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

[ppoiter]

Well there is this from just a few weeks ago not back of head but knee to head/jaw it all comes under the same errant knee to head:

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-07-29/waite-gains-from-jettas-slamming-daw-pain.mobileapp

Tell me the difference of "look" and "duty of care" there? Majak could of stayed down, no need to raise the knee, 3 weeks down to 2 I hear the MRP say in future cases.



I remember one from a long time ago big Pebbles came steaming out on a lead and put his knee through a defenders back of head and knocked him out cold stretchered off.

I have also seen them (knees to heads/faces) have players faces caved in and the equivalent of a car crash victim at 60km (Hird, S.Heart and Brown likely all suffered concussion too but injuries far too serious to see them play on anyway and no rule back then), I have seen someone lose a kidney to one and almost die from it.
All theses are far worse then the initial concussion (if brown indeed had it) then Kruezer or Brown who likely wont have any further ill effects (as long as repeated episodes don't happen multiple times a year).

Its a point of view I've got time for, just not sure errant knees have caused that many serious injuries. But then again have sling tackles? Probably not. The way that flying for speccies is coveted (rightly) does make all the hand wringing about arm pinning and slinging look a bit inconsistent.

 

[loki04]

Its a point of view I've got time for, just not sure errant knees have caused that many serious injuries. But then again have sling tackles? Probably not. The way that flying for speccies is coveted (rightly) does make all the hand wringing about arm pinning and slinging look a bit inconsistent.

I would say they are very close in rate of occurrence the difference being one is "highlighted" so sticks in the mind the other is over looked as part of the game and part of the coveted High mark.

You ask James Hird John Brown and Shaun Heart if they think their injuries were serious or what about Tom Lonergon who almost died on the table losing a kidney.

This is much more serious then just a KO and concussion (has it even come out he was concussed or for how long?) seemed to have his faculty's when on the stretcher coming off the ground giving the thumbs up!

 

[76woodenspooners]

Because its a ******* optional sport for people to play. No one is forced to take it up as a career.

Players don't sign up thinking "Okay I'll play, but only if they make it so head trauma is less... Even if it kills the enjoyment out of the sport".

Players don't, but parents do, and parents influence the participation levels at the grass roots level of the sport.

Even if the chances of a kid getting concussion in the u9's is non-existent, when the media shows it happening in the seniors it's not a good look.

 

[loki04]

Players don't, but parents do, and parents influence the participation levels at the grass roots level of the sport.

Even if the chances of a kid getting concussion in the u9's is non-existent, when the media shows it happening in the seniors it's not a good look.

So how come when the game was more aggressive, more physical and more potential for ko and concussion did the sport not only survive but flourish?

People arent dumb enough to think 100kg man is going to smash lil johnys face into the turf in an u8s game...parents really only have a say for so long until the kids want to play wins out.

How does boxing karate kickboxing/mua thai mma continue to have people train and participate?

How does NRL and RU survive? Much rougher then AR.

This is the type of fear mongering that see half truths or misnomers change the game irrovcably for the worse. They are removing the gladiatorial aspect wont take much courage or toughness to play this game soon as it will be closer to Gealic rules then Aussie rules.

 

[76woodenspooners]

So how come when the game was more aggressive, more physical and more potential for ko and concussion did the sport not only survive but flourish?

They were different times back then. Kids climbed trees. Kids rode their BMX's hands free. Kids brawled in the playground every lunchtime for fun.

The world has changed

People arent dumb enough to think 100kg man is going to smash lil johnys face into the turf in an u8s game...parents really only have a say for so long until the kids want to play wins out.

Indeed

How does boxing karate kickboxing/mua thai mma continue to have people train and participate?

How does NRL and RU survive? Much rougher then AR.

It's one of the things that apparently accounts for the success of the AFL up here in Sydney at grass roots level - parents seeing it as a safer game for their kids to play.

This is the type of fear mongering that see half truths or misnomers change the game irrovcably for the worse. They are removing the gladiatorial aspect wont take much courage or toughness to play this game soon as it will be closer to Gealic rules then Aussie rules.

I was only making a point.

I'm probably on the same side of the argument as you - I reckon that it was crazy that Grundy got sanctioned by the MRP. It's a contact sport, bad things sometimes happen. If the AFL really wanted to address the problem properly then they'd fix the turf at Etihad (all recent incidents seemed to have happened there, and it has a reputation for being a hard surface)

 

[deano_66]

I am all for protecting players from concussions however the afl have to think of a better way. Everyone in the whole afl is bloody confused after grundys tackle. Honestly what else could he do even ben brown said there wasnt anything he could do. Heaps of media pundits have said it was the "perfect tackle". Im sorry but players these days are taking the piss they want all the money yet dont want to be looked at as role models, forwards cant kick the bloody footy through the big sticks yet want 800,000 to a million to do so. Now aboit the tackling the only way to is to get rid of tackling altogether if grundy got suspended for that. Brown had the ball for a good minute dropped the ball and as they are 2 big mem there momentum was obviously stronger hence the result.

 

[doppleganger]

What if Ben Brown plays this week?

Where does the high impact then stand?

I understand how the table MRP table works, and 3 down to 2 was the only outcome based on their classification. But This is the area that I struggle with.

The stupid MRP classification table isn't working properly.

A choice or careless or intentional. Well in this instance Grundy clearly intentionally tackled Brown ferociously to the ground.

High or body, Grundy's only contact with Brown was around his body. What happens if Grundy tackled Brown and his head hit an opponents knee and he was KOed? Is Grundy still at fault?

Impact grading...this is especially silly when talking about concussion, as the same impact might concussion one player but do nothing to another.

The current rules and MRP system is inadequate when trying to evaluate these instances.

If Grundy laid that tackle and Brown got up, like some players might have, it was the perfect tackle. Ziebell was penalised for a dangerous tackle, but because Treloar got up he isn't sanctioned.

The tribunal should always be about the action not the result. But our system is all about the outcome.

If outcome is important then remove the silly MRP table and just penalise anybody who lays a tackle that concusses the opponent with a week off. How do they differentiate between a severe, high or medium impact concussion?

 

[barrackers]

Great article by Grant Thomas, and which he also discussed on sen where it was said the AFL is looking at the effect and not to cause. Basically Thomas blames coaching instructions of wanting the player to hold the ball in if a perfect pass to a teammate can't be made instead of the old fashioned handball to space. A tactic that can be changed by tightening up holding the ball.

Murphy confirmed on sen that players are told to hang onto the footy, that it's more desirable to be pinged for holding the ball than giving up the footy in space as the free kick at least slows the game and gives defenders a chance to setup structures.

https://gthomo.wordpress.com/2017/08/07/coaches-culpable-for-concussion/

 

[PieNSauce]

Great article by Grant Thomas, and which he also discussed on sen where it was said the AFL is looking at the effect and not to cause. Basically Thomas blames coaching instructions of wanting the player to hold the ball in if a perfect pass to a teammate can't be made instead of the old fashioned handball to space. A tactic that can be changed by tightening up holding the ball.

Murphy confirmed on sen that players are told to hang onto the footy, that it's more desirable to be pinged for holding the ball than giving up the footy in space as the free kick at least slows the game and gives defenders a chance to setup structures.

https://gthomo.wordpress.com/2017/08/07/coaches-culpable-for-concussion/

Well hooray for super brain Grant Thomas. Did he work out all on his own that coaches will coach players to do what benefits the team or was there someone helping him. Honestly, if he isn't the king of stating the bleeding obvious I don't know who is.

 

[ash84]

Good video here http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-08-10/rough-tackles-bucks-spot-the-difference
Shows how hard done by the tackler is.
Also Ben Brown is playing this week so the concussion can't of been to bad.

Still worried how this will effect the game, will be interesting to watch the tackle count over the following weeks.

 

[Jafo]

Good video here http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-08-10/rough-tackles-bucks-spot-the-difference
Shows how hard done by the tackler is.
Also Ben Brown is playing this week so the concussion can't of been to bad.

Still worried how this will effect the game, will be interesting to watch the tackle count over the following weeks.

I was wondering if there would be any merit in having the player that was "concussed" serve a mandatory one week on the side lines in the interest of player safety and welfare if this is what the afl are really serious about? More so if it was enough to warrant the tackler to be suspended for the tackle, bump etc.

 

[ppoiter]

I would say they are very close in rate of occurrence the difference being one is "highlighted" so sticks in the mind the other is over looked as part of the game and part of the coveted High mark.

You ask James Hird John Brown and Shaun Heart if they think their injuries were serious or what about Tom Lonergon who almost died on the table losing a kidney.

This is much more serious then just a KO and concussion (has it even come out he was concussed or for how long?) seemed to have his faculty's when on the stretcher coming off the ground giving the thumbs up!

Found this incident interesting in the context of your arguments here. Im assuming Dahlhaus played the game out after treatment but still, could have been more serious and there doesn't appear to be a big outcry about protecting the head, yet anyway.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-08-11/greene-reported-as-boot-draws-blood

 

[jjsmitty8]

It really frustrates me that Brodie is going to miss two games because the MRP graded his tackle as high impact, yet the guy he tackled has just run out onto the ground to play.

When you strip it back to its simplest form, a guy tackled another guy, the guy being tackled felt the effects of the tackle at the time but wasn't that unwell that he had to miss games.

It just doesn't seem fair that Brodie has to miss 2 games for that.

 

[mike123]

It really frustrates me that Brodie is going to miss two games because the MRP graded his tackle as high impact, yet the guy he tackled has just run out onto the ground to play.

When you strip it back to its simplest form, a guy tackled another guy, the guy being tackled felt the effects of the tackle at the time but wasn't that unwell that he had to miss games.

It just doesn't seem fair that Brodie has to miss 2 games for that.

What do mean? he missed the rest of the game after he was tackled

 

[jjsmitty8]

What do mean? he missed the rest of the game after he was tackled

I said he felt the effects of the tackle at the time. I'm simply making the point that if he hasn't missed a game, then how high was the impact really?

 

[mike123]

I said he felt the effects of the tackle at the time. I'm simply making the point that if he hasn't missed a game, then how high was the impact really?

He missed the rest of our game, that still counts.

 

[loki04]

He missed the rest of our game, that still counts.

Becuase of the ambo ride to the hospital for "precautionary" reasons. That should not be part of the deciding factor as its starting to become a normal part of the process by clubs. Brown was awake and aware by the time the stretcher was on its way off the ground.

If they did a normal concussion test he may of even returned by the start of 3rd quarter.

 

[swoop42]

So let me get this straight.

The head is sacrosanct if you elect to bump, it's sacrosanct if you lay a tackle and pin the arms but if you stick your foot up to an extent the boot stops smash into your opponents head this is okay?

Honestly what Greene did was the worst and most deliberate incident from the weekend yet he escapes with a fine.

 

[danielnajdek]

I wanna know how Wines didn't get suspended. Jumped off the ground and hit Langdon in the head. Didn't Greenwood get suspended for something similar?

I bet if a Pies player does that same thing this week they'll get suspended.

 

[partypie]

So let me get this straight.

The head is sacrosanct if you elect to bump...

After Wines was let off with a fine for a textbook illegal (late) bump with the elbow making contact to the head you'd have to assume that the head doesn't appear to be sacrosanct - unless that is the offending player happens to be already wearing (black and white) prison bars on the jumper.

 

[Horaceg]

After Wines was let off with a fine for a textbook illegal (late) bump with the elbow making contact to the head you'd have to assume that the head doesn't appear to be sacrosanct - unless that is the offending player happens to be already wearing (black and white) prison bars on the jumper.

He just needed to flop and lie down for a bit, rather than get up like players should do in this sport.

 

[DaVe86]

I was able to live with the Grundy decision, and I was glad the MRP at least gave a fine to Toby Greene. I consoled myself with the fact that the AFL clearly has an obligation to protect the head, and ultimately a player needs to take responsibility if he makes contact to an opponents head.

Then you see the Wines decision and it just leaves you perplexed.

OK, the severity was obviously downgraded because Langdon was not severely hurt. But surely it was still a substantial enough hit to the head to constitute a 1 week suspension.

 

[Countrypie]

I was able to live with the Grundy decision, and I was glad the MRP at least gave a fine to Toby Greene. I consoled myself with the fact that the AFL clearly has an obligation to protect the head, and ultimately a player needs to take responsibility if he makes contact to an opponents head.

Then you see the Wines decision and it just leaves you perplexed.

OK, the severity was obviously downgraded because Langdon was not severely hurt. But surely it was still a substantial enough hit to the head to constitute a 1 week suspension.

One of the things that gets me is intent. I like Ollie Wines, but there was no excuse for that. We've all had that mad brain rush to the head playing footy when you line someone up with the intention to hurt. (Well I did anyway) That's what it looked like.
To my mind intent is worse than outcome. The game is not administered that way .

 

[Lockyer24]

****ing disgrace kicks to the head and elbows to the head (which were both intentional, don't be fooled) cop nothing yet fair players who tackle get weeks (one extra if you play for us). AFL is a sham.

 

[Apex36]

I have a lot of sympathy for your view. When I grew up breaking your arm on the school swing or rope or whatever was a rite of passage not a reason to sue the school. Times have moved on and the AFL cant stick their head in the sand and pretend we dont know or care about the results of repeated head trauma.

The game is different also. The players are bigger, faster , stronger and hit with much more impact. As to how many players end up as "mushrooms" it seems its a bigger risk than anyone has realised in the past and will only get worse. Once you know that how can the AFL not act.

Sorry, but I don't buy for a second that players hit each other with more impact these days. Some of the biggest hits I've ever seen were from 25-30+ years ago.