A Glitch in the System: MRP vs Umpiring Frees

[SherbertLemon]

The tackler has an obligation to protect the head of the player he is tackling.
If he fails to do this he should be punished, with the punishment determined by a combination of intent and injury caused.

Absolutely bullshit.

The tackler is trying to win HTB, or force the ball from the carrier.

As long as they dont get the player over the shoulder, if the ball carrier tries to stand up in the tackle and dish off to his mates, you drive that mofo in to the ground with absolute malice.

If they get hurt that's bad luck.

Stop talking about netball, and the responsibility of the tackler. If you're worried about your arms being pinned because you're a slow shit truck, then dish it off before you get tackled, and if you're tackled without the ball that's a free.

Netball campaigners like Barrett who's never even played footy shit me

EDIT: to be relevant to this thread - mpire made a call, no doubt he MRP will make a poo decision.

 

[SheezNuts]

Courtesy of discomute

This gif shows an accurate representation of the grundy tackle. Clear sling/second motion after he solidly plants his right foot. Should of been a free kick for a dangerous tackle, and should get 3-4 weeks.

 

[Farm Boy]

Can we stop describing them as "perfect tackles". If the tackler lets someone's head hit the ground leading to concussion, it's clearly not perfect.

We are heading towards a time where the "perfect tackle" is one that doesn't lead to concussion. So in other words a tackle that doesn't stick. Can't stick tackles because they take the opposition player to ground and he could get concussed. I am not blaming the AFL either. But if the head is sacrosanct this game is absolutely unplayable. I think the game is done. I have predominately always been a traditionalist and never advocated for rule changes, but the way I see the game going now there needs to be a shift to change the game completely - and may resemble something more like Gaelic football. As the game we have now unplayable and is confusing everyone. There is no clarity and when there are clear definitions on rules they change by the week.

 

[perplexed]

Absolutely bullshit.

The tackler is trying to win HTB, or force the ball from the carrier.

As long as they dont get the player over the shoulder, if the ball carrier tries to stand up in the tackle and dish off to his mates, you drive that mofo in to the ground with absolute malice.

If they get hurt that's bad luck.

Stop talking about netball, and the responsibility of the tackler. If you're worried about your arms being pinned because you're a slow shit truck, then dish it off before you get tackled, and if you're tackled without the ball that's a free.

Netball campaigners like Barrett who's never even played footy shit me

EDIT: to be relevant to this thread - mpire made a call, no doubt he MRP will make a poo decision.

The MRP are ex-footballers. What is with all the netball references?

 

[marty36]

You would think the afl have a lot to fix this week as the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[bumsonseats]

I used to umpire district cricket in Adelaide and Sydney, predominantly at 2nd grade level, but a handful of first grade games thrown in.
We regularly had international umpires Darryl Harper and Steve Davis attend the monthly meetings.
I remember one such meeting which Darrly attended. He had umpired a ODI at the MCG a few days earlier and gave Ian Harvey out LBW to a ball that hit him on the thigh pad. Inevitably, he got questioned by a couple of his fellow umpires during one of the breaks, to which Darryl asked - did they show the replay and how many times did they show it and then responded - I saw it once.

Moral of the story - the ump saw it once and did not have 50 camera angles.
I am sure if the ump see's the replay, he will have a different view

 

[And_ROOS]

I've actually been wondering about something lately, If one player bumped another head on made zero contact with the head but the force caused the opponent to rebound back so fast that their head slammed against the ground would you get suspended for that?

They say otherwise but as it stands things are being called based on the consequences rather than the action. I feel like it won't be long before a player goes for a mark, misses the ball, knees an opponent in the head and gets the FK against rightly, but then a suspension because he KO'ed another playing in an infringement.

 

[John Who]

I used to umpire district cricket in Adelaide and Sydney, predominantly at 2nd grade level, but a handful of first grade games thrown in.
We regularly had international umpires Darryl Harper and Steve Davis attend the monthly meetings.
I remember one such meeting which Darrly attended. He had umpired a ODI at the MCG a few days earlier and gave Ian Harvey out LBW to a ball that hit him on the thigh pad. Inevitably, he got questioned by a couple of his fellow umpires during one of the breaks, to which Darryl asked - did they show the replay and how many times did they show it and then responded - I saw it once.

Moral of the story - the ump saw it once and did not have 50 camera angles.
I am sure if the ump see's the replay, he will have a different view

This thread really isn't about how wrong or right the umpires are. But more so the mismatch between the umpiring calls (award) and the MRP doing the opposite calls (penalty). If it becomes an ever-growing mismatch, then the players themselves may opt to never tackle again, as accidents "may occur". Anyone want this to happen?

 

[sherb]

Courtesy of discomute

This gif shows an accurate representation of the grundy tackle. Clear sling/second motion after he solidly plants his right foot. Should of been a free kick for a dangerous tackle, and should get 3-4 weeks.

It's a shit tackle. He's got to go.

 

[bumsonseats]

This thread really isn't about how wrong or right the umpires are. But more so the mismatch between the umpiring calls (award) and the MRP doing the opposite calls (penalty). If it becomes an ever-growing mismatch, then the players themselves may opt to never tackle again, as accidents "may occur". Anyone want this to happen?

Well, either the umpires are wrong or the MRP is wrong and my money is on the MRP being correct given they can assess it in slow time.
The MRP doesnt say ahhhhhh, the ump saw it and said nothing in it so we will just skip over it.

I dont subscribe to the accident theory.
Whilst it is clear that Grundy did not intend to hurt Brown, it is the tackling technique that causes the issue.
It comes down to is it foreseeable that an opponent may get injured if you pin the arms - the answer to that is clearly yes.
So I think this is a coaching issue. Coaches have to adapt their coaching methods to adjust to the new climate which has been in place for at least 3 or 4 years.

 

[And_ROOS]

Well, either the umpires are wrong or the MRP is wrong and my money is on the MRP being correct given they can assess it in slow time.
The MRP doesnt say ahhhhhh, the ump saw it and said nothing in it so we will just skip over it.

I dont subscribe to the accident theory.
Whilst it is clear that Grundy did not intend to hurt Brown, it is the tackling technique that causes the issue.
It comes down to is it foreseeable that an opponent may get injured if you pin the arms - the answer to that is clearly yes.
So I think this is a coaching issue. Coaches have to adapt their coaching methods to adjust to the new climate which has been in place for at least 3 or 4 years.

But its only really been this year that we have seen suspensions for these types of tackles. These aren't the sling tackles that had to be banned.

 

[bumsonseats]

But its only really been this year that we have seen suspensions for these types of tackles. These aren't the sling tackles that had to be banned.

I remember the arguement about the Bryce Gibbs tackle on Robbie Grey - clearly a sling tackle.
But I recall the vulnerable position clause being around at that time - its nothing new. Just getting a bit of added attention at the moment.
Clubs are now on notice and need to adjust their coaching techniques

 

[John Who]

Having had some further thoughts on this issue. If we break down to the core matters, then there are 3 main options:
1. Leave the game as it is, and umpires to call how they see, and MRP to penalise how they feel.
Or, we need changes.
2. Umpires to automatically call it a free for the team who's player is concussed from the tackled/bump incident, even if initially it was a free paid for the other team.
3. MRP to ease off on their stance on the resulting injuries of the incident, and judge only on the intent of the action prior to the injuries. So if it was deemed an accident, and even if 'wreckless', then no suspensions to be made.

Have I oversimplified things too much?

 

[MattyB_76]

I can give you the perfect counter-argument:
If someone leaps as high as a 2-storey house to take BEST mark EVER, and in the process, flykicks someones' head, knees someone in the neck, and then causes a stress fracture to the foot of another player upon landing...can I still call it the "perfect mark"?
Another way of looking at it, do you honestly think with all the years of Mark of the Year awards, there has been no headaches or bruising sustained by other players being at the bottom of these huge pack marks?

Again, you use the word perfect. I don't want to quote The Princess Bride, but it's apt. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

It's not the perfect counter argument because according to the rules of the game and the Tribunal rules, that person taking the "best mark ever" hasn't done anything wrong. According to the rules you can accidentally fly kick a player, knee someone in the head and land on their foot with no penalty. Although if you intentionally kicked a guy in the head, I doubt they would allow the mark, so again, not the best mark ever.

But when you tackle a player, you can't pin both their arms, and allow their head to hit the ground, causing concussion. It's clearly written in the tribunal rules.

 

[bumsonseats]

Having had some further thoughts on this issue. If we break down to the core matters, then there are 3 main options:
1. Leave the game as it is, and umpires to call how they see, and MRP to penalise how they feel.
Or, we need changes.
2. Umpires to automatically call it a free for the team who's player is concussed from the tackled/bump incident, even if initially it was a free paid for the other team.
3. MRP to ease off on their stance on the resulting injuries of the incident, and judge only on the intent of the action prior to the injuries. So if it was deemed an accident, and even if 'wreckless', then no suspensions to be made.

Have I oversimplified things too much?

Or we could just let the players umpire themselves then let an MRP style panel review the games and decide which decisions stand and which ones to overturn and let them work out who is the winner from there.

Seriously, there is nothing wrong with the current system. You might not like the rules as they are written, but the system is fine. To suggest that there is a "glitch" with the system because the umpire saw it (in real time) differently to what the MRP may see it is just crazy. Systematic vs a single split second decision......surely you can see the difference in that.

I admire your passion but you are barking up the wrong tree dude.

 

[John Who]

Again, you use the word perfect. I don't want to quote The Princess Bride, but it's apt. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

It's not the perfect counter argument because according to the rules of the game and the Tribunal rules, that person taking the "best mark ever" hasn't done anything wrong. According to the rules you can accidentally fly kick a player, knee someone in the head and land on their foot with no penalty. Although if you intentionally kicked a guy in the head, I doubt they would allow the mark, so again, not the best mark ever.

But when you tackle a player, you can't pin both their arms, and allow their head to hit the ground, causing concussion. It's clearly written in the tribunal rules.

We're arguing 2 separate points. You're saying the tribunal rules are "clear", but you can agree that there is inconsistency between penalties for accidents post-bump/tackle versus accidents after a marking attempt. My argument is based not purely focusing on the umpiring rules, or the MRP rules, but the growing mismatch between the two. Because accidents can happen anytime, players should not be rewarded for playing in the spirit of the game, and to later be suspended for doing so.

 

[John Who]

Or we could just let the players umpire themselves then let an MRP style panel review the games and decide which decisions stand and which ones to overturn and let them work out who is the winner from there.

Seriously, there is nothing wrong with the current system. You might not like the rules as they are written, but the system is fine. To suggest that there is a "glitch" with the system because the umpire saw it (in real time) differently to what the MRP may see it is just crazy. Systematic vs a single split second decision......surely you can see the difference in that.

I admire your passion but you are barking up the wrong tree dude.

Again, this isn't about the umpires. My argument in this thread is actually based on umpires making the correct call of "illegal disposal" or "holding the ball". The game is heading towards players being rewarded a free, and then the MRP can suspend them a few days later because the accident has turned into a concussion, as opposed to the player getting up and brushing it off.

 

[bumsonseats]

Again, this isn't about the umpires. My argument in this thread is actually based on umpires making the correct call of "illegal disposal" or "holding the ball". The game is heading towards players being rewarded a free, and then the MRP can suspend them a few days later because the accident has turned into a concussion, as opposed to the player getting up and brushing it off.

What do they say......better to keep ones mouth closed and appear clueless than to open it and remove all doubt.
How can you keep a straight face and say it's not about the umpires, but about the umpires making the correct call. The ump may have paid holding the ball......but have you stopped to consider that he may have actually got it wrong. If the tackle is dangerous (as clearly defined by the laws of the game), then the free should have gone to North. The tackler still has to execute the tackle correctly.....which clearly he did not.
You seem very caught up n the fact the ump paid a free to Grundy for holding the ball, and as such the MRP should stay out of it. The MRP don't particularly care if it was called holding the ball or otherwise.......they are looking at how the tackle was executed and the consequence of this action.

Am I correct in suggesting that you believe the umpire made the correct call of holding the ball.......and this is the premis of your argument.........entertain me.....please

And one further thing.....the game I was watching the tackled player didn't get up and just brush it off.
He went to hospital in an ambulance and spent the night.

 

[John Who]

What do they say......better to keep ones mouth closed and appear clueless than to open it and remove all doubt.
How can you keep a straight face and say it's not about the umpires, but about the umpires making the correct call. The ump may have paid holding the ball......but have you stopped to consider that he may have actually got it wrong. If the tackle is dangerous (as clearly defined by the laws of the game), then the free should have gone to North. The tackler still has to execute the tackle correctly.....which clearly he did not.
You seem very caught up n the fact the ump paid a free to Grundy for holding the ball, and as such the MRP should stay out of it. The MRP don't particularly care if it was called holding the ball or otherwise.......they are looking at how the tackle was executed and the consequence of this action.

Am I correct in suggesting that you believe the umpire made the correct call of holding the ball.......and this is the premis of your argument.........entertain me.....please

And one further thing.....the game I was watching the tackled player didn't get up and just brush it off.
He went to hospital in an ambulance and spent the night.

Ok mate, I'm going to put on my smartest hat and please hear me out.
Let's talk about when a player has tackled someone (without intention to harm), and that tackled person drops the ball, and then his head hits the ground and becomes concussed. What will the umpire call it?
a). holding the ball or illegal disposal?
or b). "let's wait and see what happens after the head/body makes impact on the ground, and then I'll make the call of holding the ball or dangerous tackle"?
Likely (and you can argue this point, please feel free to), the umpire will call it option A from the above. Where the MRP stands at the moment, because of the concussion event, player who is tackled is likely to be penalised/suspended.
Can you see the point of the mismatch occurring? Remember, we're talking unintentional harm, rather than obvious, deliberate harm. And remember accidents can always occur.

 

[bumsonseats]

Ok mate, I'm going to put on my smartest hat and please hear me out.
Let's talk about when a player has tackled someone (without intention to harm), and that tackled person drops the ball, and then his head hits the ground and becomes concussed. What will the umpire call it?
a). holding the ball or illegal disposal?
or b). "let's wait and see what happens after the head/body makes impact on the ground, and then I'll make the call of holding the ball or dangerous tackle"?
Likely (and you can argue this point, please feel free to), the umpire will call it option A from the above. Where the MRP stands at the moment, because of the concussion event, player who is tackled is likely to be penalised/suspended.
Can you see the point of the mismatch occurring? Remember, we're talking unintentional harm, rather than obvious, deliberate harm. And remember accidents can always occur.

You clearly do not get it........
Have you even read the definition of a dangerous tackle.
Grundy bears responsibility for the outcome of the tackle because he put Brown into a vulnerable position. The key is vulnerable position......Vulnerable implies increased risk.....right. So, if I pin both of your arms and bring you to ground the way Grundy brings Brown to the ground then there is a good chance you will bang your head.....right.
And that is the premis of the discussion.....do you follow so far.....

Grundy is responsible for the outcome because he put Brown into a vulnerable position when he executed the tackle by pinning the arms, thereby not allowing Brown to protect his fall. If Brown does not hit his head then the consequence is minimal (lucky)......but in this case he did and that is why it is outcome based.
If Brown does not hit his head (with sufficient force)....then yes, the correct decision is holding the ball.
It's a bit like a player chasing down an opponent from behind but driving him in the back when executing the tackle.....the tackle still has to be executed correctly to win what is otherwise a clear holding the ball free kick.

All the while, the umpire made a poor decision by not recognising the dangerous (by definition in the AFL rules....not just something I made up) nature of the tackle.

No one is arguing that Grundy intended to injure Brown, and that is why it will be graded as careless rather than intentional.

Do you get it now

 

[John Who]

You clearly do not get it........
Have you even read the definition of a dangerous tackle.
Grundy bears responsibility for the outcome of the tackle because he put Brown into a vulnerable position. The key is vulnerable position......Vulnerable implies increased risk.....right. So, if I pin both of your arms and bring you to ground the way Grundy brings Brown to the ground then there is a good chance you will bang your head.....right.
And that is the premis of the discussion.....do you follow so far.....

Grundy is responsible for the outcome because he put Brown into a vulnerable position when he executed the tackle by pinning the arms, thereby not allowing Brown to protect his fall. If Brown does not hit his head then the consequence is minimal (lucky)......but in this case he did and that is why it is outcome based.
If Brown does not hit his head (with sufficient force)....then yes, the correct decision is holding the ball.
It's a bit like a player chasing down an opponent from behind but driving him in the back when executing the tackle.....the tackle still has to be executed correctly to win what is otherwise a clear holding the ball free kick.

All the while, the umpire made a poor decision by not recognising the dangerous (by definition in the AFL rules....not just something I made up) nature of the tackle.

No one is arguing that Grundy intended to injure Brown, and that is why it will be graded as careless rather than intentional.

Do you get it now

I think you are focusing too much on the one incident. I'm talking in general, haven't really focused on any one incident. I agree with you, actually, that if a player's head get slammed to the ground then it should be deemed a free against the tackler for a "dangerous tackle". However, my point still remains valid, when in the heat of the game, a player will try and tackle in a way that will give them the best chance of winning a free kick, so pinning the arm(s) is an instinctual thing to do. The resulting concussion often is a matter of inches (literally), whereby one of point of impact, the player will be concussed, and either inch left or right of impact, the player might be getting up and playing on with nil effect.
We are asking players to tackle in a precise manner such that the aim is to get a free kick, and such that to guarantee no concussion will result. Is this a fair ask?

 

[bumsonseats]

I think you are focusing too much on the one incident. I'm talking in general, haven't really focused on any one incident. I agree with you, actually, that if a player's head get slammed to the ground then it should be deemed a free against the tackler for a "dangerous tackle". However, my point still remains valid, when in the heat of the game, a player will try and tackle in a way that will give them the best chance of winning a free kick, so pinning the arm(s) is an instinctual thing to do. The resulting concussion often is a matter of inches (literally), whereby one of point of impact, the player will be concussed, and either inch left or right of impact, the player might be getting up and playing on with nil effect.
We are asking players to tackle in a precise manner such that the aim is to get a free kick, and such that to guarantee no concussion will result. Is this a fair ask?

It looks like the penny has now dropped.
Though I dispute your assertion that I am focus on one incident. The Grundy tackle (and for that matter the Dangerfield tackle) is just a very good example....but the principal remains for all tackles of a similar nature.
I dispute your previous assertions that the MRP is just reacting to the fact the guy got knocked out. They are reacting both to the definition of a dangerous tackle and the consequence. If Grundy did not pin the arms, but otherwise executes the tackle in the same manner (I do not believe it was 2 motions, nor do I believe it was a sling tackle), but Brown still wacks his head, then I do not believe that Grundy gets suspended.....Brown would have the opportunity to protect his fall if his arms were free.....duty of care is exercised. And in this case, a holding the ball free kick would be the correct decision in my opinion.

Now for the next step......Have you stopped to consider that perhaps the coaches need to change the way they coach tackling techniques. Remember, this law has been in place for at least a few years so it should not come as a surprise to them......It was certainly around when Bryce Gibbs tackled Robbie Grey and knocked him out a couple of years ago.
We have had a bit of a run with this over the last couple of weeks with Danger, Grundy and I suspect Ziebell which has highlighted the risk of certain tackles......The coaches now need to play catch up on this one.

Are we comprehending now

 

[John Who]

It looks like the penny has now dropped.
Though I dispute your assertion that I am focus on one incident. The Grundy tackle (and for that matter the Dangerfield tackle) is just a very good example....but the principal remains for all tackles of a similar nature.
I dispute your previous assertions that the MRP is just reacting to the fact the guy got knocked out. They are reacting both to the definition of a dangerous tackle and the consequence. If Grundy did not pin the arms, but otherwise executes the tackle in the same manner (I do not believe it was 2 motions, nor do I believe it was a sling tackle), but Brown still wacks his head, then I do not believe that Grundy gets suspended.....Brown would have the opportunity to protect his fall if his arms were free.....duty of care is exercised. And in this case, a holding the ball free kick would be the correct decision in my opinion.

Now for the next step......Have you stopped to consider that perhaps the coaches need to change the way they coach tackling techniques. Remember, this law has been in place for at least a few years so it should not come as a surprise to them......It was certainly around when Bryce Gibbs tackled Robbie Grey and knocked him out a couple of years ago.
We have had a bit of a run with this over the last couple of weeks with Danger, Grundy and I suspect Ziebell which has highlighted the risk of certain tackles......The coaches now need to play catch up on this one.

Are we comprehending now

You need to see the point I'm making, which you are not seeing it for its entirety. That is simply, the way the MRP is heading, it's going against the essence of what we love about football. Tough and uncompromising attack on the football and player. Currently, the rules of MRP dictate that you can attack all you want, but you must be sure not to cause concussion. There is a flaw in this logic, and unless you see this point, I cannot argue with you further.

 

[Neese]

Also Kreuzer did not play further part in the game after Danger's tackle

 

[bumsonseats]

You need to see the point I'm making, which you are not seeing it for its entirety. That is simply, the way the MRP is heading, it's going against the essence of what we love about football. Tough and uncompromising attack on the football and player. Currently, the rules of MRP dictate that you can attack all you want, but you must be sure not to cause concussion. There is a flaw in this logic, and unless you see this point, I cannot argue with you further.

The MRP assess incidents in accordance with the laws set by the AFL.....not by the MRP.
Perhaps if you care to take a look at these laws, and in particular the dangerous tackle law, you will be able to make an informed comment rather than simply following the clueless pack