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

[Go Pies!!!!!]

We should challenge the Careless part of the charge, after listening to MMM this morning it seems we are not going to challenge though.

 

[MagpieJoel]

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.

You miss the point. The suspensions are being entirely made on outcome. There are numerous examples when a similar tackle has occurred, but no injury, so no suspension. Does that mean the other tackles weren't dangerous?

 

[Anzacday]

Please debate the subject matter without the personal insults.

 

[MagpieJoel]

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.

If that doesn't demonstrate bias in the media, I don't know what does.

 

[barrackers]

You miss the point. The suspensions are being entirely made on outcome. There are numerous examples when a similar tackle has occurred, but no injury, so no suspension. Does that mean the other tackles weren't dangerous?

That's my gripe too, they're not banning tackles that pin the arms and bring the opponent to ground only the ones that cause injury. If they don't want that type of tackle in the game all other similar tackles should be reviewed and then either written off as insufficient force or graded as low impact on a case by case basis.

It's also interesting how debate has shifted from a sling tackle to one that pins the arms.

 

[DaVe86]

For me, there's no doubt it was a suspendable offence. I'm pretty clear that if a player pins the arms, they have the onus to ensure that they do not slam a players head into the ground as they bring them down.

The issue I think is the length of the penalty. I didn't think there was a heck of a lot wrong with the tackle, apart from the way he landed him. Even the umpire in live play saw it as holding the ball.

I'm very much in the camp that it should be challenged. Not because I think the decision was inherently wrong, but I just think this needs to be played out before an independent judiciary, so we get a clear analysis and both sides of the argument.

The problem with the MRP system is that most players just accept a decision simply because they don't want to run the risk of copping a higher penalty. It means the MRP's decisions are very rarely challenged, and therefore we don't really get clarity about the rules. I think the tribunal process is very important because we get a real analysis.

Also, the outcome of the act is always going to be factored in. As a player, you just need to be mindful of the potential consequences of an action. Sometimes you'll get lucky, but you have to pay the price if you don't.

I really don't see this tackle as any worse than Dangerfields, which is why I'm disappointed with a 3 week sanction dropped to 2.

I think we are perfectly placed to challenge, as I wouldn't be brining Grundy back for 1 game anyway. If he is rubbed out now, he may as well call an early end to the season and start his pre-season early. So we have nothing to lose by having the appeal. It's for the good of the game as well.

 

[Adz]

If the club don't appeal then I am done!

 

[DaVe86]

That's my gripe too, they're not banning tackles that pin the arms and bring the opponent to ground only the ones that cause injury. If they don't want that type of tackle in the game all other similar tackles should be reviewed and then either written off as insufficient force or graded as low impact on a case by case basis.

It's also interesting how debate has shifted from a sling tackle to one that pins the arms.

I don't have an issue with using the outcome as a means of assessing the force. Our legal system works in a very similar way. You take a person as you find them. If I punch 2 people equally hard, but 1 lives and 1 dies...I don't get charged with murder twice. So the outcome largely determines the sanction.

But I definitely share your view that the way the game is officiated needs tweaking.

The fact that Brodie Grundy received the free kick is a clear indicator that umpires are loathe to pay a free kick for a dangerous tackle.

I think the bigger issue though is the lack of holding the ball decisions. Umpires are seemingly allowing the play to keep going, even though a player has been clearly dispossessed or tackled in a full 360.

This is why players are following through with the tackle. Because it takes so long for the umpire to pay the decision. The umps need to pay quick decisions, and any incorrect disposal needs to be called straight away.

And if we are also going to get serious, the AFL needs to assess the Etihad turf immediately. By recollection, the Dangerfield and Koby Stevens incidents happened at Etihad as well. Surely this isn't a co-incidence.

 

[DWil6]

It is unfortunate. There are so many variables. Grundy does that exact same tackle on another player who doesn't get knocked out easily (as you see in boxing / MMA regularly), or on another ground which is potentially more giving, he's got no case to answer.

 

[76woodenspooners]

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

OK, let's take a closer look at that ...

"Players when tackling should not lift, sling, rotate or drive their opponents into the ground with excessive force, resulting in their head position being left in a vulnerable position. Doing so will be deemed to be rough conduct and will result in a free kick and possibly a report."

Let's start with the last bit "Doing so will be deemed to be rough conduct and will result on a free kick and possibly a report"

What did the umpire see?



The umpire was 20 meters away in a side on position. This camera angle below is pretty much what the umpire would have seen ...



... so the umpire would have gotten a pretty good view of it. The umpire signalled a free kick to Grundy for a holding the ball call, so the umpire did recognise that the "Players when tackling" condition was taking place, however didn't deem it to be "lift, sling, rotate or drive their opponents into the ground with excessive force, resulting in their head position being left in a vulnerable position".

Picking apart the start of the rule ...

"... should not lift ...". We can eliminate 'lift'
"... sling ..." We can eliminate 'sling'

"... rotate or drive ..." Let's take a closer look at those. Have a look at the slow motion replay from 35 seconds here ...



... Brown is clearly trying to take evasive action to stand up in the tackle. It's Brown's own actions that contribute to him being 'rotated' and 'driven'.

What would have happened if Brown had dropped his knees instead? (As players often do in these circumstances). Would Brown have knocked his head? Possibly not.

It's also worth considering that the hard surface of Etihad would contributed to the concussion outcome - Brown's head is clearly seen to bounce off the deck.

Finally, let's consider the video examples that showcase what not to do ....

- the first video example is of a player who was tackled in the air when taking possession of the ball, so the tackled player was particularly prone ... that's different to the Grundy tackle.

- the second video example of McVeigh being tossed backwards onto his head is a very different action to what Grundy did.

- the third video example of the Rioli tackle is that he lifted the player's legs up and tossed him, again, a very different tackle.

- in the last video Kennedy is being slung, again, a very different action to what Grundy did.

In none of the four video examples did the player being tackled have any prior opportunity. And whilst the rule doesn't make any distinction about prior opportunity, not having prior opportunity means that the tackled player is more likely to be in a prone position (as they clearly are in these examples)

In none of the four examples did the person being tackled make any attempt to evade the tackle.

In none of the four examples did the actions of the person being tackled (apart from being in the wrong place and taking possession of the ball at the wrong time) contribute to their head hitting the deck. By contrast in Grundy's tackle, Brown is clearly standing up in the tackle and trying to evade it.

 

[76woodenspooners]

The problem with the MRP system is that most players just accept a decision simply because they don't want to run the risk of copping a higher penalty.

Wouldn't have thought the players would get much say at all about whether these MRP decisions get challenged or not - I'd always assumed that the clubs would be the ones making the decisions?

But that's just me being a bit pedantic, 100% agree with everything you're saying here.

I'd reckon the club's QC (IIRC the club does get QC's involved in this stuff? ) would be asking Grundy ...

(1) Did Brown's actions in the tackle affect the outcome?

(2) Did you use excessive force? Could you have achieved the same 'holding the ball' outcome, with same probability of success with less force?

If the answers were "yes" and "no" to these questions then a check of the video evidence would be needed to corroborate Grundy's version of events, and then it'd be off to the tribunal.

 

[Black_White]

Umpires today rarely report on field as they know the MRP will review the incident anyway.
No matter what the ump saw, it was a split second decision for him to make and knowing there is a back up system in place then he would be more than comfortable with what he did.
Your first screenshot also shows another umpire who would have had an even better view of the actual collision with the ground. He did nothing also.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Umpires today rarely report on field as they know the MRP will review the incident anyway.

That may be the case ...

... but an umpire would never award a free kick to a player whose action they think the MRP might take a closer look at.

 

[DT_fanatic]

If we were going to challenge surely it would be known by now. Disappointing. As much as I've been trying to be optimistic about where this club is going their decision making is very challenging to comprehend sometimes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tazzaye]

If the club don't appeal then I am done!

Bye

 

[76woodenspooners]

If we were going to challenge surely it would be known by now. Disappointing. As much as I've been trying to be optimistic about where this club is going their decision making continues is very challenging to comprehend sometimes.

Cool your jets. We've still got another 76 minutes (11am) before the challenge needs to be in.

 

[Scodog10]

The result of this poll astounds me TBH. It's very clear cut that it was a suspendable offence yet we have 72% of the belief that he should have been cleared. I accept there's an inherent bias in much of it, but still that says a lot for the leadership of the AFL in handling this issue, IMO.

 

[unplugged]

The result of this poll astounds me TBH. It's very clear cut that it was a suspendable offence yet we have 72% of the belief that he should have been cleared. I accept there's an inherent bias in much of it, but still that says a lot for the leadership of the AFL in handling this issue, IMO.

Should he be and will he be are 2 different things

 

[Gone Critical]

You miss the point. The suspensions are being entirely made on outcome. There are numerous examples when a similar tackle has occurred, but no injury, so no suspension. Does that mean the other tackles weren't dangerous?

I think the way the tribunal/AFL look at that now is if you pin the players arms in a tackle and take away their ability to protect themselves, even in a correctly applied tackle , you take responsibility for their well being. If by your action they then end up concussed there is a price to pay.

If they are not injured no case to answer. As more data comes out on the long term impacts of concussions and multiple head knocks the landscape has changed and really the AFL is responsible to react to that and have probably little option but to do something like what they have done. I am sure their legal advisors would suggest they could be vulnerable in the future if a players injures his head in a tackle and they dont put a duty of care on the tackler.

 

[unplugged]

Did we challenge this? I feel like I've missed the news.

 

[Apex36]

Did we challenge this? I feel like I've missed the news.

Nothing on the AFL app about it so I assume no, although Eade getting sacked is dominating the headlines right now.

 

[mattys123]

Not shocked that we didn't appeal.

The system is designed so that you almsot can not appeal any sentence given.

Which is just plain wrong. Any club/player should have the right to have their case heard without the punishment of an added week if that hearing fails.

You have to remember taking the case to the tribunal isn't an actual appeal, it's the tribunal, you should have a straight out right to have your case heard and then if you're found guilty after a hearing you can accept a reduction for good behaviour.

Sets a terrible precedent for the finals now though, any player that lays a tackle, a bump, a spoil or any action that leads to a player being concussed has to get 2 weeks now.

 

[Gone Critical]

Wouldn't have thought the players would get much say at all about whether these MRP decisions get challenged or not - I'd always assumed that the clubs would be the ones making the decisions?

But that's just me being a bit pedantic, 100% agree with everything you're saying here.

I'd reckon the club's QC (IIRC the club does get QC's involved in this stuff? ) would be asking Grundy ...

(1) Did Brown's actions in the tackle affect the outcome?

(2) Did you use excessive force? Could you have achieved the same 'holding the ball' outcome, with same probability of success with less force?

If the answers were "yes" and "no" to these questions then a check of the video evidence would be needed to corroborate Grundy's version of events, and then it'd be off to the tribunal.

I suspect its more black and white than that 76. In the tribunal guidelines re rough play and tackling the excessive force is given as one option but a tackle placing a player in a vulnerable position, and the example they use is arms pinned, is another option. I dont think the degree of force enters into this consideration.

For mine its unlikely a trip to the tribunal would result in an overturned position. Once Brown was in a vunerable position, and there is no doubt he was, any injury incurred becomes Grundys responsiblity. With a trip in an ambulance to hospital and MRI scans I cant see it being downgrade from high impact so there is no way to get Grundy off in my opinion.

 

[Manic Shadow]

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.

Settle down little fella, you're getting very personal.

I can't wait to watch the new style of football, spinning and twirling, spinning and twirling. Ben Reid will dominate the ballet contests

 

[Gone Critical]

Not shocked that we didn't appeal.

The system is designed so that you almsot can not appeal any sentence given.

Which is just plain wrong. Any club/player should have the right to have their case heard without the punishment of an added week if that hearing fails.

You have to remember taking the case to the tribunal isn't an actual appeal, it's the tribunal, you should have a straight out right to have your case heard and then if you're found guilty after a hearing you can accept a reduction for good behaviour.

Sets a terrible precedent for the finals now though, any player that lays a tackle, a bump, a spoil or any action that leads to a player being concussed has to get 2 weeks now.

We are not at the appeal stage, which you are correct in saying is almost impossible to overturn. It would be a trip to the tribunal to hear the charge heard that is the next step and if the MRP makes a mistake in the eyes of the tribunal there is clear scope for reversing the decision.