MRP / Trib. Higgins - 3 weeks for Aliir tackle
- Thread starter PJays
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Probably 90% of all tackles meet that criteria though.
You don't get suspended just for 'dangerous' tackles.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
He was never getting off Alir is missing 12 days
Last edited:
Plugger35
Umpiring Expert
- Sep 27, 2008
- 140,007
- 162,696
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Black Caps, Sea Eagles, Subiaco
The tribunal is just as much of a joke as the MRO, how does Charlie Cameron get let off with nothing yet Higgins gets 3 weeks.
Obviously Higgins isn't enough of a good bloke.
It was graded severe, that's why Higgins got 3 weeks when most sling tackles get a week or even nothing like Charlie Cameron.
The lack of consistency is farcical.
Obviously Higgins isn't enough of a good bloke.
It was graded severe, that's why Higgins got 3 weeks when most sling tackles get a week or even nothing like Charlie Cameron.
The lack of consistency is farcical.
His other arm is around his back and rolls him around. Dragged downwards with the arm hold and body weight and the also the arm around the back as a second action.
Funny that many players kick when being tackled and don’t end up round housing themselves into the ground. One would think that’s maybe due to the actions of Higgins instead. Just maybe…
90% of tackles though don’t result in a concussion and the head slamming into the turf. It’s the few that do that the AFL are taking action against.
Whether we like it or not, the concussion changes the perception of the impact which results in a greater penalty. Has been the way for years now.
Higgins was careless in his actions towards Aliir. No different to a bump gone wrong now. The player has a duty of care towards that player whether we like it or not. So they need to implement it correctly.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
At the end of the day his actions contributed to Allir being out for a minimum of 12 days. That’s the bottom line here, did it deserve 3 maybe nit but it’s very consistent based off this years rulings
Dogflogger
Team Captain
- Sep 25, 2018
- 342
- 383
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
I think if his name was Daicos he wouldn't get more than a week, But probably off with a fine.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Impossible with the concussion. It was either 0 for the action or 3+ on a severe grading which it was.
Plugger35
Umpiring Expert
- Sep 27, 2008
- 140,007
- 162,696
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Black Caps, Sea Eagles, Subiaco
No it isn't consistent at all, how many other so called sling tackles have got a 3 week suspension this year? None I can think of.
I doubt there was anyone that saw that Higgins tackle on Friday night and thought that it deserved a 3 week suspension.
Even most commentators said it should either be a week or even no suspension, only Michael Christian thought that it deserved 3.
If was judged to be a classifiable offence it had to be 3+ weeks. Concussions automatically lead to severe impact and high contact, combined with careless ruling equals 3+ on the MRP table. Had Aliir not been concussed, it would have been assessed as medium impact and therefore 1 week.
As it was, there was zero mechanism for it to be 1 week, the only realistic argument they could make was that it wasn't a classifiable offence at all (which they had a reasonable argument for). Barring some weird obscure ruling like they made with the Charlie Cameron farce, they had no chance of anything but 0 or 3+ weeks.
I literally saw two tackles where a guy was tackled and had his head slammed into the ground as a result whilst flicking between games over the weekend. I mentioned then earlier in this thread. Kennedy did it to Dangerfield, and Blakey did it to Chol.
One was 'play on', the other actually resulted in a free kick to the tackler.
There was no concussion, but both hit their heads hard on the ground.
It literally makes zero sense to 'crack down' on something in one situation - and the reward it in another.
It certainly isn't a deterrent. And if it's not a deterrent, then what is the point?
it doesn't make anything safer if it's still a legal action.
it's just really weird and utterly illogical.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
It literally couldn’t be only a week as soon as there was a concussion. Those are the rules it’s consistent. All year they have ruled this way. Players know to not sling in tackles
They clearly don't.
Kennedy did it to Dangerfield on Saturday. Blakey did it to Chol on Sunday
Both hit their heads heavily on the ground. One was even a free kick to the tackler.
Only suspending players based on concussion does not act as a deterrent and clearly does not make the game safer.
It's just a really odd approach. I don't really understand the purpose it serves.
But if they didn’t result in a concussion then they are practically irrelevant to this discussion.
The impact is a determining factor in the sanction whether we like it or not. It just is. A large factor for that matter.
As soon as Aliir went out with concussion the only option was severe impact and 3 matches. It’s in the AFLs guidelines and MRO grading.
So there’s really no point comparing to other tackles and saying they hit their head hard but we’re fine. 1 of them resulted in concussion and the other didn’t.
This was so cut and paste from the moment it happened.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Neither of those incidents resulted in a concussion and a player being out for a minimum of 12 days. Concussion is very important these players have to live after they play, can we not have more with head injury symptoms after the play?
My discussion has been about the logic in suspending players for actions based solely on whether the guy gets concussion or not.
I also did not believe that Higgins slung Alir.
But I feel like you're arguing whether the AFL was right or not based on the AFL's rules - whereas I'm arguing that the AFL rules are pretty much nonsensical.
Anyway, time for me to move in from this topic.
Higgins is done, boo hoo.
I've said my peace.
Higgins is done, boo hoo.
I've said my peace.
MrsBlueSky
Cancelled
- Apr 5, 2024
- 521
- 525
- AFL Club
- West Coast
The rules may be nonsensical and erratically imposed but it's about time tackles where an opponent's head bounces off the ground to give them concession or make their eyes pop out should not be part of the game of footy.
Plugger35
Umpiring Expert
- Sep 27, 2008
- 140,007
- 162,696
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Black Caps, Sea Eagles, Subiaco
Some players get concussed more easily than others so if that is the only criteria for a suspension then it just becomes pot luck.
A player could make a sling tackle with equal force to the Higgins tackle and get no suspension due to there being no concussion.
How is that fair? it's just punishing the outcome rather than the action and it results in a lack of consistency and more confusion.
Similar threads
