Brodie Grundy's tackle- what's the verdict?

[loki04]

I'd be challenging depending on the recommendation of the Roos medical team.

That is being part of the problem not the cure.

Grading suspensions regardless of intent or malicious actions is plainly ridiculous. The outcome should not be the determining factor only the intent.

Grundy laid a great tackle Brown with his actions to break said tackle played a part in how it played out. Incidents happen.
The issue is the new rule bought in, unfortunately it leaves us holding our dicks because they changed how they want tackles to be.

They want players to hug standing not lay a hard tackle.

 

[loki04]

It makes no sense that this is a longer suspension than Dangerfields. None.

Been a much greater reaction and he was stretchered off the AFL don't like the look of it.

 

[loki04]

The ashes may be reincarnated as a new version of Australian Rules.

Or an old version, the real version.

I can almost garauntee the harder game with real but fair tackles and bumps would become the more popular sport.

This bastardisation is looking closer to the Gealic hybrid then real AR we all played and survived through...

 

[loki04]

Btw they showed 5 almost identical tackles to Geundys over the weekend with arms pinned turned in tackle and slammed on talking footy.
None of them got reported because none of them were injured in identical circumstances barring ground they played on.
100 percent image and outcome rulings.

 

[loki04]

The forward motion in the tackle was caused by Brown, not Grundy, when he tries to kick it and loses balance. Is Grundy then supposed to hold a 100kg man upright?

Not only that it was a run down tackle Brown started moving fwd when tackled trying to break it then last second kick it.

 

[TTRRAAVVIISS]

No idea what the hysteria is about with Grundy. That type of tackle has been outlawed for years. It would seem some of you might want to read the the rule book.

http://m.afl.com.au/video/2016-03-17/2017-laws-of-the-game-rough-conduct-dangerous-tackles

As for some conspiracy about the outcome, I noticed Mark Stevens got called out, you may wanna read the AFL Tribunal guidelines on page 6. Which I'd say, being a professional at his job, Stevens has actually read. He understands how the tribunal makes an assessment on an incident.

Example, if misconduct is careless, high impact and the contact to the opponent is high then it automatically equates to 3 weeks suspension. With a good record it's down to 2.

http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Coach_AFL/2017_Tribunal_Guidelines.pdf

I didn't see any of you complaining when Simon Tunbridge got 3 down to 2 weeks for doing the same thing to Kennedy in the gws v wce game in round 21 last year.

You guys can whinge all ya like, but the AFL got it right. What Grundy did has been classified as rough conduct for years. And ofcourse injury comes into it. It always does. The damage you do to an opponent should always be taken into account in any suspension.

Can we stop playing the victim now and accept reality ffs. If Brown did the same tackle to Grundy you'd be complaining that he didn't get the full 3 weeks.

 

[Adeo66]

If this was Buddy not Brody and it happened a week before the finals I would like to see the verdict.

Good point, I bet my life on it, no case to answer, he is a thug yet week after week nothing gets said or done


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[loki04]

'Slam tackle: When the player getting tackled’s head is deliberately slammed into the ground and is not always tolerated.'.. So in certain cases it is tolerated ??
And the one I just don't get.. '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.'... Isn't that an errr bump ? Of course the Rugby watchers amongst us would know that a real Spear tackle is lifting the guy into the air and driving him head first into the ground...

Heeney did a classic rugby spear tackle a week or so ago. Beautiful to watch but potentially dangerous for the victim.

He had a free paid against him but no report laid because no injury.

 

[Adeo66]

No idea what the hysteria is about with Grundy. That type of tackle has been outlawed for years. It would seem some of you might want to read the the rule book.

http://m.afl.com.au/video/2016-03-17/2017-laws-of-the-game-rough-conduct-dangerous-tackles

As for some conspiracy about the outcome, I noticed Mark Stevens got called out, you may wanna read the AFL Tribunal guidelines on page 6. Which I'd say, being a professional at his job, Stevens has actually read. He understands how the tribunal makes an assessment on an incident.

Example, if misconduct is careless, high impact and the contact to the opponent is high then it automatically equates to 3 weeks suspension. With a good record it's down to 2.

http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Coach_AFL/2017_Tribunal_Guidelines.pdf

I didn't see any of you complaining when Simon Tunbridge got 3 down to 2 weeks for doing the same thing to Kennedy in the gws v wce game in round 21 last year.

You guys can whinge all ya like, but the AFL got it right. What Grundy did has been classified as rough conduct for years. And ofcourse injury comes into it. It always does. The damage you do to an opponent should always be taken into account in any suspension.

Can we stop playing the victim now and accept reality ffs. If Brown did the same tackle to Grundy you'd be complaining that he didn't get the full 3 weeks.

Not sure what your on or looked at, it was as Bucks said, the perfect tackle, ball comes out, free kick, as for the head, the surface has a huge part to play in it, it was not a sling tackle, Brown started to fall over Grundy goes with him, it was not dangerous or malicious, trial by media and clowns like you are the real problem


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[loki04]

No idea what the hysteria is about with Grundy. That type of tackle has been outlawed for years. It would seem some of you might want to read the the rule book.

http://m.afl.com.au/video/2016-03-17/2017-laws-of-the-game-rough-conduct-dangerous-tackles

As for some conspiracy about the outcome, I noticed Mark Stevens got called out, you may wanna read the AFL Tribunal guidelines on page 6. Which I'd say, being a professional at his job, Stevens has actually read. He understands how the tribunal makes an assessment on an incident.

Example, if misconduct is careless, high impact and the contact to the opponent is high then it automatically equates to 3 weeks suspension. With a good record it's down to 2.

http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Coach_AFL/2017_Tribunal_Guidelines.pdf

I didn't see any of you complaining when Simon Tunbridge got 3 down to 2 weeks for doing the same thing to Kennedy in the gws v wce game in round 21 last year.

You guys can whinge all ya like, but the AFL got it right. What Grundy did has been classified as rough conduct for years. And ofcourse injury comes into it. It always does. The damage you do to an opponent should always be taken into account in any suspension.

Can we stop playing the victim now and accept reality ffs. If Brown did the same tackle to Grundy you'd be complaining that he didn't get the full 3 weeks.

There were 5 tackles shown on TF tonight identical to Grundys none of them were reported because none got knocked out.
We dont even know if he was ws concussed not every KO has a concussion follow it.

It was a great tackle despite the stealth law changes to rules around it.

 

[loki04]

That is a theatrical act.
No comparison to actual sporting contests.

Hes just showing the Zeibell tackle on Treloar.

 

[Adeo66]

Glass half full? Look at it this way. Grundy avoided suspension the other 50 times he tackled the same way over the past few years. He might have only played a handful of games by now. Thank goodness the AFL dishes out suspensions based on the outcome of incidents, rather than intent. I think they're just great. Especially Gillon. He's fantastic. I love it when he puts on his monotone drawl when he has to respond to a difficult question. It's almost hypnotic. And I love his little brother who plays gatekeeper on 7 & sen. A really honourable and upstanding family, the McLaughlans. I wonder if they could administrate my local netball comp.

Mark Stevens. Spot on. 2 weeks. In no time flat, he pops up at the final siren and nails it. A bit too sure for my liking. I find it suspicious when people predict the future that quickly. Looked like the fix was in. Reminded me of bin laden scrolling across my tv only minutes after the towers went down. Yes, I'm comparing Stevens to Bin Laden. A lot in common. Both terrorists. Both live in caves. Both friends with Murdoch.

A midfield now without Grundy, Greenwood, Wells, Varcoe & Pendlebury. A damn shame. Port have hit the wall. Cats depleted. Dees we can compete with. Could have been a fine end to the season. It might have even led to finals. Coulda woulda shoulda. Such is 2017. Good riddance. I look forward to watching players trying to keep their opponents upright during tackles. Should be the best comedy on TV. Better than the 3 stooges. Speaking of stooges, I want to commend Richo & Darc for letting Brodie watch the footage of himself concussing another player. Did him a world of good I'm sure.

Only 1878 more days of AFL on 7.

Good to see some truths being told here, love it, lol


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[loki04]

Firstly, like everyone I am disgusted that Grundy has been suspended for tackling correctly. It is the outcome and future concussion lawsuits that drive the AFLs agenda. On a different tact, for quite a few years now all clubs have hired rugby coaches et el to master the art of tackling. I was never taught to pin the arms when I played - we went for the hips. Now in junior football all players are taught to pin both arms for a perfect tackle. The clubs have created this with the way they have changed tackling and pressure acts. Its not surprising injuries will occur to an unprotected player. This new form of tackling emphasis was always a danger. The AFL changes rules that the clubs stretch to the limits. This way of tackling IS NOT how football was played. There is just going to be a reset here back to the old way of tackling and it will cause less congestion. Pinning the arms results in free kicks but more than often stoppages. A stoppage is structurally what every club loves. If players stop pinning both arms, the ball will be disposed of and a more free flowing game will return. Just my opinion, let's spend more time teaching field and goal kicking and less time on rugby tackles!

Tackle me around the hips and ill set up more play with handballs then you can dream. Grundy does that and Brown gets the ball away.

There is a reason people under 35 have been taught to pin an arm or 2. It's to stop the release and pin the ball in.

Players will take the hit and just release a team mate.

 

[TTRRAAVVIISS]

There were 5 tackles shown on TF tonight identical to Grundys none of them were reported because none got knocked out.
We dont even know if he was ws concussed not every KO has a concussion follow it.

It was a great tackle despite the stealth law changes to rules around it.

Oh so because they got it wrong in the other 5 tackles Grundy should get away with it. FFS grow up.

Stealth law changes? What world are u living in? Stop playing the victim. It's pathetic. It's been labelled rough conduct for years, and yes, the impact of the act (i.e. Was it low level, medium level or high level impact?)!is taken into consideration for all acts that come before the tribunal.

A player getting slung into the ground and ko'd is high impact any way you slice it.

 

[TTRRAAVVIISS]

Not sure what your on or looked at, it was as Bucks said, the perfect tackle, ball comes out, free kick, as for the head, the surface has a huge part to play in it, it was not a sling tackle, Brown started to fall over Grundy goes with him, it was not dangerous or malicious, trial by media and clowns like you are the real problem


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Haha as Bucks said. I'd suggest Bucks analysis of the Grundy tackle is clearly like his coaching, absolute shit.

It's obvious he's sticking up for Grundy cause they are desperate to resign him. Especially since he botched the attempt to get Sam Reid by dropping Ben Reid. Hence the stupid tweet to SEN complaining about the ox. You can see how calculated it all is when you realise how desperate we are to lock in Grundy long term.

There was nothing perfect about the tackle under the current rules. I suggest you and Buckley go read a rule book to understand that Grundy's style of tackling Brown is banned and has been for a long time

 

[loki04]

Oh so because they got it wrong in the other 5 tackles Grundy should get away with it. FFS grow up.

Stealth law changes? What world are u living in? Stop playing the victim. It's pathetic. It's been labelled rough conduct for years, and yes, the impact of the act (i.e. Was it low level, medium level or high level impact?)!is taken into consideration for all acts that come before the tribunal.

A player getting slung into the ground and ko'd is high impact any way you slice it.

Except for dangerfield his sling which neither are true sling tackles only got medium impact and the other 5 not even reportable...

Your a tool these changes were further tweaked this year. To the letter of the new rule he gets done for dumping his opponent not face first because it was a body slam no sling, but with arms pinned stopping brown from protecting against the wiplash that saw his head hit. That little doozy was what im talking about re stealth to the greater public knowledge.

And outcome should play NO part in incidental contact which is what Browns was, as it shouldnt even be considered unless its a deliberate act or with malice ie intent to harm.

Grundys fits neither. We are arguing against the new rules as much as the suspension. We dont want this horse shit to remain.

 

[Adeo66]

I do agree.

Everyone lost their mind about the changes to the bump and how it will destroy the game. It didnt destroy it. Just changed it. I think we are watching the same thing happen again.

Players and teams adapt and change to suit and they always will. But while this happens we watch moments like this go overpunished for things that technically are not against the rules.

That is why i think you should appeal (also you have literally nothing to lose. Worst case you have grundy at 100% after a full preseason)

For the record. I thought 1 week when i saw it live.

Yes 1 week, Danger did a sling tackle which is what they trying to outlaw, yet there is no sling in this, yet 3 down to 2, it's just pure madness from a bunch of tools that have got it wrong more often than right this year, I'm sure only one brain works in the place out of 3, who knows what crap they will dish up next week


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[loki04]

Haha as Bucks said. I'd suggest Bucks analysis of the Grundy tackle is clearly like his coaching, absolute shit.

It's obvious he's sticking up for Grundy cause they are desperate to resign him. Especially since he botched the attempt to get Sam Reid by dropping Ben Reid. Hence the stupid tweet to SEN complaining about the ox. You can see how calculated it all is when you realise how desperate we are to lock in Grundy long term.

There was nothing perfect about the tackle under the current rules. I suggest you and Buckley go read a rule book to understand that Grundy's style of tackling Brown is banned and has been for a long time

But only if injury occurs if not nothing to see here. Like the other tackles that were identical.

The one who needs to grow up is you, hopefully one day your balls will drop and you will see things clearer.

The rules need to be reverted and MRP system needs an overhaul. Outcome based adjudications are the height of stupidity in our contact SPORT.

 

[TTRRAAVVIISS]

Except for dangerfield his sling which neither are true sling tackles only got mefium impact.

Your a tool these changes were further tweaked this year. To the letter of the new rule he gets done for dumping his opponent not face first because it was a boxy slam, but with arms pinned stopping brown from protecting against the wiplash that saw his head hit. That little doozy was what im talking about re stealth to the greater public knowledge.

And outcome should play NO part in incidental contact which is what Browns was, as it shouldnt even be considered unless its a deliberate act or with malice ie intent to harm.

Grundys fits neither. We are arguing against the new rules as much as the suspension. We dont want this horse shit to remain.

Bit only if injury occurs if not nothing to see here. Like the other tackles that were identical.

The one who needs to grow up is you, hopefully one day your balls will drop and you will see things clearer.

The rules need to be reverted and MRP system needs an overhaul. Outcome based adjudications are the height of stupidity in our contact SPORT.

Haha my balls drop. Bravo. Your on fire baby keep it coming. Come back to me when you can get past illiteracy and read a ****ing rule book. Again, for the simpletons. That video I posted for rough conduct was published in 2016.

You didn't complain when an eagles player got the same suspension for smashing a gws player the same way Grundy did Brown.

The MRP is a great Tribunal system. It should remain. You are actually saying the impact to the player hurt should count for nothing? I say bull shit. The impact of your actions whether negligent, careless or intentional should always be considered when deciding a penalty. You take the risk to sling, you suffer the consequences if there is damage.

I could go into masses of legal theory on why the impact of misconduct should always be considered by a tribunal when deciding punishment. But then I'm pretty sure all those fancy words would just confuse your child like mind.

Stop carrying on like a baby and look at it objectively for once.

 

[loki04]

Haha my balls drop. Bravo. Your on fire baby keep it coming. Come back to me when you can get past illiteracy and read a ******* rule book. Again, for the simpletons. That video I posted for rough conduct was published in 2016.

You didn't complain when an eagles player got the same suspension for smashing a gws player the same way Grundy did Brown.

The MRP is a great Tribunal system. It should remain. You are actually saying the impact to the player hurt should count for nothing? I say bull shit. The impact of your actions whether negligent, careless or intental should always be considered when deciding a penalty. You take the risk to sling, you suffer the consequences if there is damage.

I could go into masses of legal theory on why the impact of misconduct should always be considered by a tribunal when deciding punishment. But then I'm pretty sure all those fancy words would just confuse your child like mind.

Stop carrying on like a baby and look at it objectively for once.

I have been objective and to the letter of their rules it comes under scrutiny which i said earlier arms pinned gives them no where to go.

It is the changing of said rules last year that is the issue that we are in arms about and the instance on outcome based suspensions in a contact game with so mamy variables.

Law outside sport is completey separate from how we should run our code.

Also by law a burglar can break into my property then fall in a hole I dug and sue me for damages.

Great outcome based result bit like Grundy really.

Thanks for playing idiot, much like the bloke who put this system into play no idea or feel for the game.

Impact of misconduct should be considered but only for deliberate violence or malicious actions.

Grundy fits neither and for over 125 years his tackle was superbly executed.

 

[barrackers]

No idea what the hysteria is about with Grundy. That type of tackle has been outlawed for years. It would seem some of you might want to read the the rule book.

http://m.afl.com.au/video/2016-03-17/2017-laws-of-the-game-rough-conduct-dangerous-tackles

As for some conspiracy about the outcome, I noticed Mark Stevens got called out, you may wanna read the AFL Tribunal guidelines on page 6. Which I'd say, being a professional at his job, Stevens has actually read. He understands how the tribunal makes an assessment on an incident.

Example, if misconduct is careless, high impact and the contact to the opponent is high then it automatically equates to 3 weeks suspension. With a good record it's down to 2.

http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Coach_AFL/2017_Tribunal_Guidelines.pdf

I didn't see any of you complaining when Simon Tunbridge got 3 down to 2 weeks for doing the same thing to Kennedy in the gws v wce game in round 21 last year.

You guys can whinge all ya like, but the AFL got it right. What Grundy did has been classified as rough conduct for years. And ofcourse injury comes into it. It always does. The damage you do to an opponent should always be taken into account in any suspension.

Can we stop playing the victim now and accept reality ffs. If Brown did the same tackle to Grundy you'd be complaining that he didn't get the full 3 weeks.

I called Stevens out because there's no way Grundy should have gotten more than Dangerfield. Stevens immediately went hard declaring 2 weeks for Grundy saying it was a similar action to McCarthy after the game; a position he quickly backtracked from.


He also had this to say about Dangerfield, so clearly he doesn't understand where the dice will land like the rest of us or whether action or injury/force is the overriding factor.

 

[jmac70]

No idea what the hysteria is about with Grundy. That type of tackle has been outlawed for years. It would seem some of you might want to read the the rule book.

http://m.afl.com.au/video/2016-03-17/2017-laws-of-the-game-rough-conduct-dangerous-tackles

As for some conspiracy about the outcome, I noticed Mark Stevens got called out, you may wanna read the AFL Tribunal guidelines on page 6. Which I'd say, being a professional at his job, Stevens has actually read. He understands how the tribunal makes an assessment on an incident.

Example, if misconduct is careless, high impact and the contact to the opponent is high then it automatically equates to 3 weeks suspension. With a good record it's down to 2.

http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Coach_AFL/2017_Tribunal_Guidelines.pdf

I didn't see any of you complaining when Simon Tunbridge got 3 down to 2 weeks for doing the same thing to Kennedy in the gws v wce game in round 21 last year.

You guys can whinge all ya like, but the AFL got it right. What Grundy did has been classified as rough conduct for years. And ofcourse injury comes into it. It always does. The damage you do to an opponent should always be taken into account in any suspension.

Can we stop playing the victim now and accept reality ffs. If Brown did the same tackle to Grundy you'd be complaining that he didn't get the full 3 weeks.

I expect the officiating umpire has read the rules. He paid a free kick to Grundy.

 

[Scodog10]

That is being part of the problem not the cure.

Grading suspensions regardless of intent or malicious actions is plainly ridiculous. The outcome should not be the determining factor only the intent.

Grundy laid a great tackle Brown with his actions to break said tackle played a part in how it played out. Incidents happen.
The issue is the new rule bought in, unfortunately it leaves us holding our dicks because they changed how they want tackles to be.

They want players to hug standing not lay a hard tackle.

We're on very different pages with this discussion and despite your views being extremely misguided, IMO, they are yours to express. Therefore I have to emphasise that my post had nothing to do with the overall philosophy. It's about practicality.

I think labelling it ridiculous is a pretty OTT statement because it's a better system than anything we've had previously. The problem is it isn't applied with any great consistency because we don't use precedence. Whether you or I think it's ridiculous or not is irrelevant anyway because you have to work within the rules.

Given the MRP adjudicate on both intent and contact what other option do we have when challenging than on the basis of severity of contact? The only grading below careless AFAIK is accidental and it wasn't an accident.

The more I ponder it the more I wonder if having the contact downgraded will even matter? Like it or lump it the decision to suspend Grundy was absolutely correct. The severity maybe not so let's see what we can do around that. It's how the club would be approaching their decision making.

 

[MagpieJoel]

Care to give us a video of this?
Because I haven't seen a player drive his head into the turf to gain a free/suspension of an opponent.
Maybe I don't watch enough footy, but that's an outlandish statement and needs to be backed up by video.

Players regularly fall forward looking for in the back frees.

 

[MagpieJoel]

We won't, or shouldn't challenge.
This is the way things are now.
Up to the coaches and players to adjust. And they will.

No. We should challenge and hold them accountable for their bullshit decisions.