9 hours ago, Vipercrunch said:

Apologies if there is a thread for this already, but is anyone else really concerned where the game is going after the 3 week suspensions dished out tonight for Sicily and Mansell?  I don’t like Mansell and am pretty ambivalent about Sicily, but I think both are incredibly stiff to get any punishment at all for those incidents.  Mansell made a self preservation action at the very last moment to protect himself, and there is no way Sicily should be held responsible for that tackle.  Accidents happen and the game seems to be getting itself lost trying to eliminate them.

The game is heading down a slippery slope.  Aish has to protect himself in that situation as Mansell did.  If Mansell did what Aish did then they both would have been out cold.   Sicily is stiff! I believe it warrants a suspension but not 3 weeks 

One word : Confusing.

I heard the experts on radio yesterday say Butler will get off because no concussion for Blakey no issue for Butler. Tell that to Lachie Hunter.

The fact that even in this thread nobody can agree on what is and isn’t a reasonable outcome for these acts, tells you exactly why the entire process is flawed. 

10 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

How did De Goey get the same punishment. Just how. 
The game is cooked. 

Agree.

How did Chandler get two for same as Butler, then Butler exonerated at Tribunal. How was Chandler 2 and Butler none for same thing.

Went back and looked at Sparrow tackle several times and it was a normal, not even aggressive tackle around hips not pinning arms and doesn’t even look like head hits the ground. He got 1 week and it may have cost us the loss and a home final.

As 9 clubs have declared today, they regard the system as a total lottery and are not even showing AFL tackle video to players as it is totally irrelevant to what then happens at the Tribunal and MRO.

We have another shambles affecting games, on top of the fixture.

How is this proper administration of the biggest game in the country?

It’s a huge joke that is actually not funny.

Edited June 13, 20231 yr by Redleg

Here's my take

Players have been trained to pin the arms because players with the ball have become so good at lifting the arms or releasing the ball when they get tackled.

However the players being tackled are adding to the problem because they are not releasing the ball immediately they are tackled. More often than not they make no attempt - particularly if one arm is pinned - as they are likely to give away a free for incorrect disposal. They hold the ball and are taken to ground OR as is now more common falling to ground in the hope of getting a free. How many times do we see a player with the ball do a 360deg turn?

Tacklers are therefore holding on to the player with the ball to try and stop them releasing it.

If umpires paid frees to the tackler more quickly WHEN a player with the ball makes no attempt to release it I suspect we would have less of these issues in the first place. I don't think this goes against the spirit of the game where a player going for the ball is 'rewarded' or protected.

 

With Sicily, his 'pulling down' motion invites a sling outcome based on simple Physics (look up centrifugal forces). Im not entirely sure how much Brockman contributes to the outcome, but McCluggage had entered the spin before contact was made. 

The concerning aspect to the hearing was the AFL's insistence on trying to disregard a biomechanists' professional opinion. This follows similar actions by the AFL tribunal like excluding precedent as a form of evidence, making the whole tribunal process rather subjective, unreliable and susceptible to external influences and given the MRO's performance to date add further uncertainty to the whole situation. I think this will be reformed over the coming year.

Taking a step back though, we can all see the goal of the AFL here - protect the head. They are trying to introduce a slow transition to a game where head contact and concussion are all but eliminated. Doing this in 1 year would be disastrous to the commercial aspects of the game... on the flipside trying to 'boil the frog' is probably not quick enough given the information at hand and pending litigation, which could completely bankrupt the entire organization.

As much as i hate it, we have to accept that the game is changing to protect AFL players wellbeing. The tackle and the bump - still to this day - account for the majority of concussions experienced in game. Doing nothing is negligent. 

Ive noticed players already deliberately hitting their heads on the ground " not hard" once tackled to try and win the free rather than the HTB. Coaches will milk this to death. A dangerous tackle is two actions not the one. AFL need to wake up and wake up fast. 

22 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

 

The concerning aspect to the hearing was the AFL's insistence on trying to disregard a biomechanists' professional opinion. This follows similar actions by the AFL tribunal like excluding precedent as a form of evidence, making the whole tribunal process rather subjective, unreliable and susceptible to external influences and given the MRO's performance to date add further uncertainty to the whole situation. I think this will be reformed over the coming year.

 

It is a pick and choose situation now.

This Tribunal appears to tailor the case to get to the desired outcome and I find that extremely troubling.

21 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

 

As much as i hate it, we have to accept that the game is changing to protect AFL players wellbeing. The tackle and the bump - still to this day - account for the majority of concussions experienced in game. Doing nothing is negligent. 

And yet we punish players who deliberately choose to run into an opponent, elbow raised, feet off the ground, the same as a player who chooses to tackle. 

And we have Cerra get off, but Sparrow doesn't. And we don't punish players who choose to go into a contest head first and not protect themselves.

The AFL, as always, is picking and choosing who to punish, when and how, to suit their narrative.

Merrett is no longer eligible for the Brownlow. I bet my bottom dollar that the next player in trouble who is a Brownlow favourite, magically gets off. 

Mansell is a fault in the system. Even if you think it was avoidable and claiming you were contesting and bracing is no longer a valid excuse (similar to Hunter) it’s just not right he gets 3 even with Aish concussed. Needs to be 1-2 with some allowance for the genuine lack of intent.

Sicily, I don’t see the outrage. Yes there wasn’t huge intent, so you could give a discount, but it’s a dreadful tackle that slings, rolls, and dumps down pulling on the left arm. Slam a head in to the ground and result in a concussion and you’re getting a holiday 

Watch the additional angles:

 

11 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Mansell is a fault in the system. Even if you think it was avoidable and claiming you were contesting and bracing is no longer a valid excuse (similar to Hunter) it’s just not right he gets 3 even with Aish concussed. Needs to be 1-2 with some allowance for the genuine lack of intent.

Sicily, I don’t see the outrage. Yes there wasn’t huge intent, so you could give a discount, but it’s a dreadful tackle that slings, rolls, and dumps down pulling on the left arm. Slam a head in to the ground and result in a concussion and you’re getting a holiday 

Watch the additional angles:

 

Yeah agreed. Not sure what the outrage is. He clearly slung him into the ground and could've let go once he knew the momentum was heading towards the ground.

The Mansell one I absolutely hate, similar to Hunter. Mansell was a micro second off getting the ball and Aish should've had more awareness as well and protected himself. The MRO/Tribunal have to start every assessment by determining is this action actually a reportable offence, not just saying oh Aish's headband flew off and he was concussed so we better suspend him.

19 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

And yet we punish players who deliberately choose to run into an opponent, elbow raised, feet off the ground, the same as a player who chooses to tackle. 

And we have Cerra get off, but Sparrow doesn't. And we don't punish players who choose to go into a contest head first and not protect themselves.

The AFL, as always, is picking and choosing who to punish, when and how, to suit their narrative.

Merrett is no longer eligible for the Brownlow. I bet my bottom dollar that the next player in trouble who is a Brownlow favourite, magically gets off. 

The Rozee, Hunter incident to me was one of the toughest incidents to date and yet really it was Jordan Lewis that was leading the cause that Rozee was contributing equally to the incident. I think more are starting to jump on this bandwagon and ultimately we will get to a point where the AFL will need to issue guidelines on how to enter a contest and clearly define parameters on where a player will be protected by the AFL and where it will not. Rozee is clearly opening himself up to significant injury the way he attacked that contest. 

The Cerra incident was surprising to me, it is very similar to the McCluggage - Sicily incident as far as biomechanics are concerned. Sicily was just unlucky in how McCluggage made contact with the ground and how he was concussed. 

The AFL just have to come out and define what a reportable tackle is, i.e. pinging one or two arms, head making contact with the ground, two motions etc. Whateverway you look at it, the Cerra case was clearly the incorrect outcome. 

 

3 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

The Cerra incident was surprising to me, it is very similar to the McCluggage - Sicily incident as far as biomechanics are concerned. Sicily was just unlucky in how McCluggage made contact with the ground and how he was concussed. 

The AFL just have to come out and define what a reportable tackle is, i.e. pinging one or two arms, head making contact with the ground, two motions etc. Whateverway you look at it, the Cerra case was clearly the incorrect outcome. 

The way I saw the Cerra one was he really should’ve got a week for the action, but there was at least some argument that the force just wasn’t at the level worthy a suspension.

Joel Smith and Jack Viney haven’t even been assessed by the MRP for tackles with some sling in them because they clearly weren’t all that dangerous.

The only valid defence for Cerra was that it really looked worse because Hickey’s a big galoot.

just once i'd like a player to REALLY arc up and say 'you have no idea what you're talking about, and your accusation is  incorrect, defamatory, and just plain wrong'

The more we keep involving lawyers with no feel for the game, and worse things will get.

 

The problems with concussion and tackling won’t be solved by punishing the tackler.

The AFL needs to consider two more radical solutions. Firstly, reduce the number of players on the field to open up the game and get the number of collisions down. Secondly, allow throwing so that there is a free arm to brace from a tackle. 

I noticed Tom Mitchell throwing his head back a couple of times and rewarded for it, they have a couple of stagers in their team which is really annoying poor Kozzie can’t get a free even when he is in a head lock. Umpires are confused enough don’t need players flopping on the ground for no apparent reason.!!!

13 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

The problems with concussion and tackling won’t be solved by punishing the tackler.

The AFL needs to consider two more radical solutions. Firstly, reduce the number of players on the field to open up the game and get the number of collisions down. Secondly, allow throwing so that there is a free arm to brace from a tackle. 

Interesting, and would make the umpire's job a lot easier.  As long as overhead throws are not allowed or we'll be playing gridiron.  Whoops I realise we already have overhead throws masquerading as handballs where zero to 1% of the ball's momentum comes from a fist.

any news on appeals to appeals board?  is there a cutoff time?

It is said that the real issue is to protect the head and to protect the game and the AFL against future litigation.

But, the real issue should be not the tackle but the recovery if an injury to the head occurs. There is already the concussion protocol and maybe this needs to be enhanced eg. 10 days first time, 20 days second time, one month for three or more times.

Our great game of footy cannot eliminate hard tackles and subsequent unfortunate footy injuries. Good tackling means pinning the arms and rotating the tacklee. In the hustle and bustle of the game, accidents can happen. Deal with them in the recovery, not in the game.

BTW Neita is one of the tribunal members.

The Mansell outcome is very harsh. He's the new ANB or Chandler.

One good thing out of this weeks hearings/kangaroo court/ show trials was Dan Butlers case being thrown out by the Tribunal because his actions were "not careless"

So much for Michael Christian assessing them as careless when all the guy did was tackle his opponent.  That Blakey never saw the tackle coming was not Butlers problem. 

Furthermore it shows these assessments by the MRO are simply opinions.  Not good enough! 

30 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

 

Furthermore it shows these assessments by the MRO are simply opinions.  Not good enough! 

And confirm for me once and for all, that there is a lot of bias in the opinions.

 

went to dorks' web site. couldn't find a single article on sicily's report/suspension. strange.

heard on radio, dorks still to decide re appeal.   other club is appealing though.

8 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

One word : Confusing.

I heard the experts on radio yesterday say Butler will get off because no concussion for Blakey no issue for Butler. Tell that to Lachie Hunter.

And Sparrow and Kozzie.