourne time) on the day following notification of the charge to the Player’s Club, in which case a Tribunal hearing will be convened for which the Player may engage legal representation.

     If a Player does not submit an early plea, elect to contest the charge or plead guilty to a lesser charge by 11am (Melbourne time) on the day following notification of the charge or such later time as determined by the AFL, the Player will be deemed to have pleaded guilty to the Reportable Offence,
     in which case the relevant sanction for the Reportable Offence will apply.

 

2 minutes ago, Bystander said:

I think daisycutter has nailed it.

What starts off as a pretty meat and potatoes tackle changes in .001 secs because Day elects to turn whilst being tackled.

He can do that, but the loss of balance that results was the cause of the injury. Had Day stayed the course he was on...no problem.

Day could have protected himself by handballing forward, or not getting caught.

So, just another example of the difficulty the AFL has in tinkering with the Rules to try and reduce risk. This tackle would not have resulted in a problem if players didn't run so fast, tackle from an angle other than directly being, change direction once tackled or swivel to handball back. Perhaps touch football? I don't think so.

Another problem the AFL has is that after the jvr incident, it seems the rule needs to change. If the rule doesn't, the liability issue has worsened. The AFL helped create that problem. Presumably they have a QC looking at that problem. Hopefully not Gleeson.

Play on.

not only that. consider that christian makes his decision on his own in a virtual vacuum. no opportunity for cited player to offer explanations, etc and this is after 4 umpires didn't even award a free and it was out in the open for all to see. So the mro makes a decision on one person's input with no other opinions and if a suspension is awarded it becomes very difficult to overturn and we know the afl hence mro have an agenda which amounts to a continual changing of the interpretation of a rule mid season. the solution is to change or clarify the rules before a season starts. the term duty of care is not a rule because it is not clearly definable and loose enough to just re-interpret whenever the current agenda presents itself.

if the afl is so concerned about litigation and optics it needs to do a better job on its rules and get proper fully professional umpires rather than part timers.

What about Murphy “dacking” the kid Cadman in front of 50 000?

Consensual? 
 

What if Carey/De Goey etc  did it to a girl outside a nightclub at 3 am?

This thread went downhill quickly.

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

not only that. consider that christian makes his decision on his own in a virtual vacuum. no opportunity for cited player to offer explanations, etc and this is after 4 umpires didn't even award a free and it was out in the open for all to see. So the mro makes a decision on one person's input with no other opinions and if a suspension is awarded it becomes very difficult to overturn and we know the afl hence mro have an agenda which amounts to a continual changing of the interpretation of a rule mid season. the solution is to change or clarify the rules before a season starts. the term duty of care is not a rule because it is not clearly definable and loose enough to just re-interpret whenever the current agenda presents itself.

if the afl is so concerned about litigation and optics it needs to do a better job on its rules and get proper fully professional umpires rather than part timers.

If this sort of thing carries a penalty of missing games then sooner or later a lesser offence will carry a suspension

After that, an even lesser offense will be the next focus

But one thing is for sure, the name players won't be cited, it will be the sacrificial lamb lesser lights

I suppose in a way, players like Petracca, Gawn or Oliver probably won't be cited so there is some upside

You and DS made very good points with regards to Day contributing to the sling and it needs a sharp eye to notice such things

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by Macca

1 hour ago, radar said:

What about Murphy “dacking” the kid Cadman in front of 50 000?

Consensual? 
 

What if Carey/De Goey etc  did it to a girl outside a nightclub at 3 am?

Fined $1500 for pulling his shorts down. 

2 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Didn't listen to much 60s pop Mr Leg? (apologies to McQueen et al in advance...back to topic promise!!)

I am a 60's man absolutely, with a penchant for the 70's and 80's thrown in.

8 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I am a 60's man absolutely, with a penchant for the 70's and 80's thrown in.

Northern Soul 👍

4 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Awww, you ARE my one true love, Red. I don’t say that about anyone else, I promise.
 

May I remind you of Maysie, Langdon, Jayden etc etc etc!!  Or are you ditching them too!!🙃

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by Lucifers Hero