We were told they wanted to stamp out the action and that outcome wasn’t the issue.
Now we’re being told that the action is fine, but if the players head hits the ground you’re done, regardless of the outcome. So sling tackles are fine, you can be careless in the tackle as long as the head doesn’t hit the ground.
Sling away boys, sling away.
What’s been taught for an eternity to pin the arms to try prevent a handball will be no longer
Can sling them so long as have arms free it seems
How many years until it’s touch footy ?
Not enough reflection on wtf Sparrow was doing in this tackle and how he played it has been encouraged by the umpiring/AFL over the last few years, and how this contributed to the end result. Firstly he ducked in to the initial Merret tackle. He then tried to shrug the tackle. He then only wanted to take the ball to ground to force a ball up. At no stage did he make any effort at all to dispose of the ball, either legally by hand or foot, or illegally.
It should have been called either high free kick to Sparrow for initial contact or HTB to Merret before he was buried.
He’s always been a cuck.
Until it suits the AFL for it to be relevant in another circumstance.
Interesting way to avoid the swear filter.
Bartel and Garry Lyon are right. If we’re talking about the potential to cause injury, the act is all that matters. Not what part of the body hits the ground as a result of the act.
Looking at the Oliver tackle, that was a tackle that had the potential to cause injury. It doesn’t matter that Parker didn’t hit his head.
If we care about the potential to cause injury, there should be no difference between a dangerous tackle and a reportable dangerous tackle.
Umpires need to call ball up quicker and if the AFL care about wanting the play to continue, then need to scrap the nominating ruckmen rule and just throw it up and let whoever is nearby contest for it. The teams with the fitter ruckmen that can get to more stoppages benefits.
Really makes you wonder when you go back to the 2 weeks Shiel copped against North a couple of years ago.
Absolute nonsense at every stage. Didn’t go off. Didn’t hit the head. Didn’t get assessed. Yeah, two weeks.
And have a look at Ash’s tackle on Langford last Sunday week. Why the hell wasn’t that cited and suspended?
The Aish one was cited but fk knows why he wasn’t suspended when Merrett was.
Actually it might have something to do with no one giving a toss when it’s a GWS player.
Merrett is punished for his action being dangerous and causing no injury, but having the potential to
Oliver isn’t cited even though his action was even more dangerous, but caused no injury, despite the fact it had the potential to
Dangerfield isn’t cited because he kicks a bloke in the head, but caused no injury, despite the fact it had the potential to
Caminiti has his punishment downgraded despite it being dangerous, and causing actual injury to a player
this is an absolute clownshow - the dangerousness of an act is not based on the result that actually happens, it’s like saying we’re only going to punish the drink drivers that get into accidents and the rest are fine
these people should be ■■■■■■■ embarrassed
The point of propaganda isn’t to make you believe it.
It’s to let you know that you are powerless to do anything about it.
I’ve said that for years
The nominating ruck goes against what the AFL says it wants ina fast in uncongested spectacle
The boundary umpire gets the balls run in 10 he . Looks waits for the rucks mainwhile 20 players have descended on the stoppage
just throw it back in when you get it
If they can do it from a kick in do it from the boundary throw in
They needed to have nominations since they got rid of the third man up rule. Without nominations. players don’t know who they can and can’t get in the way of at a stoppage. Otherwise someone will assume that a certain player is rucking (eg Gawn,) stay away from them, and get in another player’s (eg Ben Brown’s) way, and that other player (Ben Brown) will want a free kick for being impeded in the ruck contest.
It’s like the afl have reversed the onus of player protection.
The tackler can sling and not be reported if the tackled player protects himself so his head doesnt hit the ground.
So, if you protect yourself the tackle is fine, but if you don’t protect yourself and your head hits the ground the guy tackling you is done.
It’s a nonsense.
In a practical sense that’s how it works, but the way the tribunal guidelines are worded, a sling tackle is dangerous, regardless of whether there is head contact or not.
The problem is if the AFL actually reviewed every game properly and found a whole lot of dangerous tackles and cited them (regardless of impact,) it would show that the umps weren’t calling free kicks like they were supposed to, and probably also showing that they umps aren’t fast enough on the whistle to either call for a ball up or htb. The AFL showing the umps being fallable is bad for all sorts of reasons, particularly regarding their wagering partners.
If the umps actually paid every free kick for htb\dangerous tackle, or called a ball up every time they were supposed to, the game would slow down, and the AFL doesn’t want that. So they draft their rules (which are better considered as guidelines) and policies (which are better considered as options) to give themselves the scope to achieve whatever outcome they want. They can keep the game fast paced, with allowances for interpretation to keep the ball moving, but if something goes badly (eg a lawsuit for concussion) they can say that they’ve got things in place for duty of care etc.
Yes but half the time the rucks take 30th ones to get the sometimes longer after they sort out nominations … just throw it back in
Spot on. Sparrow chose not to use his free arm, instead holding on to the ball.
I liked that point you made, so just updated it a little.