Brodie Grundy tackle on Ben Brown

[Rosso]

Trial by injury unfortunately. He misses a week as Mumford may with his tackle that drove his young Dees opponent into the ground.

The worst thing about the Grundy incident was the fact that the umpire was encouraging Grundy to play on when Brown was clearly concussed on the ground. No duty of care shown whatsoever by the umpire. AFL preaches duty of care, maybe they ought to tell their employees???

 

[firefighter]

Two weeks.

 

[frggr]

At no stage did Grundy slam him. Brown almost bounced his head back and forth which shows it wasn't Grundy who motioned the action.

In the immortal words of Rove McManus.... What the?

 

[romeohwho]

This is going to be a fun thread. Go pies.

 

[Adz]

Grundy feels shaken. The poor guy. Brown is known for his clumsiness.

 

[frggr]

Grundy feels shaken. The poor guy. Brown is known for his clumsiness.

When both your arms are pinned and there's a bloke hanging off you, you're not in control of what happens next. Clumsy or not, Grundy had the control (and therefore responsibility) for everything that happened.

He'll get two weeks off to freshen up for....oh...September holidays.

 

[Beauski]

Could you imagine if he got off, Geelong supporters would be apopletic...

...Gee I hope he gets off.

 

[Farm Boy]

Two movements, some lifting.

Far worse than Dangerfield. 3-2

Difference is Brown had the ball. When Dangerfield tackled Kruezer he didn't even have the ball.

 

[frggr]

Difference is Brown had the ball. When Dangerfield tackled Kruezer he didn't even have the ball.

That didn't even factor into the MRPs findings, oddly.

The take home is "If you tackle and pin the arms, you have a duty of care".

 

[sherb]

Not a travesty

It is what it is

Just expect consistency

From club supporters?

I explained to you why that doesn't occur.

 

[Adz]

That didn't even factor into the MRPs findings, oddly.

The take home is "If you tackle and pin the arms, you have a duty of care".

How is it duty of care if Brown elects to use his head as cushioning?

 

[Munich]

Darcy and Richo trying their best to plead his innocence.

I agree there was no malice and he seems like a nice guy but so is Patrick.

Can't ignore these double standards.

 

[frggr]

How is it duty of care if Brown elects to use his head as cushioning?

Can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or just the Collingwood supporter that all the stereotypes are built around.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Pinning the arms and driving them into the turf is a very dangerous practice and as such will probably be outlawed if is not already.

Same as slinging players onto their head while having their arms pinned.

For me that is not part of football.

 

[Pumpernickel]

Could you imagine if he got off, Geelong supporters would be apopletic...

...Gee I hope he gets off.

Was thinking exactly the same thing but I had too look up what apopletic means.

......................

Yep fair to say I'll be apopletic.

 

[Altum Volantes]

The grounds are too firm which results in more concussions from tackles. The drainage of these grounds removes the soft layer in the soil that behaves a bit like carpet underlay or that stuff at play grounds which prevents concussion.

I say we start playing the game on concrete - SORT THE MEN FROM THE BOYS!

 

[Adz]

Can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or just the Collingwood supporter that all the stereotypes are built around.

Can't tell if you're being serious in your predictions or just bitter about Danger?

 

[firefighter]

Difference is Brown had the ball. When Dangerfield tackled Kruezer he didn't even have the ball.

I don't get this at all. Are we discussing whether it should have been a free kick or not? Crazy shit.

 

[Skeppersap]

With the AFL constantly trying to speed up the game, the surfaces the games are play on (especially Etihid Stadium) are way too hard, causing the concussions. It's not the tackles that are the issue here.

Correct! It is amazing how the tackler, who is involved in an intense contact sport, is supposed to have a 'duty of care' in the split second that a perfectly legitimate tackle goes wrong, even when it is often contributed to by the player being tackled. Yet the AFL, who are a multi billion dollar organisation, apparently dont have a duty of care to provide a playing surface that does not result in players being concussed due to tackling, a core skill in our game??????

There really is something wrong with all of this. I hope the AFL get sued because of the Etihad surface!

 

[Boogers]

Two movements, some lifting.

Far worse than Dangerfield. 3-2

The footage from behind Grundy shows just how savage it was. He should get 3 or 4 weeks, but he'll probably get 2.
I don't see how it isn't as bad as moderate punch in the face

 

[frggr]

Can't tell if you're being serious in your predictions or just bitter about Danger?

Best of luck for 2018. Hope the new coach works out well

 

[HairyO]

This duty of care BS can be applied to anything they do in footy, it's rubbish.

Actually its only applied to a very few things. Bumps when you have other options (which is nearly always) and tackles when you pin both arms, spear, drive, lift, slam.

Other than that, its pretty much fair game.

On any weekend there are upwards of 700 tackles laid. We really only see dangerous ones every couple of weeks.

 

[frggr]

We really only see dangerous ones every couple of weeks.

Or every game Mumford plays

 

[Skeppersap]

This needs to stop!!

A serious injury waiting to happen with these tackles.

Anyone that thinks it's the perfect tackle is totally ignorant to the fact that these tackles are regarded as dangerous and players will be suspended.




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Surely there is more of an onus on the AFL to provide a safe playing surface??

 

[Adz]

How can "duty of care" be factored into a random event such as a tackle where the result is unpredictable. Pies get the lawyers ready.