AFL Player #27: Mason Redman 🐕

Remove this Banner Ad

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.

This is the correct answer. Also, the Laws of the Game make no mention of “head hitting the ground first” so anyone claiming that by copying and pasting from some extraneous source is objectively wrong.
 
Well Buddy did get a week before it got downgraded, which I suspect Redman will get too. Dont know which Merrett one you're talking about.

He was tackled by one of the Baileys on the 50 at the city end and spun into the ground. 11:50 odd in the following video:


one arm pinned, slung, head hits the ground.
 
This is the correct answer. Also, the Laws of the Game make no mention of “head hitting the ground first” so anyone claiming that by copying and pasting from some extraneous source is objectively wrong.
Who did that?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Well Buddy did get a week before it got downgraded, which I suspect Redman will get too. Dont know which Merrett one you're talking about.

Look, I don't have an issue with them looking after players heads, I have an issue with the bloody maddeningly inconsistency with which it's applied. Sellwood runs through a blokes head with his hip and gets a fine? They're having a laf.
 
He was tackled by one of the Baileys on the 50 at the city end and spun into the ground. 11:50 odd in the following video:


one arm pinned, slung, head hits the ground.
Surely you can gif it for me 😂
 
Look, I don't have an issue with them looking after players heads, I have an issue with the bloody maddeningly inconsistency with which it's applied. Sellwood runs through a blokes head with his hip and gets a fine? They're having a laf.
I have no idea how Redman is medium if Selwood is low.
 
Do you pay a free kick against Bont for dropping or is it play on is what I'm asking.
Sorry 100% I’d call it holding the ball. Had prior or assumed prior given the fend off (which actually appears to hit redman high).

If we say no prior, I think on current interpretations it would not be a free against Bont, but should be. As an aside, I have a real pet peeve with the dropping of the ball with no prior being ignored. If anything, players who play by the spirit of the law (trying to dispose of the ball legally) are actually punished more than those who just drop it
 
I do wonder if the whiplash secondary impact is worse sometimes. Ie shoulder hits and head slams down on the follow through.
It isn't fun. I wasn't concussed but yeah, not fun
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I do wonder if the whiplash secondary impact is worse sometimes. Ie shoulder hits and head slams down on the follow through.

Head hits are definitely worse from my experience. I had the whiplash from being tackled like that and also concussion from being king hit. I know which I'd prefer, apart from obviously neither.
 
I have no idea how Redman is medium if Selwood is low.

I think Christian is using the escalation lever that exists ("Secondly, strong consideration will be given to the potential to cause injury.... > Any dangerous tackle.") but it still doesn't actually make sense as we've seen sling slam tackles given low impact which I think most people would class as a more dangerous action than Redman's tackle.

(The escalation for bumps is written as "High bumps, particularly with significant head contact and/or Player momentum;" but in practise we rarely seem to see this applied)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

AFL Player #27: Mason Redman 🐕

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top