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

[workhorse]

This is the Rough Conduct Dangerous Tackle rule as defined by the AFL:

Players when tackling should not lift, sling, rotate or drive their opponent into the ground with excessive force, resulting in the head region 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

Now to me what puts him in trouble is that there's definitely an argument that Brown's head was left in a vulnerable position. In my opinion, if we challenge it there's definitely an argument that he doesn't rotate or drive the opponent with excessive force. The second part of the rule is where the big case for Brodie lies. The umpire awarded him a free kick and was heard on the mic saying he didn't believe the tackle was dangerous.

I think he'll get a week. Don't necessarily agree. I support the head being protected but not in the face of inconsistency in regards to the MRP/Tribunal. Why do we punish players for the outcome not the action? There might be hundreds of tackles like that a year that, because they don't result in concussion, don't even get looked at. We know that players can have their head driven into the ground with no concussion, and other players have a small innocuous knock result in concussion, so why punish based on concussion being the outcome?

 

[Pie eyed]

This is the Rough Conduct Dangerous Tackle rule as defined by the AFL:



Now to me what puts him in trouble is that there's definitely an argument that Brown's head was left in a vulnerable position. In my opinion, if we challenge it there's definitely an argument that he doesn't rotate or drive the opponent with excessive force. The second part of the rule is where the big case for Brodie lies. The umpire awarded him a free kick and was heard on the mic saying he didn't believe the tackle was dangerous.

I think he'll get a week. Don't necessarily agree. I support the head being protected but not in the face of inconsistency in regards to the MRP/Tribunal. Why do we punish players for the outcome not the action? There might be hundreds of tackles like that a year that, because they don't result in concussion, don't even get looked at. We know that players can have their head driven into the ground with no concussion, and other players have a small innocuous knock result in concussion, so why punish based on concussion being the outcome?

The object is to protect the head, specifically to reduce concussions in light of the bad press given to other football leagues cover-ups of the issue post career. (NFL)

If that is the case every player who causes a concussion by any action should get a week, minimum, period.

Either that or use common sense and deal with cases specifically based on intent rather than outcome.

I know the AFL are famous for not using even a modicum of common sense, proofed by the "Barry Hall" decision, but in this case they should. If they don't we should take it to the Hague like we did when they tried to railroad Nick Maxwell.

If we are going to get on the "consistency" bike how is it that a player took Greenwood's legs out and damaged his knee and no free was paid?

Another idiotic rule inconsistently enforced.
add to that....
Deliberate out of bounds.
In the back.
Holding.
Ducking into tackles.
Play on from a mark.
All depends what jumper you wear and who you are...eg Buddy (running around on the mark as part of his "natural action" wankfest.)

 

[DaVe86]

I'm actually surprised to see so many articles saying this is worse than the Dangerfield tackle. Article on afl.com.au today states it should be 2 weeks.

I agree with 1 week. But I can't agree with this being a worse offence than Dangerfield.

I don't think there is a "double action". I also can't see any mention made of the fact that the ball was still in play, unlike the Dangerfield tackle.

In my opinion, if it is given 2 weeks, we should challenge. Even if there is a risk of 3 weeks. No point bringing Brodie back for 1 game at the end of the year. Just let Mason Cox get a run.

I think it is important that the Tribunal gets a run every now and then. If every player just accepts the MRP verdict, it means the rules are never challenged, and therefore never clarified.

It is an essential part of every legal system that laws are challenged so the community has a better understanding of how they are applied.

In this case, I think it is a very important decision because it really sets a precedent of what players can and can't do in a tackle. In many regards, it changes the landscape going forward.

I think win,lose or draw, it is important that the rule is at least challenged so a clear precedent is set. The MRP is just a bunch of ex-players. The tribunal consists of Barristers who are experts in applying law.

In Dangerfield's case, he had finals to think about, so couldn't risk extra weeks. In our case, Brodie has more than done his part this season, and if he sits out the rest so be it...we need to pump games into Cox anyway. It's the perfect opportunity to contest.

 

[Stoods]

Il be very annoyed if he gets more than 1 week. I can see him getting a week because Dangerfield did and you can't give Danger a week and let Grundy off for a similar incident. Any more than 1 il be very annoyed

 

[barrackers]

I'm actually surprised to see so many articles saying this is worse than the Dangerfield tackle. Article on afl.com.au today states it should be 2 weeks.

I agree with 1 week. But I can't agree with this being a worse offence than Dangerfield.

I don't think there is a "double action". I also can't see any mention made of the fact that the ball was still in play, unlike the Dangerfield tackle.

In my opinion, if it is given 2 weeks, we should challenge. Even if there is a risk of 3 weeks. No point bringing Brodie back for 1 game at the end of the year. Just let Mason Cox get a run.

I think it is important that the Tribunal gets a run every now and then. If every player just accepts the MRP verdict, it means the rules are never challenged, and therefore never clarified.

It is an essential part of every legal system that laws are challenged so the community has a better understanding of how they are applied.

In this case, I think it is a very important decision because it really sets a precedent of what players can and can't do in a tackle. In many regards, it changes the landscape going forward.

I think win,lose or draw, it is important that the rule is at least challenged so a clear precedent is set. The MRP is just a bunch of ex-players. The tribunal consists of Barristers who are experts in applying law.

In Dangerfield's case, he had finals to think about, so couldn't risk extra weeks. In our case, Brodie has more than done his part this season, and if he sits out the rest so be it...we need to pump games into Cox anyway. It's the perfect opportunity to contest.

I agree it's certainly no worse than Dangerfield's in terms of action and if anything Grundy's was slightly better as the ball was still in play. What annoys me is the extra weight being added because of the injury Brown suffered. For example very few are talking about Ziebell bringing Treloar to ground when he didn't have the footy despite that action being worse; fortunately Treloar took most of the impact through his shoulder, but the risk of injury was equal if not greater.

 

[wicksy]

Need a couple more poll options.

1. Brodie will and should get a suspension.
2. Brodie will and shouldn't get a suspension.
3. Brodie won't but should get a suspension.
4. Brodie won't and shouldn't get a suspension.

I vote 2.

 

[The Magnificent Seven]

1 week sentence reduced to a fine?

*Fingers crossed*

 

[Mukesh]

Correct on both counts.

Another key difference is a RL player when tackled is under no obligation to release the ball - quite the opposite in fact. So in the instance of Brown v Grundy you'd see Brown retain the ball in both hands and get tackled to the ground with his arms and ball underneath him to cushion his fall. In the case of Dangerfield v Kreuzer the ref would have penalised Dangerfield for clearly tackling a guy without the ball, although the result as far as Kreuzer's head is concerned would probably have been the same.

It also seems to me that RL players with the ball are vastly more aware of the possibility of being tackled. You rarely see a RL player surprised by a legitimate tackle, possibly because the majority are front on but even from behind the tackled player is expecting it. In most situations the average AFL player seems to lack the same awareness.

 

[TKiL]

Not to be technical, but....

Digging as you suggest from the MCG would actually get you to the North Atlantic Ocean area. Or Very wet.

This gave rise for England to call Australia and NZ the Antipodes as that word is translated to be furtherest opposite end of the earth to a place (and obviously that would mean through the centre of the earth in a straight passage or line.) NZ comes closest to reaching land with it being parts of Spain and Portugal.

(England reaches the Pacific Ocean but as Australia is in that are hence the moniker The Antipodes was born.)

Thank you for the geography lesson - often wish I'd done more geography at school - back in that bygone era it was folklore that digging in any direction led to China. Perhaps I should ask some crews digging on the Metro Rail Project where they think they would end up if they continued in a vertical direction for as long as it will take to finish the project. They'll be digging at Domain Road soon - not too far from Toorak - should we ask if they can head toward's Ed's joint? - might be the only way to undermine our Emperor - vs the Chinese Emperor

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Thank you for the geography lesson - often wish I'd done more geography at school - back in that bygone era it was folklore that digging in any direction led to China. Perhaps I should ask some crews digging on the Metro Rail Project where they think they would end up if they continued in a vertical direction for as long as it will take to finish the project. They'll be digging at Domain Road soon - not too far from Toorak - should we ask if they can head toward's Ed's joint? - might be the only way to undermine our Emperor - vs the Chinese Emperor

Indeed.
Where it goes nobody knows.

Except....

Will cost billions and somehow be over budget and certain groups and individuals will line their pockets

 

[Run n Spread]

Under the rules gone. Need to be re written and/or players technically trained to tackle better.

But why isn't Ziebell cited? That was far more dangerous and he slung Treloar's head into that artificial boundary turf. Only Treloar's shoulder prevented another concussion but why is it only the outcome? This why everyone is confused. The AFL are still all about brand and image where the rules are no longer applied consistently or fairly and no one knows what they even are any more. What Ziebel did was far more dangerous.

 

[TKiL]

Indeed.
Where it goes nobody knows.

Except....

Will cost billions and somehow be over budget and certain groups and individuals will line their pockets

Cwood expert at undermining itself - must be 100s of tunnels and escape routes in and around the Westpac Centre

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Cwood expert at undermining itself - must be 100s of tunnels and escape routes in and around the Westpac Centre

There is, they call them the Holden Centre tunnels ​

 

[Tazzaye]

3 weeks you've got to be bloody killing me

 

[TKiL]

There is, they call them the Holden Centre tunnels ​

Ooops - getting confused with sponsors - still remember the Yakka sign behind the scoreboard at Vic Park

 

[jackcass]

3 weeks you've got to be bloody killing me

Who has said 3 weeks?

 

[DaVe86]

I agree it's certainly no worse than Dangerfield's in terms of action and if anything Grundy's was slightly better as the ball was still in play. What annoys me is the extra weight being added because of the injury Brown suffered. For example very few are talking about Ziebell bringing Treloar to ground when he didn't have the footy despite that action being worse; fortunately Treloar took most of the impact through his shoulder, but the risk of injury was equal if not greater.

I suppose it marries up with the way the Legal System works.

By law, you take a person as you find them.

For example, if you punch someone softly with a frail bones, and they die, it would be murder....whereas if you punched someone with all your might and they are strong so they survive, it would just be assault.

Same goes with AFL, if you tackle someone really hard but they bounce back up, then it probably goes unsighted. If they get concussed for something quite innocuous, you can get suspended.

It's really the only way to judge the force of the incident. So unfortunately the decision is largely determined by the outcome of the incident.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Ooops - getting confused with sponsors - still remember the Yakka sign behind the scoreboard at Vic Park

We were one of the first with sponsors.

This might surprise people, our club even made money and sponsorship before Ed.
We can in theory continue* if Ed retires / is retired.

*rather well, as it happens

 

[TradeDraft]

IF Brown was not KOed no one would talk about it.

But he was so He get a Week just because he was Knocked Out

 

[TKiL]

We were one of the first with sponsors.

This might surprise people, our club even made money and sponsorship before Ed.
We can in theory continue* if Ed retires / is retired.

*rather well, as it happens

we only need consistent on field success and there'd be a queue of sponsors a mile long (or even to China ) - with that queue we could save heaps by sacking the marketing Dept

 

[unplugged]

I reckon the media has just about buried him to the point where he is guaranteed a sanction, regardless of the rules or intentions.

I'd Grundy goes, so does Ziebell.

I hope if he gets a week we challenge it.

 

[The Dawes]

The over-hyped coverage is building this into a situation where the AFL will want to 'make an example' of him - three weeks would not surprise me given how terrified the AFL are of negative media and the 'look' of the game.

If this happens I seriously want us to challenge.

 

[Collingwoodity]

3 weeks you've got to be bloody killing me

27 weeks? You're Joking!

 

[loki04]

This is the Rough Conduct Dangerous Tackle rule as defined by the AFL:



Now to me what puts him in trouble is that there's definitely an argument that Brown's head was left in a vulnerable position. In my opinion, if we challenge it there's definitely an argument that he doesn't rotate or drive the opponent with excessive force. The second part of the rule is where the big case for Brodie lies. The umpire awarded him a free kick and was heard on the mic saying he didn't believe the tackle was dangerous.

I think he'll get a week. Don't necessarily agree. I support the head being protected but not in the face of inconsistency in regards to the MRP/Tribunal. Why do we punish players for the outcome not the action? There might be hundreds of tackles like that a year that, because they don't result in concussion, don't even get looked at. We know that players can have their head driven into the ground with no concussion, and other players have a small innocuous knock result in concussion, so why punish based on concussion being the outcome?

That new rule is farcicle duty of care and all those limitations on the tackler and if you ex3cute it to a T but injure the opponent you are still liable for suspension.

Wtf kind idiot wrote that into a contact sport?

Killed the bump with similar restrictions and "liabilities" through duty of care.
The high mark will be next.

 

[barrackers]

I suppose it marries up with the way the Legal System works.

By law, you take a person as you find them.

For example, if you punch someone softly with a frail bones, and they die, it would be murder....whereas if you punched someone with all your might and they are strong so they survive, it would just be assault.

Same goes with AFL, if you tackle someone really hard but they bounce back up, then it probably goes unsighted. If they get concussed for something quite innocuous, you can get suspended.

It's really the only way to judge the force of the incident. So unfortunately the decision is largely determined by the outcome of the incident.

I get what you're saying, but you've also got manslaughter, attempted murder and conspiracy to murder to throw into the mix. The action should be judged on it's merits first and foremost with the outcome (injury etc) a secondary factor. For mine the AFL and media have it arse about, being too focused on an actual injury occurring rather than the risk, danger or intent in the player's action.