Brodie Grundy tackle on Ben Brown

[Duskfire]

The problem is the rule is reliant entirely on the outcome and not the action and that's a problem. If brown hadn't been concussed no one would have given 2 shits. That's not how rules typically work.

 

[cleomenes]

I posted this on the Collingwood thread on this topic. The AFL is failing the players in blaming them for problems that occur when they play within the rules. It is a terrible can of worms, but it is open now and a lot of work will have to go through dealing with it.

"The response of the AFL to research on concussion has a long way to go. The powerbrokers well understand that the sport must deal effectively with the problem now that they know of its existance and extent.
Step one has been to put the onus on the players to not concuss one another, and penalize them if they do. Long standing rules and techniques in the game have been over ridden, but little effort has been made to look deeper and face up to the adjustments that will have to be made to the structure of the game to deal with the problem.
Leaving aside striking and bumps, major causes of concussions, and just looking at tackling, the current views on tackling and concussion cannot be made to fit together. Since concussions must be minimized, the whole rule structure around tackling has to change.
As things stand, players have to pin the arms to prevent a legal disposal and gain advantage from the tackle. To stop this, the rules will have to change so that this is not necessary. In our game, I can't see a way for this to work, unless it becomes a free kick if a tackle sticks, and disposal is not achieved before it sticks. This is a major alteration to the way football is played. Then the arms don't have to pinned and forcing the player to the ground ceases to be an objective.
Grundy's case exemplifies the problem. He did everything correctly, but because Brown was concussed, Grundy is under attack. This cannot continue, and the two strands of rules have to brought back into harmony, but the change will be fundamental, and our game seems set for an unlooked for revolution."

It is not good enough to have rules that encourage a particular action (pinning the arms) and then penalize players if they do it and it causes a concussion, as if the player somehow chose to concuss. The players are trying to get a free kick for illegal disposal, or to break a tackle and not give away a free kick. Intention to concuss doesn't appear anywhere in this process. Sling tackles that are intended to injure are another thing entirely. Both Dangerfield and Grundy have been ill used by the system. The cost to Dangerfield has been significantly greater, but is in principle the same.

I believe Collingwood should challenge this finding and force the AFL to face the flaws in its rules and procedures. With no finals in prospect, they can afford to do so where Geelong could not.

 

[outabounds]

A bit stiff to get 2 if you ask me, would have been comfortable with 1. I think Collingwood will challenge it for sure.

 

[Cool Kangas]

It is tough one. Another option is to consider intent

Yeah but I don't think any player would ever intentionally drive someone's head into the ground....

 

[Jobe Watson]

What is the explanation for why Grundy got more weeks than Dangerfield?

Adding to this, what is the explanation for why Grundy's was graded as High Impact whereas Danger got away with Medium Impact?

Neither player returned to the game. Unless Brown has already been ruled out for this weekend, what's the deal?

 

[Grrr]

Requote them if possible please.

The actual afl rule as i haven't seen it

Not the clause regarding rough conduct and subsequent classifications for suspension

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 (ie arms pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself;
» An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force.

So it is fairly evident the onus is on the tackler, much like any other rule like kicking in danger or high contact, designed to protect the player going for the ball.

 

[Grrr]

Yeah but I don't think any player would ever intentionally drive someone's head into the ground....

See Darren Milburn on Shane Edwards, appaulling sling tackle... Milburn played for keeps.

 

[JayJ20]

2 weeks wow

The intent was definitely not malicious. MRP has gone mad.

Why is it any different to Dangerfield's tackle?

 

[Dangerousfield]

The AFL & MRP are not making the game soft. Concussion is a very serious issue, it has impacts on players future health so everyone in the game must do everything possible to avoid concussions.

The fact a free was given does not have ANY bearing on the MRP deliberations. An umpire blows the whistle in a split second reacting to holding the ball, he has been focussed on that not on the tackle. The MRP can take as long as they need to assess what has happened from all angles.

Let's be vey clear on this, the AFL has stated repeatedly, if a tackler pins both arms rendering the tackled player unable to break his fall, the duty of care and onus is on the tackler to ensure no harm comes to the helpless tackled player. If in your tackling motion, regardless of whether it is a good tackle, you hit the players head on the ground that results in a head injury you will be penalised matches.

I'm a neutral supporter in this but I thought there was no need to sling Brown into the ground and once Grundy decided to do that, he had to ensure Brown wasn't injured.

If the four or five suspensions that have been given this year for concussing players in tackles means we have a better or different tackling technique then that's good. I don't want any player to suffer hits to head, not from any team. Every players future health must be paramount.

 

[perplexed]

The problem is the rule is reliant entirely on the outcome and not the action and that's a problem. If brown hadn't been concussed no one would have given 2 shits. That's not how rules typically work.

What a load of nonsense. That is exactly how rules work.
If I drive recklessly and come off the road the result and punishment is completely different if I hit a ditch or a pedestrian. Same thing if I stuff up at work.
Grundy laid a reckless tackle and should man up to the consequences. Why should a footballer on a very generous income be immune from the consequences of his actions? Are you?

 

[toxic]

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 (ie arms pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself;
» An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force.

So it is fairly evident the onus is on the tackler, much like any other rule like kicking in danger or high contact, designed to protect the player going for the ball.

Strange.

When you look at the Rules of the game this is what appears

TACKLING
When the ball is considered to be in an opposing team’s possession, a player usually carries out a tackle to gain possession, or prevent the other team from maintaining control of the ball. Due to the contact nature of the sport, and the no offside rule, a player can be tackled from any direction. Because of this, teams often employ a shepherding method – where a player is protected by their own team when they have the ball as they are advancing on the field.

When tackling, the person conducting the tackle must do so below the shoulders and above the knees of the person they are tackling, and that player can be thrown to the ground. The tackler is not allowed to push in the back when tackling – making it quite a skill to do so correctly.

When a player is tackled, they must dispose of the ball, by either kicking or handballing it. If they do not, and had prior opportunity to have done so, they are penalised for ‘holding the ball’ and therefore a free kick is handed to the team of the player who made the tackle.

There are a variety of types of tackles which can be carried out in AFL:

• Perfect tackle: Conducted when the opponent has had prior opportunity to dispose the ball, but makes it impossible for them to do so, such as pinning their arms which makes them not able to kick or handball it.
• Gang tackle: When a player is tackled by more than one opponent at the same time.
• Diving tackle: Tackling when off the ground.
• Broken tackle: When the player being tackled is able to break free from it.
• Slam tackle: When the player getting tackled’s head is deliberately slammed into the ground and is not always tolerated.
• Wing tackle: When an arm is pinned in a tackle.

There are a few rules when it comes to tackling – a high tackle is not allowed, which is when the tackle takes place above the shoulder, and results in a free kick for the team who’s player was illegally tackled. Spear tackles are also not tolerated, which is when a player throws themself into an opponent using their shoulder to bring them down, and is a reportable offence which can result in suspension.

The player who has the ball in the tackle has methods at hand in which to dodge an imminent tackle such as:

The Rough conduct you posted i believe comes from the tribunal criteria for detetmining suspension or non suspension.

I can find nothing in the Rules from a quick glance that deem Brodies tackle illegal in any way.

However i'll keep reading

 

[Cold Sober]

That is a fair point, and one that won't be lost on St Kilda fans (having had Kozi on our list recently). But rules are rules. I think the MRP largely base their decisions on outcomes - as opposed to intent. I don't think Grundy intended to slam Brown's head on the turf. Nevertheless, he will be suspended, and probably heftier than someone who intended to slam their opponents head on the turf but didn't succeed (Mumford is always a good example of this - although recently he has been succeeding).

Totally agree, but Kosi was an exception, he invented brain dead footballer.
Sure enough, just seen MRP results, the game is being set up for women to play with the boys. MARK my words.

 

[eddiesmith]

Because 1 tackle out of 600 was bad?

QQ moar...

Because the MRP have officially declared it doesn't matter what you do, no matter how legal or perfect your tackle, if a player gets hurt, you are gone.

 

[Cold Sober]

Players are being tipped because the tacklers first move is to grab the hand, tackler can do nothing but fall with his victim.
Bit like a black widow scenario, sorry am I allowed to use the word black.

 

[perplexed]

I suspect that most of those who claim his tackle as reasonable have never laid one themselves. Grundy had Brown cold, it was about as easy a tackle as you could ever lay, in that he had a stationary target blindsided. Grundy decided to make it hurt. He dropped to his knees so he could bring Brown down and when he had the arms pinned and his knee planted he threw Brown down as hard as he could. It was a dog act.

 

[saintal]

Terrible decision. Laughable really.

 

[SSSSSS]

Should be 1 at max but even then it is laughable.

At least Brown had the ball and arguably his force and strength trying to break the tackle contributed as much momentum as Grundy's tackle.

 

[Xtreme]

#saveGrundy

 

[RegHickeyStand]

unbfknlvbl

So long as the AFL reckons its ok to pin the arms, they cannot complain when this happens. There was no intent to hurt by Grundy and it wasn't reckless or careless according to how tackles have been done in the past - the tackle just ended up that way. Joke

 

[Adz]

Pies will appeal. And win.

 

[kingswood71]

I see what the AFL is trying to do, in trying to make tackles safer.
If he hadnt of smacked his head, but had dislocated a shoulder instead that tore the labrum, resulting in 8 weeks out, would it still be a suspend-able offence?....Or does the duty of care only apply to heads??.....
I guess that the rough conduct thing mentioned above would still apply.

 

[Adz]

Duck nails it. Ban the specky next in case someone gets a sore head.

Pies must appeal for sake our game.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Lmao he got given a free kick and then gets rubbed out. Crazy stuff.

Explain that oxymoron to new viewers of AFL and see what their facial expression is. Amateurish the way this game is run at times.

 

[Highly Evolved]

Pies will appeal. And win.

Has to be this. Incredible that the MRP served up this rubbish result to begin with.

 

[Adz]

Has to be this. Incredible that the MRP served up this rubbish result to begin with.

Nice username.