MRP / Trib. Geelong MRO & Tribunal decisions 2023

[cats_09]

Interesting reading the conversation on BF compared with on various social media channels - and I'm not talking about opposition fans online wanting Stewart suspended also

One thing I'm really glad to have not read on here compared to elsewhere is how "we should use the Essendon players tackle against Blicavs last week to support Close" - clearly the tackle in question is the one by Sam Durham which apparently wasn't called a free kick at the time

Now here's the problem with the repeated suggestion of using that footage to support Close - Durham was cited by the MRO & given a 1-week suspension for that tackle... Why would we want to use footage of a suspension to support a player we don't want suspended, and using it under the premise of it being a similar action?

 

[Spearman]

Might not pertain to this incident, but if only one arm is pinned, then doesn't the duty of care also lay on the tackled player. He should have the responsibility to protect himself once he feels the tackle and release the ball so he can cushion the fall. Putting the entire onus on the tackler is beyond ridiculous in such a fast paced sport.
I agree with some of the above statements, the AFL is concerned about liability and want to be able to say they are doing everything possible to protect the players. They are afraid the massive potential payouts. As to completely doing away with the tackle to the ground all together, it's hard to fathom they would kill the golden goose. I don't see people continuing to support the game in the numbers they are accustomed to if they make such a radical modification.

 

[caitsith01]

Might not pertain to this incident, but if only one arm is pinned, then doesn't the duty of care also lay on the tackled player. He should have the responsibility to protect himself once he feels the tackle and release the ball so he can cushion the fall. Putting the entire onus on the tackler is beyond ridiculous in such a fast paced sport.
I agree with some of the above statements, the AFL is concerned about liability and want to be able to say they are doing everything possible to protect the players. They are afraid the massive potential payouts. As to completely doing away with the tackle to the ground all together, it's hard to fathom they would kill the golden goose. I don't see people continuing to support the game in the numbers they are accustomed to if they make such a radical modification.

So the solution might involve actually paying HTB a lot more quickly, so that there's less incentive to (a) pin the arms and (b) take players to ground. Right now, because the umpires are apparently happy to let a player who has had prior opportunity get spun around 3 times while looking for a team mate to throw the ball to, the tackler has a lot of motivation to pin the arms (to stop the throw that will not otherwise be penalised) and take the player to ground (to stop the spinning around looking for a team mate).

Like most of the AFL's 'interpretations' though, they look to deal with the symptom but not the cause.

This game in particular was ridiculous. There were legitimately half a dozen or so very obvious holding the ball decisions just straight up ignored by the umpires. And then they get upset when players decide to tackle hard to try to stop the opposition. Not hard to work out the link there, unless you work for the AFL - pay the free kick and reward the 'good' tackles FFS.

 

[And_ROOS]

Would like to thank the ****heads at fox footy for basically saying "will they look at this" then basically following it with "so Close will get a week".

We better challenge it. This is absolutely not a dangerous tackle and barely a free kick and so far Jonathan Brown is the only media person I've seen come out and say "Close didn't sling, didn't double motion, and the Crows players momentum took him forward."

This has a bit of the Duncan bump feel to it. It wasn't a free kick or suspension but the **** heads in the afl media need stories for the news cycles.
Close looked surprised at the time that he gave away a free kick and I agree with him.

 

[caitsith01]

Would like to thank the *heads at fox footy for basically saying "will they look at this" then basically following it with "so Close will get a week".

We better challenge it. This is absolutely not a dangerous tackle and barely a free kick and so far Jonathan Brown is the only media person I've seen come out and say "Close didn't sling, didn't double motion, and the Crows players momentum took him forward."

This has a bit of the Duncan bump feel to it. It wasn't a free kick or suspension but the * heads in the afl media need stories for the news cycles.
Close looked surprised at the time that he gave away a free kick and I agree with him.

The commentators literally called it as a free kick TO Geelong for holding the ball, then thought it was in the back, and only then realised it was allegedly for a dangerous tackle.

But of course later we get ****head "Ralphy" with his "OOOOH WILL THE MRO LOOK AT THIS COULD BE A WEEK" routine and off we go.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Would like to thank the *heads at fox footy for basically saying "will they look at this" then basically following it with "so Close will get a week".

We better challenge it. This is absolutely not a dangerous tackle and barely a free kick and so far Jonathan Brown is the only media person I've seen come out and say "Close didn't sling, didn't double motion, and the Crows players momentum took him forward."

This has a bit of the Duncan bump feel to it. It wasn't a free kick or suspension but the * heads in the afl media need stories for the news cycles.
Close looked surprised at the time that he gave away a free kick and I agree with him.

That's just plain wrong, and it's the quick double motion that will kill him.

 

[terry_bright]

But of course later we get *head "Ralphy" with his "OOOOH WILL THE MRO LOOK AT THIS COULD BE A WEEK" routine and off we go.

Ralphy has always been more interested in creating news rather than reporting it.
Absolute flog.

 

[you pick one]

That's just plain wrong, and it's the quick double motion that will kill him.

I'd be happy to argue that, also that both arms were pinned,Closes right hand was on Dawson's right bicep as he goes to ground the balls in Dawson's right hand let go of the ball and protect yourself you dumb campaigner but no he does what 90% of us would do when pride gets in the way and hangs on and now Close and eventually the game looks like paying for Dawsons stupidity if the decision isn't challenged and the suspension dropped.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

That's just plain wrong, and it's the quick double motion that will kill him.

Theres no second motion its all one forward movement.

 

[catsfootyfan89]

Bloody hell - tackling is just becoming a gamble these days.

The juxtaposition of AFL is getting pretty ludicrous. One of the fastest, most violent and chaotic sports in the world, but we'll penalise you at the drop of a hat if a range of specific types of injury occur.

I don't know what I'd do differently but it's a bizarre situation for the players for sure.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I'd be happy to argue that, also that both arms were pinned,Closes right hand was on Dawson's right bicep as he goes to ground the balls in Dawson's right hand let go of the ball and protect yourself you dumb campaigner but no he does what 90% of us would do when pride gets in the way and hangs on and now Close and eventually the game looks like paying for Dawsons stupidity if the decision isn't challenged and the suspension dropped.

It's going to add another layer of complication to the developing administration of this rule if the Tribunal decides that the player with the ball is duty-bound to drop the ball when a tackler grabs and twists him, particularly when the two motions occur as quickly and close together as they did in this case

 

[FredLeDeux]

Theres no second motion its all one forward movement.

No, there's a grab and twist

 

[Cataholic]

No, there's a grab and twist

I can see where you're coming from, but I can also see how that motion occurs through the force of Dawson's momentum.

The momentum pushes Close off to one side, and as the last of his momentum continues, it swings Close behind him, at which point he loses momentum and then falls, taking Close with him.

 

[you pick one]

I can see where you're coming from, but I can also see how that motion occurs through the force of Dawson's momentum.

The momentum pushes Close off to one side, and as the last of his momentum continues, it swings Close behind him, at which point he loses momentum and then falls, taking Close with him.

I'm sure right to the very end Dawson thought he could shake the Close tackle as at no stage was he really wrapped up IE two arms around in a bear hug.

 

[Partridge]

Would like to thank the *heads at fox footy for basically saying "will they look at this" then basically following it with "so Close will get a week".

We better challenge it. This is absolutely not a dangerous tackle and barely a free kick and so far Jonathan Brown is the only media person I've seen come out and say "Close didn't sling, didn't double motion, and the Crows players momentum took him forward."

This has a bit of the Duncan bump feel to it. It wasn't a free kick or suspension but the * heads in the afl media need stories for the news cycles.
Close looked surprised at the time that he gave away a free kick and I agree with him.

That's not new. It's one of the many, many reasons I despise football commentators. They do that for every game, every week. They've gone from never making a murmur about incidents like that (believe it or not, they once did that) to now being self-appointed judges.

Close's is no better or worse than any others ones this year. To me exactly none of them should be suspended, don't care who they play for, or who they do it to (I know I'm in the minority on that).

 

[Partridge]

Bloody hell - tackling is just becoming a gamble these days.

The juxtaposition of AFL is getting pretty ludicrous. One of the fastest, most violent and chaotic sports in the world, but we'll penalise you at the drop of a hat if a range of specific types of injury occur.

I don't know what I'd do differently but it's a bizarre situation for the players for sure.

As I read on here somewhere - it really is becoming Auskick for adults.

You already have:

• Nominated rucks
• Can't talk back to umpires
• Players quite literally being told where to stand
• Coaches now told they can't comment at all about umpires or even stand in certain areas

And now - give it time - no tackling.

 

[And_ROOS]

That's just plain wrong, and it's the quick double motion that will kill him.

There is absolutely no double motion in the manner the AFL is banning.

 

[you pick one]

That's not new. It's one of the many, many reasons I despise football commentators. They do that for every game, every week. They've gone from never making a murmur about incidents like that (believe it or not, they once did that) to now being self-appointed judges.

Close's is no better or worse than any others ones this year. To me exactly none of them should be suspended, don't care who they play for, or who they do it to (I know I'm in the minority on that).

How quick did they go from Jesus that's a ripping tackle to I want his head on the chopping block in this case,trial by media.

 

[catsfootyfan89]

As I read on here somewhere - it really is becoming Auskick for adults.

You already have:

• Nominated rucks
• Can't talk back to umpires
• Players quite literally being told where to stand
• Coaches now told they can't comment at all about umpires or even stand in certain areas

And now - give it time - no tackling.

My guess is the next rule addition will be that tackles can't go to ground. As long as tackles can go to ground, you'll never be able to stop players from getting hurt because you've got two gladiators applying opposing forces to one another.

Add to that the fact that players with the ball try to hit the ground in front so they can draw frees for in the back.

What a mess.

 

[StonedCat]

9 of which are spuds....Danger gets a begrudging 'pass'......if the Richmond board is to be believed.

They are seriously an intellectually challenged and troubled breed, with the maturity of a raw prawn.

Take it easy...raw prawns are useful if you're constipated...they give you the sh*ts /s

 

[FredLeDeux]

My guess is the next rule addition will be that tackles can't go to ground. As long as tackles can go to ground, you'll never be able to stop players from getting hurt because you've got two gladiators applying opposing forces to one another.

Add to that the fact that players with the ball try to hit the ground in front so they can draw frees for in the back.

What a mess.

The inevitable progression is strict liability on the tackler for tackles where the head hits the ground.
It's simply a question of money - how much will they need to settle the legal actions, and how they can limit their liability in the negotiations.

 

[Partridge]

How quick did they go from Jesus that's a ripping tackle to I want his head on the chopping block in this case,trial by media.

Very simple. Their income comes from the AFL, either directly or indirectly. They do and say as they're told.

Or outside of the commentators and TV pundits, the journalists are never going to risk the access they desperately crave so they'll preach the same gospel.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I can see where you're coming from, but I can also see how that motion occurs through the force of Dawson's momentum.

The momentum pushes Close off to one side, and as the last of his momentum continues, it swings Close behind him, at which point he loses momentum and then falls, taking Close with him.

That's the line he would have to take on appeal, ie that the second movement was caused by Dawson.
Whether or not the Tribunal buys it is anybody's guess.

 

[catempire]

The inevitable progression is strict liability on the tackler for tackles where the head hits the ground.
It's simply a question of money - how much will they need to settle the legal actions, and how they can limit their liability in the negotiations.

Seems we are at strict liability already if Close is suspended. Cannot see how there’s any role for the “reasonableness” limb of the current factors on the list. Close has no ability to do anything else in this situation.

 

[Generalissimo]

Well, Dawson does throw himself forward in an attempt to draw the free. There's your second movement. Close doesn't cause it or contribute to it, he just hangs on for the ride.