They are basically taking the same approach with the tackle now as what they did with the bump a few years ago.
If you choose to tackle someone to the ground and they hit their head on the ground (no matter how softly) you will be suspended. If you choose to tackle someone to the ground and they don’t hit their head, you are OK. This is actually the MRO/Tribunal penalising the action not the outcome. Oliver’s sling tackle earlier in the year - he just got lucky. If the player had hit his head Oliver would have missed at least 2-3 weeks.
Comparing bumps (Duncan) vs tackles (Ward, Merrett, Adams) is futile. As much as I hate it, I agree with the MRO that Duncan didn’t have many options once he realised Fox was going to collide with him. The only other thing he could have done was jump out of the way.
This is not punishing the action, it is punishing the outcome. The outcome is that the player hits there head, the action is in some cases a perfectly fair tackle, 1 motion, 1 arm pinned, no unnecessary force. Players will hit there head playing football even if everyone plays within the rules, its unavoidable. Players shouldnt be punished for being unlucky.
See, I reckon Neale contributes to it. After the first part of that tackle, he kinda just gives up trying to dispose of the footy (has one armed pinned in fairness) but to me, he kinda contributes by not bracing himself and makes the most of that in an effort to receive a free kick.
The second dumping movement is the one they’re trying to get out of the game, I get it and you know what, I’d cop the one week for Ward based on that second slinging/dumping action (albeit, I don’t think it was done with any malice or intent).
I just think we’re going down the path of the tacklee contributing to this problem by choosing to not dispose of the ball and not protecting themselves. I have this suspicion that we’ll see more and more of these as players are trying to receive dangerous tackle free kicks.
By “outcome” I mean injury to the player. In terms of the way they are looking at it now it doesn’t matter if the player is concussed or not in order to trigger a suspension - if you tackle them and they hit their head on the ground you will be suspended. If they are concussed then the force will be upgraded and you will miss more games then if they were not concussed.
Which is the stupidest way to go about it, you don’t change behaviour by refusing to punish the action regardless of outcome.
The current situation is that a player can execute an identical tackle twice, but one situation might be considered more ‘dangerous’ because the player getting tackled either contributes to the tackle (ie Neale) or refuses to protect themselves and that means the tackler is punished because of their decision.
Yes and thats generally how the AFL talks about “outcomes” too but it makes no sense. Theres another outcome they are ignoring which is that the players head hits the ground. As Drapersmullet said you can do the same tackle twice and only get reported once because you were unlucky and this time the players head hit the ground. You can have Oliver doing a terrible sling tackle and getting no punishment because of no head contact and then Merrett doing an action that really has no issues except for a hand over the shoulder but the head touched the ground slightly so hes out for a week. Its not just unfair, its also not actually helping. The action that needs to be eliminated is the 2nd slinging motion where the players head can swing towards the ground, ban players for that so they stop doing it, atm they will keep trying to do that action but just hope the head doesnt hit so they wont miss games.
@Drapersmullet@Tyler
I get the frustration. I’m not really offering an opinion either way. Just stating the way it’s working now. The usual criticism is that it’s inconsistent, “chook lotto”. I think when viewed in that light that they’ve actually been incredibly consistent with this rule (first time for everything).
And I dispute that it’s not or won’t change behaviour. There were several tackles on the weekend that were clearly players adjusting and bringing the tacklee to the ground gently or not bringing them to ground at all. The Bontempelli tackle was a prime example. It’s already changing behaviour.
I think there was always going to be an overcompensation from the players with such a large focus on it, so that’s not surprising.
My issue is, purely from a logical perspective, you cannot say a player’s action had the ‘potential for injury’ based on whether or not their head actually hit the ground - the player is being punished for the act that they did, not the causation that resulted, but the causation is being used to determine if their act is a punishable offence.
I still maintain that the head hitting the ground doesn’t create potential for injury.
If the Head hits the ground, we are not talking about a possible outcome, we are talking about an actual outcome.
If a player executes a tackle with careful use of force such that head contact with the ground is minor or almost inconsequential and no injury was sustained, then how is there potential for injury. That’s not luck, the actual event occurred.
Conversely if a player uses excessive force, and there is a clear lack of control within the tackle such that it is sheer luck that the head didn’t hit the ground, then there was potential for injury, don’t see how you can argue otherwise.
Nah… the ball player has to have the opportunity to get rid of it, else the game will turn into a rolling maul with everyone waiting to ping the ball player for an easy free. The rule as it stands is cactus too, it should be limited to intent & the 2nd movement to bury your opponent.
As usual the AFL have over reacted …. most serious head injuries come from serious speed & collisions …. Guess who has sped up the game? You guessed it those brainless twats at AFL house. How about knees in the back of the head in marking contests, they are a real brain killer, why aren’t they banned AFL, they SERIOUSLY concuss players?
Redman didn’t even get looked at for Spargo getting concussion. This one was more on the fence because Duncan braced for the impact, but it’s the correct decision.
If you (say) punch someone in the head, then you don’t know and have no control over the exact outcome. There is the potential to cause harm. If the victim gets lucky and you (say) missed causing brain injury by 1 mm then your action (when you made the decision to perform that act) still had the potential to cause injury.
The action being sanctioned is the decision to punch (tackle in AFL) given the always present potential to cause harm. Actual harm caused might be relevant to the punishment, but the crime is the intent prior to the act.
Despite the poor media coverage, penalties have never been entirely based on outcomes. If they were, Duncan would’ve been suspended as well as Danger in the GF when his elbow/forearm hit vlaustin in the head, and a million other incidents that led to injury.
If you hit someone in the head with a strike that was so soft because you applied minimal amount of force to the strike, that it wouldn’t crack an egg, then contact to the head of itself doesn’t necessarily constitute potential risk.
Unless of course the potential is based on the possibility that you could have applied more force, and if you did so, it had the potential to cause injury. But that would be a different act.
So if they go to ground, even if it appears to be a slinging motion, but you take enough care to ensure that even if their head should make contact with the ground there is insufficient force to cause injury, then there is no real potential to cause injury.
There is a potential if you applied more force, but that would be a different tackle.
To some extent I think that even if there isn’t a slinging motion a tackle not that dissimilar to Merrets, where a player might be brought to ground in a crash style flattening tackle, could just as easily inadvertently cause an opponents head to hit the ground as their shoulder makes contact and the head continues in motion downward.
Does there become a question, of whether the Head contact on Ground is caused by the sling V what might have happened if the tackle had been executed without a sling. I’m not sure they always clearly establish a causal relationship.