dorks to appeal.   good.

Can we just get rid of umpire appreciation week. Tx.

A very easy fix:  eliminate 'the 'no prior' rule:  if ball is not immediately and legally disposed of it is HTB. 

This will eliminate so many other aspects of tackle/HTB confusion and illegal disposals eg throws.  And players being taken to ground will become the exception with lower risk to a player's head. 

Not my original idea:  I heard Nathan Buckley discuss it a few years ago. 

I get that the AFL wants play to be 'free flowing' rather than have lots of frees.  What is more important free flowing game or protecting players and not have stupid suspensions.  I reckon once players get used to a new rule they will dispose of the ball faster and play will be free flowing any way.

 

My fear is that a team could have several players could before the Tribunal in finals for "accidents".  What then!  The AFL turns a blind eye to its rules and not suspend players or suspends them and disadvantages a team and compromises the integrity of the finals and possibly the GF.

3 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

A very easy fix:  eliminate 'the 'no prior' rule:  if ball is not immediately and legally disposed of it is HTB. 

This will eliminate so many other aspects of tackle/HTB confusion and illegal disposals eg throws.  And players being taken to ground will become the exception with lower risk to a player's head. 

Not my original idea:  I heard Nathan Buckley discuss it a few years ago. 

I get that the AFL wants play to be 'free flowing' rather than have lots of frees.  What is more important free flowing game or protecting players and not have stupid suspensions.  I reckon once players get used to a new rule they will dispose of the ball faster and play will be free flowing any way.

 

My fear is that a team could have several players could before the Tribunal in finals for "accidents".  What then!  The AFL turns a blind eye to its rules and not suspend players or suspends them and disadvantages a team and compromises the integrity of the finals and possibly the GF.

I don't like it - it makes clearance work too hard.

4 minutes ago, old55 said:

I don't like it - it makes clearance work too hard.

In what way...

 

 

Edited June 14, 20232 yr by Lucifers Hero

Just now, Lucifers Hero said:

In what way...

 

No prior means defensive midfielders will just sweat on ball winners at the stoppage, gang tackle them, free against the ball winner.

Just now, old55 said:

No prior means defensive midfielders will just sweat on ball winners at the stoppage, gang tackle them, free against the ball winner.

They defensive midfielders do that now and sure it is a ball up.

Open to suggestions on how to stop the stupid and subjective suspensions and not risk impacting finals.

1 minute ago, Lucifers Hero said:

They defensive midfielders do that now and sure it is a ball up.

Open to suggestions on how to stop the stupid and subjective suspensions and not risk impacting finals.

What I want to see is consistency.  IMO, the Butler decision to get off was correct, Mansell is hard done getting suspended and Sicily should know better and deserves to be suspended.  As people have posted, some concussion is inevitable in a 360 degree contact sport.

Just now, old55 said:

What I want to see is consistency.  IMO, the Butler decision to get off was correct, Mansell is hard done getting suspended and Sicily should know better and deserves to be suspended.  As people have posted, some concussion is inevitable in a 360 degree contact sport.

Umpires can't even be consistent within a game; not to mention 'rule of the week'.  MRO picks and chooses how he classifies infringements, the Tribunal is at the whim of its chairman, Gleeson who used to be the AFL's rep at Tribunals.

Consistency is but a pipe dream...

 

7 hours 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:

 

Having seen this footage, I've changed my opinion and am 100% ok with the Sicily suspension, as I am with all the others this round. I'd like to see some form of punishment or at least training mandated on these types of things introduced. 

Something like this:

1. Protecting yourself when heading into a contest; if the MRO finds a player guilty of a suspendible offence and the player who was infringed upon didn't show best-practice care to himself (insert definition of that here), then the infringed-upon player should also be held to account via retraining or even fines/suspension (I think some kind of mandatory 3rd party training on self-protection and suspended 1 match ban not impacting Brownlow elegibility) as a disincentive and/or retraining opportunity for them to avoid repeating the same behaviour in future

I don’t mind that Sicily got suspended. I mind that he got suspended for the same amount of weeks that De Goey got suspended for. How are those two actions punished the same way?!

i reject the notion that sicily was careless and had other options

when sicily made the tackle he was already in a non standing, somewhat unbalanced  position. he had to leap at the player and tackled around the hips.  at the time of the tackle he was off balance and couldn't  have much control over how the tackle ended up. he was not standing and had nowhere to go except down toward the ground. he even said he tried to be under the player so he brought him down on top off him, which he largely achieved.  because there was an angle between their respective directions there was always going to be a certain amount of twisting. on top of this another player went over the top of them making contact with the lions player which must have influenced the fall to some extent.

now the whole sequence from tackle contact to being grounded was pretty quick maybe about 1 second. It was not prolonged and there was no double action. given sicily was off his feet and had too little time to react he couldn't change what was already in motion.

if you have played the game at a decent level, you would realise it was just an unfortunate football accident that couldn't be controlled. i'd even commend sicily for being able to make the tackle in the first place when he was himself unbalanced

it wasn't nasty or careless and he didn't intentionally try to hurt.  accidental injuries do happen in a contact sport. to suspend him for 3 weeks is terrible and sends no meaningful message to other players

3 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

A very easy fix:  eliminate 'the 'no prior' rule:  if ball is not immediately and legally disposed of it is HTB. 

This will eliminate so many other aspects of tackle/HTB confusion and illegal disposals eg throws.  And players being taken to ground will become the exception with lower risk to a player's head. 

Not my original idea:  I heard Nathan Buckley discuss it a few years ago. 

I get that the AFL wants play to be 'free flowing' rather than have lots of frees.  What is more important free flowing game or protecting players and not have stupid suspensions.  I reckon once players get used to a new rule they will dispose of the ball faster and play will be free flowing any way.

 

My fear is that a team could have several players could before the Tribunal in finals for "accidents".  What then!  The AFL turns a blind eye to its rules and not suspend players or suspends them and disadvantages a team and compromises the integrity of the finals and possibly the GF.

Lucifer - firstly mandating a correct tackle before any consideration of HTB would be a good start.   Too often it is a high or over shoulder tackle, or stacks on the mill therefore multiple in the backs paid as HTB.   The mug making the play should trump the vulture every time.  

But the player going head first into a pack or an opponent needs to be penalized every time, for their own protection.  Not sure there is a current rule but there should be.  (case Rozzee v Hunter). 
 

Your final paragraph implies that there is actual integrity in the finals and the GF, indeed anywhere in the AFL.   What historical evidence is there for this?  

 

The AFL in its memo to clubs included a video of “Legal” tackles, demonstrating how to tackle “Legally,” included the Sparrow tackle, where he got a week.

The game is run by morons.

We lost the game he missed by a kick and it could cost us a home final.

 

Edited June 14, 20232 yr by Redleg

11 hours ago, Redleg said:

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.

Nothing new, always has....nothing to see...move on.

The AFL is very clever... keep the minions divided.

Its a corrupt  state of mind that drives the AFL.

Ultimate top of town lads club.

They really dont give a toss whilst the gravy train is tasty. 

 

 

4 hours ago, old55 said:

No prior means defensive midfielders will just sweat on ball winners at the stoppage, gang tackle them, free against the ball winner.

Not necessarily. If the ball winner makes a legitimate attempt to dispose of the ball it goes to a ball up.

Perhaps the AFL needs to look at the playing surfaces if players are getting concussed by hitting the ground so frequently. Surfaces are too hard and grass is cut too short.

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

The AFL in its memo to clubs included a video of “Legal” tackles, demonstrating how to tackle “Legally,” included the Sparrow tackle, where he got a week.

The game is run by morons.

We lost the game he missed by a kick and it could cost us a home final.

 

Surely not? They couldn't even provide proper footage of that incident when he was cited, are you sure it's the same tackle?

The biggest problem is every single person who watched the sport knows if Zak Butters does the same thing late in the season and is still a brownlow favourite he will get off. Every supporter knows if Pendlebury does a Sicily tackle in a Prelim he will play the next week.

28 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Surely not? They couldn't even provide proper footage of that incident when he was cited, are you sure it's the same tackle?

Yep.

Arms not pinned. 

Grabbed around the hips.

No concussion.

No head hit.

5 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i reject the notion that sicily was careless and had other options

when sicily made the tackle he was already in a non standing, somewhat unbalanced  position. he had to leap at the player and tackled around the hips.  at the time of the tackle he was off balance and couldn't  have much control over how the tackle ended up. he was not standing and had nowhere to go except down toward the ground. he even said he tried to be under the player so he brought him down on top off him, which he largely achieved.  because there was an angle between their respective directions there was always going to be a certain amount of twisting. on top of this another player went over the top of them making contact with the lions player which must have influenced the fall to some extent.

now the whole sequence from tackle contact to being grounded was pretty quick maybe about 1 second. It was not prolonged and there was no double action. given sicily was off his feet and had too little time to react he couldn't change what was already in motion.

if you have played the game at a decent level, you would realise it was just an unfortunate football accident that couldn't be controlled. i'd even commend sicily for being able to make the tackle in the first place when he was himself unbalanced

it wasn't nasty or careless and he didn't intentionally try to hurt.  accidental injuries do happen in a contact sport. to suspend him for 3 weeks is terrible and sends no meaningful message to other players

I would suspend Sicily for ONE match  (or a severe fine) in any case for placing his hands on and for unnecessarily applying pressure at the end of the incident to McCluggages back on the ground as he finished face down on the grass.
It was completely unwanted and although it had no part in the concussion it had the ability to worsen any injury which no one at that time knew Was.  It's a dangerous habit and Sicily needs some boundaries to hone in on his aggression. 

13 hours ago, Redleg said:

And Sparrow and Kozzie.

Sparrow very stiff too, Kozzie jumped off the ground…  very lucky he didn’t catch Smith in the head. 

As I have posted before; suspensions will never be consistent because of the media influence and the player status being factors. Every hearing should begin with this question. What would the result be if this was Daicos or Bont? Then proceed from there.

14 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Umpires can't even be consistent within a game; not to mention 'rule of the week'.  MRO picks and chooses how he classifies infringements, the Tribunal is at the whim of its chairman, Gleeson who used to be the AFL's rep at Tribunals.

Consistency is but a pipe dream...

 

I'm happy to keep prior opportunity but I'd like to get rid of anything other than a clear kick or handball penalised, none of this knocking out of the hands play on if they've had prior. 

10 hours ago, Demonised said:

Not necessarily. If the ball winner makes a legitimate attempt to dispose of the ball it goes to a ball up.

"No prior" is "no prior opportunity to legitimately dispose of the ball"