Zero touches after 1/2 time and 3 for the whole game. Eat a bag of dicks Judas Ryder you carnt. Atleast he will be comforted by $800k a year, should be more than enough to spend on hookers
Thought it was a good tackle.I think most “sling” tackles these days are just legitimately good, old school tackles.
Players play football because they love it and they full well know the risks/injuries that can come from it.
You know you could go in for a contest and break a leg Nathan Brown style or watch the ball and cop a brutal knee to the head Jimmy Hird style, just like you could get tackled well and be injured.
Injuries are bad and yes there should be precautions where possible but there is a difference between deterrence and punishing players for doing what they have been taught to do since they were children on the footy field.
Just another sign the game is getting softer and softer.
It only happened to me once but it was the scariest thing I experienced while playing footy. You know your head is about to be rammed into the turf but you can’t do a thing because your arms are pinned.
Can’t stand this “perfect” tackle bullshit and that it’s what you are taught as a junior. Absolute rubbish. Taking this out of the game does not make the game soft!
Pin arms and slam em to the ground good tackle. And winds em. But not head first. Just it’s hard to control. And Richards was so strong that Schulz had to use all his force just to bring him to ground but had no control on how he landed.
In junior footy kids would go down easier than that, or not at all.
Thought it was a good tackle.I think most “sling” tackles these days are just legitimately good, old school tackles.
Players play football because they love it and they full well know the risks/injuries that can come from it.
You know you could go in for a contest and break a leg Nathan Brown style or watch the ball and cop a brutal knee to the head Jimmy Hird style, just like you could get tackled well and be injured.
Injuries are bad and yes there should be precautions where possible but there is a difference between deterrence and punishing players for doing what they have been taught to do since they were children on the footy field.
Just another sign the game is getting softer and softer.
It only happened to me once but it was the scariest thing I experienced while playing footy. You know your head is about to be rammed into the turf but you can’t do a thing because your arms are pinned.
Can’t stand this “perfect” tackle bullshit and that it’s what you are taught as a junior. Absolute rubbish. Taking this out of the game does not make the game soft!Disagree.
I think you’ll find at least 95% of the time, the tackle in itself is not malicious or has no other intention but to bring the ball career to ground as best the tackler can.
It is rarely a player thinking; “Fark this guy, I’m gunna smash his head into the ground!”
As harsh it may sound, don’t play if you don’t like it. No one is forcing you to play footy.
The game survived just fine for the previous 100 years without the rule and I’m sure it would be just fine without it now.
I agree the rule itself doesn’t make the game “soft” but it is yet another contributing factor.
Imo malice has little to do with the argument when talking about an action that is dangerous in its nature. How many drink drivers go out with the intention of hurting someone? How many people drive down highways at 200km/h with the intent to crash? The “good will” of the offender doesn’t make the action any less irresponsible
The game also survived for X amount of years where you were allowed to line someone up off the ball and intentionally knock him out when a shoulder to the hurt - doesn’t make it right. I’ll also add that rules regarding illegitimate/reportable tackles have been around a few years now
I’d also disagree that the game is softer now. Unless you consider acts like Alistair Clarkson’s tough?
All very good points.
I see where you are coming from.
However I do think acts like Broadbent’s tonight, trying to bump Parker whilst he was hurt should be looked at with more scrutiny then they currently are.
As I said before - I swear someone has been suspended for making contact with a player in the hands of the trainer lol
For mine that is a far worse offense (and look for the game) than either Shultz’s or Gibbs’ tackle
I’m not so much on the fence with the tackle thing, but there is definitely room for heavy tackles that may cause injury to the head inadvertently (the Pickett tackle on Kornes early/mid 2000s springs to mind). I think it’s pretty obvious though that to spin a player in a tackle so that his head/shoulder region make first contact with the ground is a pretty big no-no (and rightly so when you look at the state of someone like Greg Williams or every NFL player ever)
BT and Richo also need to get their heads out of their arses when they say Shultz was a one motion tackle - he jumps on Richards back, plants his feet before lifting Richards off his whilst turning his body at the same time
Points.
Bank 'em.
Ryder ranked top 3 for hitouts for the game and top 4 for disposals amongst ruckman for the game. Paddy was also top 3 amongst former Essendon players on the night with only Monfries (9 disposals) and Richards (7 disposals and hopelessly out-bodied and eventually KO’d) ahead of him. He is truly the missing piece to Port’s premiership puzzle.
Ryder ranked top 3 for hitouts for the game and top 4 for disposals amongst ruckman for the game. Paddy was also top 3 amongst former Essendon players on the night with only Monfries (9 disposals) and Richards (7 disposals and hopelessly out-bodied and eventually KO'd) ahead of him. He is truly the missing piece to Port's premiership puzzle.
Wow top 3 for hit outs. That’s some game!
And get this — he beat all of the guys below him combined 22-21. That’s dominance!
Also, he beat Jetta in the handball tally. Zero touches, indeed.
Ex Essendon players had a rubbish night. Is the saga getting to them?
Ex Essendon players had a rubbish night. Is the saga getting to them?
No. Being mediocre footballers is getting to them.
Ryder ranked top 3 for hitouts for the game and top 4 for disposals amongst ruckman for the game. Paddy was also top 3 amongst former Essendon players on the night with only Monfries (9 disposals) and Richards (7 disposals and hopelessly out-bodied and eventually KO'd) ahead of him. He is truly the missing piece to Port's premiership puzzle.
Max Factor , the Blitz spin doctor.
Theres a job waiting over at AFL House writing how theres no elicit drug problem in the AFL, with the government telling us terrorists are coming to get us all, or with the coal mines, telling everyone climate change is a lie.
Zero touches after 1/2 time and 3 for the whole game. Eat a bag of dicks Judas Ryder you carnt. Atleast he will be comforted by $800k a year, should be more than enough to spend on hookers
The money will also comfort his family and his unborn children who he moved to be closer to and healthier for his family.
Thought it was a good tackle.I think most “sling” tackles these days are just legitimately good, old school tackles.
Players play football because they love it and they full well know the risks/injuries that can come from it.
You know you could go in for a contest and break a leg Nathan Brown style or watch the ball and cop a brutal knee to the head Jimmy Hird style, just like you could get tackled well and be injured.
Injuries are bad and yes there should be precautions where possible but there is a difference between deterrence and punishing players for doing what they have been taught to do since they were children on the footy field.
Just another sign the game is getting softer and softer.
It only happened to me once but it was the scariest thing I experienced while playing footy. You know your head is about to be rammed into the turf but you can’t do a thing because your arms are pinned.
Can’t stand this “perfect” tackle bullshit and that it’s what you are taught as a junior. Absolute rubbish. Taking this out of the game does not make the game soft!Disagree.
I think you’ll find at least 95% of the time, the tackle in itself is not malicious or has no other intention but to bring the ball career to ground as best the tackler can.
It is rarely a player thinking; “Fark this guy, I’m gunna smash his head into the ground!”
As harsh it may sound, don’t play if you don’t like it. No one is forcing you to play footy.
The game survived just fine for the previous 100 years without the rule and I’m sure it would be just fine without it now.
I agree the rule itself doesn’t make the game “soft” but it is yet another contributing factor.
Sling tackle is (roughly) defined as slamming the head into the ground. You’ve already got them tied up, they’re not getting away nor getting the ball away. There’s no real need for it.
There’s more tackling now than there’s ever been and the strength & technique of tacklers is a fair bit better, due to the professionalisation & coaching. So it’s not necessarily true that what was applicable in 1935 is all that relevant now.
What has been a big change is guys aren’t using their hands to protect themselves any more - they’re doing their utmost to keep their hands on the pill to get rid of it instead. As the rules - theoretically - protect them from head high shots & sling tackles. I struggle to see how players choosing to continue playing the footy, rather than protect the body is a softening of the game. But they’ve only made that change based on the head being protected under the rules. The rules against sling tackles (and head high hits for that matter) are there for a very good reason.
Thought it was a good tackle.I think most “sling” tackles these days are just legitimately good, old school tackles.
Players play football because they love it and they full well know the risks/injuries that can come from it.
You know you could go in for a contest and break a leg Nathan Brown style or watch the ball and cop a brutal knee to the head Jimmy Hird style, just like you could get tackled well and be injured.
Injuries are bad and yes there should be precautions where possible but there is a difference between deterrence and punishing players for doing what they have been taught to do since they were children on the footy field.
Just another sign the game is getting softer and softer.
It only happened to me once but it was the scariest thing I experienced while playing footy. You know your head is about to be rammed into the turf but you can’t do a thing because your arms are pinned.
Can’t stand this “perfect” tackle bullshit and that it’s what you are taught as a junior. Absolute rubbish. Taking this out of the game does not make the game soft!Disagree.
I think you’ll find at least 95% of the time, the tackle in itself is not malicious or has no other intention but to bring the ball career to ground as best the tackler can.
It is rarely a player thinking; “Fark this guy, I’m gunna smash his head into the ground!”
As harsh it may sound, don’t play if you don’t like it. No one is forcing you to play footy.
The game survived just fine for the previous 100 years without the rule and I’m sure it would be just fine without it now.
I agree the rule itself doesn’t make the game “soft” but it is yet another contributing factor.
Imo malice has little to do with the argument when talking about an action that is dangerous in its nature. How many drink drivers go out with the intention of hurting someone? How many people drive down highways at 200km/h with the intent to crash? The “good will” of the offender doesn’t make the action any less irresponsible
The game also survived for X amount of years where you were allowed to line someone up off the ball and intentionally knock him out when a shoulder to the hurt - doesn’t make it right. I’ll also add that rules regarding illegitimate/reportable tackles have been around a few years now
I’d also disagree that the game is softer now. Unless you consider acts like Alistair Clarkson’s tough?
Well said. When a player has another persons arms completely pinned to their body, that tackler has a responsibility. Just like approaching a player with his head over the ball.
The AFL won't need Max this week. They just got handed the biggest "look over there!" you could imagine (not that anybody did)...Ryder ranked top 3 for hitouts for the game and top 4 for disposals amongst ruckman for the game. Paddy was also top 3 amongst former Essendon players on the night with only Monfries (9 disposals) and Richards (7 disposals and hopelessly out-bodied and eventually KO'd) ahead of him. He is truly the missing piece to Port's premiership puzzle.Max Factor , the Blitz spin doctor.
Theres a job waiting over at AFL House writing how theres no elicit drug problem in the AFL, with the government telling us terrorists are coming to get us all, or with the coal mines, telling everyone climate change is a lie.
Concur
Never know lukin could have reopened MKUltra
After the news this morning, football itself cannot matter.
Ex Essendon players had a rubbish night. Is the saga getting to them?
Crameri played VFL last week. Finally got a call up for tomorrow night’s game agaisnt Carlton.
It’s definitely affecting the non-EFC players too.
Crows v Cats cancelled, 2 points each.
Rest of the round as normal.
Would hate to see either side miss out on finals by 2 points because everyone else plays
Crows v Cats cancelled, 2 points each. Rest of the round as normal. Would hate to see either side miss out on finals by 2 points because everyone else plays
I think they play each other in round 23. Should make the game for 6 points to make up for it
Crows v Cats cancelled, 2 points each. Rest of the round as normal. Would hate to see either side miss out on finals by 2 points because everyone else playsI think they play each other in round 23. Should make the game for 6 points to make up for it
I don’t like that idea.
Check your maths 