Small mercies = Fritter's clear

[pitmaster 3,589]

Personally thought it was a great tackle that should have won a free, not the reverse, but at least there's no longer term penalty.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/954595/match-review-fritsch-learns-fate-for-tackle-star-cat-fined

[Wells 11 5,466]

Possibly the worst free against us for the season. A great tackle …and it ended up in a goal for Geelong. Still angry about this one.

[Macca 17,113]

4 hours ago, pitmaster said:

Personally thought it was a great tackle that should have won a free, not the reverse, but at least there's no longer term penalty.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/954595/match-review-fritsch-learns-fate-for-tackle-star-cat-fined

Given the current climate, Fritsch is very lucky as the tackled player's head hit the ground

Happy that Fritsch got off but the MRO's inconsistencies are astonishing.  It's a lucky dip on whether a player in similar circumstances gets rubbed out or not

[Bring-Back-Powell 15,257]

Great result but the whole adjudication of the dangerous tackle is confusing and inconsistent.

[waynewussell 6,902]

18 minutes ago, Macca said:

Given the current climate, Fritsch is very lucky as the tackled player's head hit the ground

Happy that Fritsch got off but the MRO's inconsistencies are astonishing.  It's a lucky dip on whether a player in similar circumstances gets rubbed out or not

Do you watch carefully? Fritsch’s head hit the ground forcefully… not the bloke who was caught holding the ball! Not lucky… robbed!

[Macca 17,113]

2 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

Do you watch carefully? Fritsch’s head hit the ground forcefully… not the bloke who was caught holding the ball! Not lucky… robbed!

What are you talking about? Yes Fritsch's head hits the ground but the Fritsch tackle results in the Geelong player's head hitting the ground

He's very lucky given the current climate on dangerous tackles.  I'd say most here were expecting a week off

[waynewussell 6,902]

15 minutes ago, Macca said:

What are you talking about? Yes Fritsch's head hits the ground but the Fritsch tackle results in the Geelong player's head hitting the ground

He's very lucky given the current climate on dangerous tackles.  I'd say most here were expecting a week off

Well, you got that wrong! Any other confessions?

[Macca 17,113]

21 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

Well, you got that wrong! Any other confessions?

I got nothing wrong ... I said most here would have been expecting a week off

There's been about 20 similar incidents this season where the tackler had been rubbed out most times

Are you up with things? 

Fritsch is very lucky and that's our good fortune

[Nascent 9,321]

Purely outcome based.

If Rohan was in a dees jumper (puke) he would be rubbed out for a month for lack of duty of care as "a reasonable player could foresee that his actions were inherently dangerous and would result in injury." 

System is cooked.

[DeeZone 10,406]

Fortunately he missed Lever and smashed Cameron instead.!!

[sue 9,195]

1 hour ago, DeeZone said:

Fortunately he missed Lever and smashed Cameron instead.!!

I don't know what he was thinking. If he had hit Lever, Lever would have bowled Cameron over. 

[daisycutter 29,892]

3 hours ago, Nascent said:

Purely outcome based.

If Rohan was in a dees jumper (puke) he would be rubbed out for a month for lack of duty of care as "a reasonable player could foresee that his actions were inherently dangerous and would result in injury." 

System is cooked.

i'm not so sure.  iirc, without redhecking replay, i think rohan hit him with his head, not the shoulder, so it was a head-to-head accident.

rohan was probably lucky he wasn't concussed too

[layzie 34,339]

The MRO isn't good enough.

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

15 hours ago, waynewussell said:

Do you watch carefully? Fritsch’s head hit the ground forcefully… not the bloke who was caught holding the ball! Not lucky… robbed!

Two actions in the tackle, Fritter definitely slung him to the ground. Clear free kick.

We would've been outraged had the shoe had been on the other foot

Should be more annoyed that Fritter made so many dumb decisions during the game. That unnecessary sling tackle and the ridiculous attempt at a speccie instead of nudging his opponent under the ball cost us 2 goals

Mind you, he was no alone in that regard in our f50

Edited June 24, 2023 by Stiff Arm

[RedLegs23 984]

15 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Great result but the whole adjudication of the dangerous tackle is confusing and inconsistent.

But Andrew Dillon says that there isn’t 🤡😂

He’s had a great start the boy 👍

[Macca 17,113]

16 hours ago, waynewussell said:

Any other confessions?

None that I can think of.  But if it pleases you I'll hit the rosary beads later on

[Demon Dynasty 17,132]

20 hours ago, Macca said:

He's very lucky given the current climate on dangerous tackles.  I'd say most here were expecting a week off

Big call Macca.  Thought it was the wrong call all the way.  There was no malice or force in the sling at all.  Both went to ground together.  On the night i figured either HTB or a ball up.

The MRO agreed and would normally go the other way if they thought there was any degree of 'dangerous'.

The ump's call was proven to be wrong in the end.

Edited June 24, 2023 by Demon Dynasty

[Macca 17,113]

4 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Big call Macca.  Thought it was the wrong call all the way.  There was no malice or force in the sling at all.  Both went to ground together.  On the night i figured either HTB or a ball up.

The MRO agreed and would normally go the other way if they thought there was any degree of 'dangerous'.

The ump's call was proven to be wrong in the end.

I was just comparing the incident to all the other innocuous incidents that ended up with a 1 game penalty

Personally, I didn't think there was anything in it

But by the law of averages, given that the AFL are paranoid about head trauma, I thought the consensus might have been that he'd miss a week

So I didn't want him to get a week if that's what you and others were thinking

By the way, as much as I don't want to, I've come to terms with the AFL's directive with regards to sling tackles and bumps where the head is involved

They are hellbent on punishing innocuous incidents and I can't see that changing

The players are just going to somehow adjust ... don't ask me how

[Demonland 73,495]

If it wasn't deemed a dangerous tackle then why wasn't it a free kick to us in front of goal?

[Macca 17,113]

So the AFL have now created another grey area in the game where inconsistent outcomes reign supreme

What is a dangerous tackle?  Does anyone know?

Just when you thought the rules couldn't possibly get more complicated, they do

Edited June 25, 2023 by Macca

[daisycutter 29,892]

36 minutes ago, Macca said:

Because the umpire deemed it as a dangerous tackle

So the AFL have now created another grey area in the game where inconsistent outcomes reign supreme

What is a dangerous tackle?  Does anyone know?

Just when you thought the rules couldn't possibly get more complicated, they do

I'm no conspiracy theorist but I've thought for a long time that the AFL loves all the conflict over the adjudications with regards to onfield and off-field decisions ... keeps the sport in the news on a 24/7 cycle

surely (theoretically) you can have a "dangerous" tackle resulting in a free but falling short of being worthy of a suspension. i don't see anything inconsistent with that. it's all a matter of degrees.

not saying it was necessarily dangerous in this case because it is impossible nowadays to know what is dangerous per the new interpretations and if so how exactly the mro can rate and penalise it in an understandable way.

[Macca 17,113]

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

surely (theoretically) you can have a "dangerous" tackle resulting in a free but falling short of being worthy of a suspension. i don't see anything inconsistent with that. it's all a matter of degrees.

not saying it was necessarily dangerous in this case because it is impossible nowadays to know what is dangerous per the new interpretations and if so how exactly the mro can rate and penalise it in an understandable way.

Yeah I agree but once the tackled player's head hits the ground then the tackle may or may not be deemed dangerous.  The outcome on the field is in the lap of the gods much like all the other grey area free kicks (of which there are numerous examples)

As for off-field with regards to whether the tackler gets cited and/or suspended, that's also in the lap of the gods

No one knows thus the only conclusion we can come to is we simply don't know what both outcomes will be

So we should congratulate the AFL in creating another murky, grey area that will be argued about until the cows come home (sarcasm)

[daisycutter 29,892]

4 minutes ago, Macca said:

Yeah I agree but once the tackled player's head hits the ground then the tackle may or may not be deemed dangerous.  The outcome on the field is in the lap of the gods much like all the other grey area free kicks (of which there are numerous examples)

As for off-field with regards to whether the tackler gets cited and/or suspended, that's also in the lap of the gods

No one knows thus the only conclusion we can come to is we simply don't know what both outcomes will be

So we should congratulate the AFL in creating another murky, grey area that will be argued about until the cows come home (sarcasm)

agree

but i was really addressing the inference that because it was not actioned (fine or suspension) that the free should not have been awarded or that fritter should have got the free for htb. free and suspension require different degrees of "dangerous"

it seems to me that bump/hit head then suspended, so maybe tackle to ground/hit head then big trouble, probable suspension. but the mitigating circumstances are very murky at the moment.

[Macca 17,113]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

agree

but i was really addressing the inference that because it was not actioned (fine or suspension) that the free should not have been awarded or that fritter should have got the free for htb. free and suspension require different degrees of "dangerous"

it seems to me that bump/hit head then suspended, so maybe tackle to ground/hit head then big trouble, probable suspension. but the mitigating circumstances are very murky at the moment.

In the AFL there is no 'should have' and whilst I agree with you about what should happen, what should happen doesn't happen

Lord knows how it all ever gets fixed but I'm not holding my breath

The AFL make it up as they go along which effectively keeps everyone confused and that's the way it is and it will probably never change

So my thinking is that we get 400+ disposals to win a game of football.  If we can't use the ball properly, we'll lose

And to use the ball properly we need lots of talented players along with good coaching

I believe we've got all that (by and large) however, most or nearly all our good players aren't forwards (Fritsch is a good player)

Edited June 25, 2023 by Macca

[MrFreeze 2,038]

I just love seeing Fritta laying big tackles and showing some aggression