Brodie Grundy tackle on Ben Brown

[Highly Evolved]

Nice username.

Classic album.

 

[demondavey]

Cant understand why he got rubbed out? Absolutely perfect tackle, great method, nothing malicious in it, no intention to hurt Brown.

Unfortunately Brown was concussed due to this tackle, but the outcome can't be the catalyst for the punishment if the method is appropriate. Which it was.

If Grundy didn't grab the arms of Brown, then he can clear the football. When you're taught to tackle you are taught to pin the arms. Makes sense.

Collingwood are now being punished because Grundy executed a textbook tackle and unfortunately the result was a nasty head knock, but not due to the tackle being illegal.

How can the MRP actually base a decision on the outcome? The methodology of the action needs to be ruled upon.

It's an absolute travesty. Grundy did nothing wrong.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Hypothetically, 28 minute mark of a Preliminary Final, Pies up by 3 points, ball is in the North goal square, Grundy lays the same tackle.........Free kick to Grundy, Collingwood make the gf, and Grundy misses.

I don't get it.

 

[HairyO]

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.

The MRP didnt decide that. The rule says if you pin both arms you are responsible if you injure the player.

Its a pretty bloody simple thing yet so many refuse to acknowledge it.

Plenty of players have been hurt in tackles which havent seen anyone get pinged.

 

[BigRedRoo]

Keep dreaming

Who's dreaming now, nailed it, three weeks down to two!

BigRed

 

[Frank Gallagher]

Got rubbed out because he plays for Collingwood.

 

[HairyO]

Who's dreaming now, nailed it, three weeks down to two!

BigRed

I picked every penalty this week. Not sure if my guesses were lucky or the MRP actually followed the rules.

But noone from Sydney and no Dusty so it was a pretty easy one to predict.

 

[Admiral Byng]

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.

Fine. Make it a free kick to bring a player to ground face-first with arms pinned.

Or players could instead master the standing up tackle with arms pinned if they get rewarded for it. They don't have to bing the player to ground for an effective tackle.

 

[Theo X]

Fits the AFL's description of a dangerous tackle.

 

[BPikkers]

Right, so the perfect tackle by Bucks defenition rederns the opposition player to be knocked unconscious.

No different to your coach defending Thomas

 

[Anja_Nees]

Given Collingwood's history this thread could have had an entirely different meaning.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Got rubbed out because he plays for Collingwood.

Oh, I thought it was for a dangerous tackle. If this is the reason it's completely fair and I approve of further suspensions.

 

[Dadda Dave]

Done nothing wrong except have both arms pinned and drove Browns head into the ground .. Was 2 weeks down to 1 every day of the week ..

 

[Hird Is Scum]

When you're taught to tackle you are taught to pin the arms.
Collingwood are now being punished because Grundy executed a textbook tackle and unfortunately the result was a nasty head knock, but not due to the tackle being illegal.

And 20 years ago I was taught if a guy had his head over the ball or was running back with the flight you put your shoulder into his head as hard as you could, but times change and just because you were taught something didn't mean that's always gonna be the way to do it legally in the future. The laws clearly state if you pin both arms and drive someone's head into the ground you'll be in trouble with the MRP, it's really not that difficult to understand, that is no longer a legal tackle.

 

[Occidental]

Precedents now firmly set for everyone. Look out in the finals for when ferocity goes up a notch.
How can anyone ever be let off in anything similar? Imagine Geelong's fury over Dangerfield missing and now ours over Grundy, if anyone else now gets off.
The AFL have stuffed it - imagine Dusty, Bont, Buddy etc missing a Granny over this sort of tackle in a Prelim!

 

[Dadda Dave]

Precedents now firmly set for everyone. Look out in the finals for when ferocity goes up a notch.
How can anyone ever be let off in anything similar? Imagine Geelong's fury over Dangerfield missing and now ours over Grundy, if anyone else now gets off.
The AFL have stuffed it - imagine Dusty, Buddy etc missing a Granny over this sort of tackle in a Prelim!

If you pin both arms don't drive their heads into the ground ..simples..

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

No different to your coach defending Thomas

Your IQ challenged right.
Have a good evening sir.

 

[BPikkers]

Your IQ challenged right.
Have a good evening sir.

I'm not so sure you are in a position to comment on a person's IQ given the challenge you seem to face with spelling and structure.

 

[demondavey]

And 20 years ago I was taught if a guy had his head over the ball or was running back with the flight you put your shoulder into his head as hard as you could, but times change and just because you were taught something didn't mean that's always gonna be the way to do it legally in the future. The laws clearly state if you pin both arms and drive someone's head into the ground you'll be in trouble with the MRP, it's really not that difficult to understand, that is no longer a legal tackle.

He didn't drive his head into the ground. He tackled him properly with legitimate force. Watch the replay.

I don't know who taught you how to play football 20 years ago but that's the definition of being a coward in anyone's book.

 

[demondavey]

If you pin both arms don't drive their heads into the ground ..simples..

He didn't drive his head into the ground. He pinned the arms and took him down. The head knock was an unfortunate incident. Nothing more.

 

[Hawkie_McHawkHawk]

He didn't drive his head into the ground. He tackled him properly with legitimate force. Watch the replay.

I don't know who taught you how to play football 20 years ago but that's the definition of being a coward in anyone's book.

I wouldn't even bother with him. With a name like 'hird is scum' he just comes off as a bitter old drunk banging on about how he played footy (badly) twenty years back

 

[demondavey]

Precedents now firmly set for everyone. Look out in the finals for when ferocity goes up a notch.
How can anyone ever be let off in anything similar? Imagine Geelong's fury over Dangerfield missing and now ours over Grundy, if anyone else now gets off.
The AFL have stuffed it - imagine Dusty, Bont, Buddy etc missing a Granny over this sort of tackle in a Prelim!

They've stuffed it. And now it's not even about someone getting concussed, you have to punish the tackler if the tackle represents what Grundy did.

 

[Occidental]

Precedents now firmly set for everyone. Look out in the finals for when ferocity goes up a notch.
How can anyone ever be let off in anything similar? Imagine Geelong's fury over Dangerfield missing and now ours over Grundy, if anyone else now gets off.
Treloar could have laid down following that Ziebell tackle. Had he gone so, Ziebell may well be rubbed out.
The AFL have stuffed it - imagine Dusty, Buddy etc missing a Granny over this sort of tackle in a Prelim!

If you pin both arms don't drive their heads into the ground ..simples..

Simples??
A 100kg athlete is running full tilt past you and your job is to prevent them disposing of the ball they are carrying. So you have 0.2 of a second to react and you grab them, and you grab them as hard as you can.
Yeah...it's real simples when their momentum meets your tackle.

 

[GiantOrange]

Cant understand why he got rubbed out? Absolutely perfect tackle, great method, nothing malicious in it, no intention to hurt Brown.

Unfortunately Brown was concussed due to this tackle, but the outcome can't be the catalyst for the punishment if the method is appropriate. Which it was.

If Grundy didn't grab the arms of Brown, then he can clear the football. When you're taught to tackle you are taught to pin the arms. Makes sense.

Collingwood are now being punished because Grundy executed a textbook tackle and unfortunately the result was a nasty head knock, but not due to the tackle being illegal.

How can the MRP actually base a decision on the outcome? The methodology of the action needs to be ruled upon.

It's an absolute travesty. Grundy did nothing wrong.

AFL equalisation

 

[demondavey]

Simples??
A 100kg athlete is running full tilt past you and your job is to prevent them disposing of the ball they are carrying. So you have 0.2 of a second to react and you grab them, and you grab them as hard as you can.
Yeah...it's real simples when their momentum meets your tackle.

Exactly. And if you actually look at the tackle you'll see that his action was perfect.