2017 MRP/Tribunal

Lol,… “Nick off” … always makes me chortle …

This is the only place I hear or read it, . or have done in decades.

Fkn Classic.

I would have thought Dangerfield just did a good tackle.

1 Like

For those thinking Dangerfield should have been suspended, if it was an Essendon player would you say the same thing? In my mind there is no way he should of been suspended for one week, and it is even more ridiculous that by challenging and failing he would have gotten two weeks. The MRP is broken and needs an overhaul. Dangerfield is a fair player and was not intending to dangerously tackle.

What ■■■■■■ me off is that whilst Dangerfield gets a week for something that is part of the game, a tackle. Franklin can prance around and hit players high and bump high, without any repercussions. Franklin every year has a couple of incidents that any other player would get weeks for. One day he will seriously hurt someone because he has never been taken to task over play that is outside the rules and continues to do it. That Richmond player a couple of weeks ago being the perfect example, a few cm and he would have been seriously injured.

3 Likes

It’s closer to every week.

3 Likes

■■■■ dangerfeild, he concussed a bloke. Remember when Merret did it to Hurley? He can go surf in his suit for a weekend.

5 Likes

Franklin not being suspended doesn’t mean Dangerfield shouldn’t be. Just means the MRP and rules of the game are fuct.

Merrett did it deliberately.
Kreuzer dropped the ball and his protection.

1 Like

Yep the bloke got concussed, but Dangerfield didn’t slam him into the deck and it was a fair tackle. I am all for protecting the players, but it is a contact sport.

3 Likes

Times and rules have changed, for better or worse.
If you pin a guy’s arms to his sides, and take him down in a tackle, and he slams his head into the turf - it is a report-able incident, and most likely will get you a week off.
That is now the baseline, or should be. It doesn’t matter what was intended.
Whether you agree with that or not, is another matter, but those are the current rules.

2 Likes

If anything it looked like Danger spun Kruezer around during the tackle to get him on his shoulder. It was most likely just to try and get him down quickly to get the free, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt in that he was also not trying to hurt him. He is a pretty fair player. He could have really planted him straight down but didn’t. Momentum did the rest.

One of the footy shows played a comparison of the McCarthy one from Freo and they are light and day. In the Freo one, he could of let go knowing the ball was gone but absolutely slams him into the turf a t speed. Danger can’t see what’s happened and spins to get him down, almost sitting down himself. Free kick at absolute worst, but i’d go the other way as incorrect disposal.

What players should be doing when they pin arms, is dropping to their own knees, pulling the opponent down with them, not swinging them sideways (to avoid ‘in-the-back’) and risk a concussive head banging.

I agree with you and they are taught to do that as well as turn your opponent as kids, but that’s easier in slow mo or at a stoppage than when guys are moving at pace. And quite often you have to tackle your opponent all the way to the ground to get a free, you can’t always just stop at knee height or let them go. Actually paying frees for incorrect disposal before that can help.

You could do what you say, drop and pull your opponent down, but depending on the movement before the tackle and the momentum, still end up with them hitting their head. It’s not foolproof.

It goes back to what you said about the current interpretations, but it still is a contact sport and that kind of thing is usually incidental, you can generally tell when there is genuine intent and malice. For mine the changes are for the worse as a sport.

For mine, I would support the slow removal of ‘interpretable offences’. I don’t like that ‘malice’ is something someone else decides by watching a video. I’m not even that concerned with the rules themselves - just how they are inconsistently applied.

As soon as you pin the arms and sling a guy to the ground, you are in the lap of the gods. If his head hits the turf you are in trouble. Been that way for a couple of years now and isnt changing any time soon.

2 Likes

Yep. Stupid rule. If you don’t pin their arms they raise their arms and get the ball away.

2 Likes

I reckon it’s harsh and fkn stupid that he got done.

But Danger is a huge throttler so it makes me pretty happy and I hope he polls the highest in the Brownlow now

I’ve said it before this week. If the umpires are instructed to pay a free for incorrect disposal when a ball comes out in a tackle then I think a lot of these huge concussion causing tackles go away. At the moment tacklers feel compelled to take their opponents to ground in order to try and win a free. Change this interpretation and Dangerfield gets a free half a second earlier, meaning he has no need to throw Kruezer to the ground.

I know the AFL like the idea of keeping the ball moving but I feel it’s done without appropriately rewarding tacklers.

4 Likes

Interesting, I agree with you in regards to not paying incorrect disposal but I also hate this notion we have of rewarding a tackle. A properly executed tackle is it’s own reward, it takes a player out of the play and ideally halts the other team’s momentum. If you get a free kick for holding the ball or incorrect the disposal, so much the better, but it does need to get a free kick to be rewarding.

Off topic I know, but that phrase has always bugged me :).

1 Like

I would make it a compulsory week suspension for anyone frantically hitting the ball pretending to get it out of the tackle. And an umpire pretending that it was a genuine attempt would be flogged in Bourke St.

I have more good ideas, if the AFL is interested.

9 Likes