Brodie Grundy's tackle- what's the verdict?
- Thread starter ArielZ
- Start date
-
- Tags
- afl collingwood grundy mrp
- Tagged users None
Then Danger should've got off as well, whichever way you boil it down there is a conflict of opinion within the ranks at HQ. Suspend and that conflicts with the umpy to award a free, don't suspend and the whole footy world will go into melt down because Danger got done.
That would apply both ways! We too will be able to get the ball away. Except then the game may be safer.
jmac70
On the porch
Arent most rugby tackles front on? Also, aren't they allowed to tackle below the waist?
Although I suspect the morons on the MRP will still cite Brody I can't help but wonder how far the AFL is prepared to go to make footy as safe as tiddlywinks. What's next? Will a player be cited because an opponent attempted to baulk around him and ruptured his hammy in the process? Will the high mark come under scrutiny because a player gets a bruised back? Seriously, I get that you don't want the game unnecessarily dangerous but it's a contact sport FFS. Surely you should not be able to describe a skill in the game as both perfect in execution and reportable at the same time!
#NetballWithASherrin
#NetballWithASherrin
Harambe Pie
Senior List
- Oct 10, 2016
- 156
- 211
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
There is a distinct difference between making the game safer and neutering the game of it's fundamental principles. Grundy and Danger's tackles were well within the spirit of the game - moreso Grundy's given the ball was still in Brown's hands throughout - and well within the rules of the game. The fact that Brown was unfortunately injured in the process shouldn't be a consideration. These incidents will happen. It is a contact sport.
At what point do we eliminate high marking from the game for the fear of someone being hit in the back of a head by a knee? Or the smother perhaps for the increased likelihood of injuring a hand / finger or the change that the player smothering may fall on the kickers knee? Where does duty of care begin and end?
Brown tried to kick the ball which is a different scenario to most "sling tackles". If he doesn't try to kick the ball he keeps his feet and it's an ordinary tackle with Grundy rolling him to avoid pushing him in the back. Grundy should not be cited but probably will be.
Last edited:
- Jul 20, 2010
- 8,179
- 10,826
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Banned
- #184
Do you know how hard that is to, not only think about (when you've trained otherwise for 15+ years,) but during the actual motion. They were standing still and Grundy could just grab and drop. He was going forward, even a smaller man can't control physics like that.
cleomenes
Cancelled
- Nov 18, 2010
- 1,483
- 2,053
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
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.
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.
JB1975
Brownlow Medallist
I'm not sure that Roos is 'slamming' Buckley, but there's some criticism. Was it reasonable for Bucks to call Grundy's tackle 'perfect' after the game, given the fact that the tackle had just caused a player to be carted off the ground, given that the player was in hospital at the time Buckley was lauding the tackle? I think that Grundy's tackle was okay, and I understand the urge to defend a player who is sensitive about the consequences of his actions, but I also think that Buckley could have chosen his words more carefully at that point in time.
On the other hand, Roos' criticism of the tackle itself is a bit strange, not least when he implies that pinning the player's arms is the wrong thing to do. News to me. That is exactly the sort of tackle that stops the player from disposing of the ball, and that is exactly the sort of tackle that gets rewarded by umpires week after week, the only difference being that such tackles don't usually result in a loss of consciousness.
neilk
Norm Smith Medallist
Veteran
Collingwood - Beau McCreery Player Sponsor 2023
Final 8 Tipping Winner
Collingwood - Caleb Poulter Player Sponsor 2022
Collingwood - Josh Daicos Player Sponsor 2021
Collingwood - Tyler Brown Player Sponsor 2020
Collingwood Magpies - Brayden Sier 2019 Player Sponsor
Collingwood - Jaidyn Stephenson Player Sponsor 2018
Correct on both counts.
Around what time does the MRP issue its rulings?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
jackcass
Cancelled
10k Posts
Magpie Service Medal
Collingwood - Josh Daicos Player Sponsor 2021
Collingwood - Tyler Brown Player Sponsor 2020
Collingwood Magpies AFLW - Sarah Rowe Player Sponsor 2019
I'm not going to defend the Danger suspension but the difference there was that the ball came loose very early in his tackle (ditto the Treloar tackle and he was also OOB) and he continued with the tackle. Kruezer also had both arms pinned and couldn't brace for the impact. Brown retained the ball through most of the tackle and was still able to get a hand onto the ground to absorb some of the impact.
Will be very interesting to see how the MRP adjudicate this one and if the club will elect to challenge if cited.
And herein lies the problem. Those tackles get rewarded. In my humble opinion you shouldn't be able to hold below the elbow in the same way you can't hold below the knee. However you should be able to pin the arms below the elbow in a bear like tackle but not a hold!
I don't think anyone can label it a "sling tackle"
But my recollection of the rule, it states "pinning the arms" as an example of a dangerous tackle, and slinging is another example.
So it doesn't have to be a sling to constitute a suspension.
I think it is unfortunate, and also the MRP will use these sort of tackles to set an example.
I would rate it a lot less severe than McCarthy's, slightly less severe than Dangerfields, and just a little worse than what Ziebell did to Treloar (at least Treloar had an arm free).
But I think the biggest difference to all the other tackles I just mentioned is that Ben Brown had the ball. In the others, the ball was well clear and the tackle continued.
But my recollection of the rule, it states "pinning the arms" as an example of a dangerous tackle, and slinging is another example.
So it doesn't have to be a sling to constitute a suspension.
I think it is unfortunate, and also the MRP will use these sort of tackles to set an example.
I would rate it a lot less severe than McCarthy's, slightly less severe than Dangerfields, and just a little worse than what Ziebell did to Treloar (at least Treloar had an arm free).
But I think the biggest difference to all the other tackles I just mentioned is that Ben Brown had the ball. In the others, the ball was well clear and the tackle continued.
Generally between 3 and 4pm today I think.
Agree, this is a contact sport, take that out of the game and it's not the same game.
Roo's tackling tactic to drive them back and keep the player standing may have been Ok 5 years ago but these days clever players throw themselves forward, collapse the legs to get an in the back free. I would also suggest some teams would practice this tactic. Some players have perfected it and head to ground contact is inevitable.
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 43,034
- 24,174
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
Didn't Paul Roos coach a side which had Barry Hall as Captain?
Roo's should lay off making wild claims about what he would never do.
TKiL
Cancelled
every case is different - very hard to apply a precedent. Cases differ because of player weight (tackler & tacklee?), surface conditions - eg. Etihad vs MCG, speed at time of tackle, angle, tacklee's response, player strength etc etc. The only thing we can be sure of is that the AFL will want a politically correct outcome and the MRP will be inconsistent.
