AFL Player #27: Mason Redman 🐕

[Lore]

Contract Status: Free Agent 2028
My Boy Draft 2024: Pick 24, ghostdog

 

[YEMOC NAYR]

The rule he's been pinged under for anyone interested:

The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (e.g. arm(s) pinned)
with little opportunity to protect himself;

Used to be called the perfect tackle. Unfortunate.

 

[nylexbandit]

I would argue the ridiculous grading of it as medium impact should be challenged, and we should also challenge the suggestion it meets the criteria for dangerous tackle:
“3. Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackles)
The application of a tackle may be considered Rough Conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence and whether the offence is Careless or Intentional, without limitation, regard may be had to the following factors, whether:
» The tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether the Player being tackled is in possession of the ball;
» The tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle or a tackle where a Player is lifted off the ground;
» The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (e.g. arm(s) pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself;
» An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force"

While the list above suggests it is 'without limitation' it clearly identifies the type of actions that should constitute rough conduct for a tackle. In this case:
1) there is a single action;
2) the tackle is not inherently dangerous - there is no spearing or lifting;
3) Bontempelli is not in a vulnerable position as intended by the purpose of the rules (being arm's pinned or no opportunity to protect). Any vulnerability or lack of protection is created by Bontempelli, not by the tackler. He has every opportunity to use his free hand to brace any impact, but chooses to hold the ball instead. This should be no different to if a player had both hands free when tackled and chose not to brace, whether holding on to the ball or otherwise. I can't see any way that scenario should be treated as a player in a vulnerable position, and likewise Bontempelli's choice to hold on to the ball to try and avoid a free kick against him should not give rise to a conclusion that he was in a vulnerable position. Otherwise any player tackled is by definition in a vulnerable position and the use of this example/category is redundant.
4) the only question is whether there is a 'sling' in the way he is brought to ground. In this case, even if you could say there is a slight sling (as every tackle almost has to have to avoid an in the back or a spear tackle), in no way should this be considered 'excessive'. The force looks to be the basic amount to bring him down, and nothing more.

In summary, no suspension, retrospective free kick to the Dons and a home final.

 

[citizen-erased]

Dunstall raises a good point
Redman is off his feet.

 

[Phone]

I don't mind the suspension if we have this rubbed out all year.
We havnt so it's so odd to cop this now late in the year.

The issue of course is this happens every year. Some rogue late decisions that seem to go against the established way things had operated most of the year.

If there was a concussion, sure rub him out.
If there had been this act suspended all year, sure rub him out.

Neither of those appears to be the case.

Tbf, Christian has spent the whole year making weird decisions, getting knocked back and then going off in another direction and making another weird call. He's been consistently surprising with odd choices all year.

 

[Lore]

Dunstall raises a good point
Redman is off his feet.

Did he pin the arm before or after that?

 

[Squeaky]

A classic afl load of horse shit!!
****ing laughable!
Bont was breaking through tackles with Impunity all day. Got caught shortly before this incident and got a bullshit free for holding after he dropped it. He got caught Red(man) handed in this one and it should have been HTB. And now we have to put up with this shit...
**** off AFL!!

 

[carnthedons]

Free kick against Daniel for running too far, free kick for holding the ball, either of those are paid and we don’t get to this. The most puzzling bit is the medium impact. That is full Chewbacca on Endor stuff.

 

[Paul Mac]

Tbf, Christian has spent the whole year making weird decisions, getting knocked back and then going off in another direction and making another weird call. He's been consistently surprising with odd choices all year.

Sorry for intrusion but I know the selwood decision cannot be compared with Redman decision but talking about weird decisions, how the hell can Christian say selwoods bump was careless when his intent was not to go for the ball and has intention was to bump. How the hell he comes up with careless is mind boggling.

 

[supportyourteam]

Dunstall raises a good point
Redman is off his feet.

On that grounds the Bont did a sling tackle. He's gone.

 

[jdBombers3598]

Knowing Essendon's luck, they will appeal and it will be extended to 2 weeks and probably a public beheading. The game is ****ed

 

[sameolds33]

I would argue the ridiculous grading of it as medium impact should be challenged, and we should also challenge the suggestion it meets the criteria for dangerous tackle:
“3. Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackles)
The application of a tackle may be considered Rough Conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence and whether the offence is Careless or Intentional, without limitation, regard may be had to the following factors, whether:
» The tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether the Player being tackled is in possession of the ball;
» The tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle or a tackle where a Player is lifted off the ground;
» The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (e.g. arm(s) pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself;
» An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force"

While the list above suggests it is 'without limitation' it clearly identifies the type of actions that should constitute rough conduct for a tackle. In this case:
1) there is a single action;
2) the tackle is not inherently dangerous - there is no spearing or lifting;
3) Bontempelli is not in a vulnerable position as intended by the purpose of the rules (being arm's pinned or no opportunity to protect). Any vulnerability or lack of protection is created by Bontempelli, not by the tackler. He has every opportunity to use his free hand to brace any impact, but chooses to hold the ball instead. This should be no different to if a player had both hands free when tackled and chose not to brace, whether holding on to the ball or otherwise. I can't see any way that scenario should be treated as a player in a vulnerable position, and likewise Bontempelli's choice to hold on to the ball to try and avoid a free kick against him should not give rise to a conclusion that he was in a vulnerable position. Otherwise any player tackled is by definition in a vulnerable position and the use of this example/category is redundant.
4) the only question is whether there is a 'sling' in the way he is brought to ground. In this case, even if you could say there is a slight sling (as every tackle almost has to have to avoid an in the back or a spear tackle), in no way should this be considered 'excessive'. The force looks to be the basic amount to bring him down, and nothing more.

In summary, no suspension, retrospective free kick to the Dons and a home final.

Your point 3 is particularly persuasive:

3) Bontempelli is not in a vulnerable position as intended by the purpose of the rules (being arm's pinned or no opportunity to protect). Any vulnerability or lack of protection is created by Bontempelli, not by the tackler. He has every opportunity to use his free hand to brace any impact, but chooses to hold the ball instead. This should be no different to if a player had both hands free when tackled and chose not to brace, whether holding on to the ball or otherwise. I can't see any way that scenario should be treated as a player in a vulnerable position, and likewise Bontempelli's choice to hold on to the ball to try and avoid a free kick against him should not give rise to a conclusion that he was in a vulnerable position. Otherwise any player tackled is by definition in a vulnerable position and the use of this example/category is redundant.

 

[Vindicater]

Challenge this for sure.

 

[Harlequin Dream]

Redman/Bont incident hard to tell if the shoulder or the head took the brunt of the impact.

Selwood/Taylor incident Selwood clearly hits him in the middle of the head.

This is the most obvious favoritism I can remember.

 

[Lore]

Your point 3 is particularly persuasive:

3) Bontempelli is not in a vulnerable position as intended by the purpose of the rules (being arm's pinned or no opportunity to protect). Any vulnerability or lack of protection is created by Bontempelli, not by the tackler. He has every opportunity to use his free hand to brace any impact, but chooses to hold the ball instead. This should be no different to if a player had both hands free when tackled and chose not to brace, whether holding on to the ball or otherwise. I can't see any way that scenario should be treated as a player in a vulnerable position, and likewise Bontempelli's choice to hold on to the ball to try and avoid a free kick against him should not give rise to a conclusion that he was in a vulnerable position. Otherwise any player tackled is by definition in a vulnerable position and the use of this example/category is redundant.

You only need one arm pinned to tick that box.

 

[84859300]

I’m guessing arm pinned and head hit the ground/ pinned arm means he’s taken responsibility for the players welfare since the player can’t use his arm to protect his own head, then the head hit the ground anyway?

Idk how that exactly is interpreted in the grading though. Bad enough for a suspension?

I think, for consistancy, that as the umpire called "dangerous tackle" during the process, that the interpretation has to go before the tribunal to be reviewed. It's what the umpire saw at the time and the AFL have to back their officials.

In saying that, two of the three points raised are debatable at best, with high contact not even evident. The AFL have the bonus of slow-mo and repeating of the tackle over and over before raising the charge. At no point ever was there part of the tackle above the shoulder. Critical charge that can be disclaimed easily.

The club would be well within their rights to contest the charge.

 

[scottmclaren]

Watching live I thought it was a great tackle a day later I can see how they pay as dangerous but MRO has just lost the plot.

I hope Toby Greene

4

Toby Greene

Age

31

Ht

182cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.7

5star

K

12.5

5star

HB

10.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.0

5star

G

1.2

4star

D

17.5

4star

K

9.5

4star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.8

4star

T

1.0

2star

G

2.3

5star

D

26.6

5star

K

12.4

5star

HB

14.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.6

5star

G

0.0

1star

gets off, although if he doesn’t it is great for our chances.

 

[Lore]

Watching live I thought it was a great tackle a day later I can see how they pay as dangerous but MRO has just lost the plot.

I hope Toby Greene gets off, although if he doesn’t it is great for our chances.

Toby got 2 weeks, careless, high and high.

 

[eth-dog]

Toby got 2 weeks, careless, high and high.

I think he means on appeal

 

[Shanghaistu]

Just the AFL punishing us for having the temerity to win the game and mess up the script. Oh and Bont is 100% protected species, some of our guys obviously forgot that

 

[sameolds33]

You only need one arm pinned to tick that box.

I'm watching the Dees v Eagles game. Darling was just tackled in a bear hug. Both arms pinned. Not a dangerous tackle. Sometimes it's just common sense in determining whether the tackled player has the ability to protect himself.

 

[84859300]

Amongst a very long list of things wrong with this is the fact that he has no real other recourse here apart from not tackle him. Bont being far too big and strong for him caused this

To be honest, it's the amount of time that umpires are allowing for player with the ball to dispose of it that caused this.

Bont grabs the ball and tries to break the tackle to kick. His arm is pinned, so can't handball, with the angle of his body making it impossible to originate a kick without throwing the ball to his foot. At the time of the tackle ******ing any ability to dispose, it should hav ebeen a simple ball up or HTB.

The fact that umpires are "letting the play go for the sake of optics" (my quote) meant the play continued and the action was made. With all the collisions being removed from the game, I half suspect that the rules like this might come into question when players start suing the comp for concussions. It's a practice that could be managed much better by the rules.

 

[Lore]

I'm watching the Dees v Eagles game. Darling was just tackled in a bear hug. Both arms pinned. Not a dangerous tackle. Sometimes it's just common sense.

Did his head meet the ground?

 

[sameolds33]

Did his head meet the ground?

Think he ate a bit of grass.

 

[boncer34]

Did his head meet the ground?

His head didn't bounce into the ground.

 

[Phone]

Sorry for intrusion but I know the selwood decision cannot be compared with Redman decision but talking about weird decisions, how the hell can Christian say selwoods bump was careless when his intent was not to go for the ball and has intention was to bump. How the hell he comes up with careless is mind boggling.

Bumps are basically never labelled as intentional. The intentional/careless aspect is "did the player intend to commit a reportable offence?". Bumps to the body are legal and not reportable offences, bumps to the head are reportable offences. So you need to prove that a player clearly aimed for the head which to my knowledge they've never tried. (this is why Redmond is "careless" as well) The exceptions to this are bumps off the ball. You're not supposed to bump someone behind play even if it's it to the body, so that's intentional. I have a feeling an Essendon player got cited for this years ago, but would need to dig deep to find that. And I think maybe bumps that get classed as "forceful front-on contact" could get intentional, but we so rarely see those nowadays so it's hard to know....but I will say, when I saw Selwood's bumped, I wondered if it would get the forceful front-on contact label. But it didn't.

anyway I've talked too much. Essendon should challenge and I would be surprised and disappointed if it stayed at medium. I happen to be someone that thinks de-linking the result of the incident (ie injury) in MRP rulings is absurd and in this case, there's no injury. There's no heavy slam. it's literally a careless tackle with a bit of impact. Medium impact is too much