MRP / Trib. James Sicily - 3 weeks for dangerous tackle - SUSPENSION STANDS!

[KermitJagger]

No one here will agree with this but it does exist:

I understand the rationale here, but to me it's just symptomatic of reviewing a 1 second incident at 20% speed. It doesn't seem like a rational or realistic argument to me that Sicily would be able to make that decision .5 seconds into a 1 second motion, at this point:



Sicily would have hardly been coherent of where he was at that moment, let alone where McCluggage was.

PS: I know you're just pointing out that the justification exists, just my piece on it.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

I understand the rationale here, but to me it's just symptomatic of reviewing a 1 second incident at 20% speed. It doesn't seem like a rational or realistic argument to me that Sicily would be able to make that decision .5 seconds into a 1 second motion, at this point:

View attachment 1717375

Sicily would have hardly been coherent of where he was at that moment, let alone where McCluggage was.

It's him on his back which gets me.
How can it be dangerous when you are in a position to injure yourself?

 

[DogDaySonny]

No one here will agree with this but it does exist:

What I like about this is that they didn't try to call it a sling tackle. They instead emphasised rotating, but there's nothing in that. The issue is that Sicily pinned an arm as McClugage made contact with the ground. So they are slowly pushing toward no pinning arms in tackles, which means holding the ball will be even more difficult to achieve.

The AFL is almost reaching the limits of punishing the tackler. It's approaching the point where any sort of tackle is potentially too risky to make, and will be virtually impossible to stick until rewarded. Soon the AFL will need to dramatically reduce the amount of tackle required to have tackling rewarded. They will need to almost go to two-hand touch. If you can get both your hands on a guy then he's pinged. Without something like that, then footy will essentially become Gailic football.

Also, I think the panel lacks all credibility when they dismiss the effect of Brockman. That's the worst "because I say so" moment in this whole affair.

 

[TheFourPillars]

I had to unwwatch the thread on the main board i think the Norf and Sidney supporter are just trolling

 

[DogDaySonny]

I had to unwwatch the thread on the main board i think the Norf and Sidney supporter are just trolling

I thought trolling was the primary purpose of the main board.

 

[TheFourPillars]

I thought trolling was the primary purpose of the main board.

Hence why i don't post there often

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

No one here will agree with this but it does exist:

You're right, I don't agree with it. I gave up reading fairy tales when I was 4.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I thought trolling was the primary purpose of the main board.

I've been on Big Footy a long time. Years ago, I was fed up with all the rubbish in the main board, so I contacted them suggesting they have a separate board where all the trollers could gather and leave the rest of us alone. They agreed and set up a board named "Bay 13". Things were fine for a while, but eventually all the trolls grew tired of each other and migrated back to the main board where they could upset people.

 

[Rhayader]

What I like about this is that they didn't try to call it a sling tackle. They instead emphasised rotating, but there's nothing in that. The issue is that Sicily pinned an arm as McClugage made contact with the ground. So they are slowly pushing toward no pinning arms in tackles, which means holding the ball will be even more difficult to achieve.

The AFL is almost reaching the limits of punishing the tackler. It's approaching the point where any sort of tackle is potentially too risky to make, and will be virtually impossible to stick until rewarded. Soon the AFL will need to dramatically reduce the amount of tackle required to have tackling rewarded. They will need to almost go to two-hand touch. If you can get both your hands on a guy then he's pinged. Without something like that, then footy will essentially become Gailic football.

Also, I think the panel lacks all credibility when they dismiss the effect of Brockman. That's the worst "because I say so" moment in this whole affair.

Brockman was flung out of the contest with some energy, clearly there were a lot of forces being input and output in various directions. It’s not measurable or knowable what impact he had, but to me that means it can’t be dismissed. Instead the finding seems to be the opposite: We don’t know so therefore it doesn’t matter.

Also, reading the appeal board reasons, I was a bit bemused at the idea that the tribunal didn’t need to ask the biomechanics expert about what else Sicily could have done in this situation because it’s not her area of expertise and regardless, the former football experience of the panel members meant they were better placed to judge.

I mean, I don’t know much about the bonafides of biomechanics as a field, but the idea that you wouldn’t even ask someone - a person the tribunal had accepted as an expert witness - because those on the panel played footy at some point seems pretty flimsy…

 

[Mojo]

I had to unwwatch the thread on the main board i think the Norf and Sidney supporter are just trolling

I used to post in Bay 13, then I realised insulting dumbshits is futile cause they don't know they're dumb, so I stopped posting.

I also used to post on the AFL board, then realised the dumbshits occasionally crawl outside their burrow and attempt to dissemble rational discussion with the language of a dumbshit, so I stopped posting.

I simply now just post on the Hawthorn board... sentence to be continued

 

[Maybloomer]

Bullshit outcome pretty much put a nail in the coffin of Aussie rules..

I don’t think they’ve finished yet. They won’t be happy until they have a game so soft, so benign, so sterile it’ll make AFL-X resemble cage fighting. I have no idea why an organisation would want to ambush its own product but that’s a dictatorship for you. The peasants and workers must suffer for the AFL’s greater good, i.e. pockets.

Tackles will soon go, no coach wants to commit a player to ******ing another player if it’s too risky to pin their arms. Tackler is out of the mainstream contest, tacklee is still able to get a handball away. You’ll probably see players trying to corral or knock the ball clear rather than commit to a fruitless and risky tackle.

The next time Joe Daniher or Jack Reiwoldt collect a head with a knee going for overly ambitious marks and a concussion results, let’s see the narrative from AFL house. Deliberate football act with a resulting concussion. Hmmmm. Over to you Andrew. You and your mates are going to run out of advertising material.

 

[Rocket72]

I understand the rationale here, but to me it's just symptomatic of reviewing a 1 second incident at 20% speed. It doesn't seem like a rational or realistic argument to me that Sicily would be able to make that decision .5 seconds into a 1 second motion, at this point:

View attachment 1717375

Sicily would have hardly been coherent of where he was at that moment, let alone where McCluggage was.

PS: I know you're just pointing out that the justification exists, just my piece on it.

I agree. The tribunal includes ex-players who would fully understand and agree with your points here, so to me, the only explnation is that the AFL seems to have decided that any tackle, even a legal one, that leads to a serious injury or 'bad look', needs to be punished with weeks off. Is it for legal reasons? Is it for public relations? Whatever the reason, doing what is reasonable and within the rules is no longer a defence. Sad.

 

[Stranglers]

I don’t think they’ve finished yet. They won’t be happy until they have a game so soft, so benign, so sterile it’ll make AFL-X resemble cage fighting. I have no idea why an organisation would want to ambush its own product but that’s a dictatorship for you. The peasants and workers must suffer for the AFL’s greater good, i.e. pockets.

Tackles will soon go, no coach wants to commit a player to ******ing another player if it’s too risky to pin their arms. Tackler is out of the mainstream contest, tacklee is still able to get a handball away. You’ll probably see players trying to corral or knock the ball clear rather than commit to a fruitless and risky tackle.

The next time Joe Daniher or Jack Reiwoldt collect a head with a knee going for overly ambitious marks and a concussion results, let’s see the narrative from AFL house. Deliberate football act with a resulting concussion. Hmmmm. Over to you Andrew. You and your mates are going to run out of advertising material.

If they made the change where making an attempt to get rid of it but still executing an incorrect disposal or "the ball spilled free in the tackle", was called incorrect disposal, players wouldn't feel the need to bury their opponents in a tackle to be awarded the free kick. Umpires are WAY too lenient on incorrect disposal and HTB. Throwing the ball, dropping the ball, holding on to it while spun 360, all should be a free against.

It's only because players are trying to stand up in the tackle for so long to get rid of the ball that they are being slung.

Edit: While we are at it, this practice of players flopping forward in a tackle so the tackler falls forward with them in an effort to get a free for in the back needs to be stamped out too. The in the back rule for tackling is supposed to protect players collecting the ball off the ground and/or cover a forceful pushing action, not the player in front dragging the tackler into the ground.

 

[cryptor]

No one here will agree with this but it does exist:

If he lets go of McCluggage's arm early then he's not completing the tackle and there's a reasonable chance McCluggage either keeps possession or it spills free and the umpire doesn't call HTB.

If this is the type of solution they're going to run with then the rules need to be updated to reflect. As the rules and umpiring interpretations stand it only encourages players to pin an arm and bring the opponent to ground as quick as they can.

People don't like big shifts in the rules but it's better than seeing players suspended for multiple weeks because of an accident.

 

[Stranglers]

If he lets go of McCluggage's arm early then he's not completing the tackle and there's a reasonable chance McCluggage either keeps possession or it spills free and the umpire doesn't call HTB.

This is the crux of the issue. If you are caught in a tackle and you don't dispose of it correctly straight away it should be HTB. Bet you'd suddenly see the number of tackles drop because players would be getting rid of it earlier.

 

[grumbleguts]

The AFL stuffed this up at the original Tribunal.

If they had at that point agreed to downgrade the penalty to one week (or maybe even two weeks) then I think everyone would have been content with the decision.

I would not have been. He did nothing wrong. NOTHING.

 

[grumbleguts]

No one here will agree with this but it does exist:

But it directly contradicts evidence from an actual expert biomechanicist. So they are more qualified than the expert.

 

[Brishawk]

I used to post in Bay 13, then I realised insulting dumbshits is futile cause they don't know they're dumb, so I stopped posting.

I also used to post on the AFL board, then realised the dumbshits occasionally crawl outside their burrow and attempt to dissemble rational discussion with the language of a dumbshit, so I stopped posting.

I simply now just post on the Hawthorn board... sentence to be continued

Sounds like my relationship with Twitter

 

[Paul Kersey]

The AFL has rolled out its favourite player in Patrick Dangerfield who has told us today that the AFL is going in the right direction with tackles. Pretty easy statement to make when you can concuss players without consequence.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Sicily's tackle was either going to be graded 3 matches or 0 matches according to their table.

The AFL are trying to navigate an incredibly grey landscape with a black and white lens, it feels. They simply see a tackle that leads to a concussion and automatically deem them guilty.

View attachment 1713125

Very true. Great way to put it grey rule book looked through a black and white vision.
Makes it very hard for the adjudicators.
I wonder if they will look into unfairness like this of Sicily it definitely was the injury that made the Tribunal act on 3 weeks ,
but in doing so they have really made a terrible error and persecuted a player, who I actually thought was trying to bring McCluggage down safely?

Then the medicos walked the man around the ground , which could have been worse, they would not have been one hundred percent sure of what happened inside his skull and neck. It was something I thought was very unprofessional, and dangerous, but I don't know?

 

[JoondalupJ]

For the AFL to fix this situation they will need leadership with two qualities: The maturity to reconsider previous decisions and the courage to stake a position on 'reasonable due care'. If there is one thing we have seen over the last 15 years of AFL leadership, it is that the people in leadership positions at AFL House uniformly lack both those types of maturity and courage. The AFL executives and board show great commitment to their own wealth and prosperity, but little commitment to the essence of the game itself. At every turn decisions are made by assessing what will most immediately benefit the institution of the AFL and the people who occupy its highest ranks. No consideration is given to the quality of the game as an institution.

The most relevant example of this is the AFL's complete disregard for country football. Another example is the keystone cop performance at trying to bury the Essendon drug cheating. A third example is the AFL's outrage over the Hawthorn wellness check on past and current players because it embarrassed the AFL.

The people who lead the AFL are, like much of society's leaders, small people who are first committed to their own welfare over the responsibilities they have been entrusted with.

I agree completely, and the AFL in that manner, have made a massive mistake here. Following a dodgy set of rules that have been manipulated and changed for strange reasons, and at a minimum of 15 years , I think from around the time Port got hold of Brisbane we started to see some rule changes that were supposed to be helping forwards score more , or the 50 metre has become like a speeding or parking ticket,like its a threat and I guess it was first held up in a hard way by umpires because of the head high worries coming about.
But then the 50 became a weapon for umpires who would rule dissent, more recently and give off a 50 metre penalty and sometimes a player so frustrated by the first decision that made him angry and got him a fifty , the next comment gets him another fifty. Dissent is simply re angering keyed up proffesional footballers and should be scrubbed. 50 was originally to stop the heavy handling of a player after he marked the ball,it was part of the game, but now the fifty is a dictatorial warning and should be put back for what it was for.
To me that seems exactly what you've said , small minded small types running a very strict ship that they have no idea how to sail.
We can keep on making comments about different rules , and why many are wrong, but it seems never to cahnge anything. And Iam not sure how the general public can save the game until the likes of Gil is well gone but he seems to be inside the mind new AFL CEO Andrew Dillon, and what his comment about the wrong ruling on Sicily told me today that he s one of the sycophants for the money and without a doubt the game is in terrible terrible danger.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Very true. Great way to put it grey rule book looked through a black and white vision.
Makes it very hard for the adjudicators.
I wonder if they will look into unfairness like this of Sicily it definitely was the injury that made the Tribunal act on 3 weeks ,
but in doing so they have really made a terrible error and persecuted a player, who I actually thought was trying to bring McCluggage down safely?

Then the medicos walked the man around the ground , which could have been worse, they would not have been one hundred percent sure of what happened inside his skull and neck. It was something I thought was very unprofessional, and dangerous, but I don't know?

Feel the defence should've also used that as an example.
Said a head knock is one thing, but if seriously injured and knocked out, why was he allowed to walk off THE LONG WAY.
Where was the neck brace?

 

[JoondalupJ]

That’s unfortunate. I think a platform of the appeal should be that the sanction is manifestly disproportionate to the act being penalised. It seems palpably absurd that a tackle that won a free kick is penalised more severely that Picketts shoulder charge! But maybe we don’t have scope to make that sort of argument.

We have the scope, to see absolute unfairness! And this huge mistake by AFL . The problem is we have no avenue because these people inside this weird corporation only listen to what they want to hear. What else can that be but self benefit to some AFL executives, and why would that be?
Well maybe because they are trying some how, some way to sell this TV sport to other countries to the detriment of the game, although try explaining an Aussie rules senior match to a friend who has never seen it before. These days it is almost impossible because not just the fans but the players and the umpires are not sure when they call things with grey rules that can mean anything to the umpire in the moment, and maybe another umpire sees it as something else, and four umpires really???
I would think that this type of greying thats happened for nearly twenty years is also wide open to corruption and gambling and fixing. There are millions of variables a smart person could use to have someone in the know making a decision at a certain time in the game.
People will pooh pooh that comment believe me the gambkling world has and is leaving its dirty mark on the sports of the world and our game is open to this, like a fawn with a pack of Lions surrounding it is going to be dead..

 

[Buzz Hawk]

I tend to ignore AFL media reporting these days, they’re all so on the tit that all they do is toe the company line, never question anything.
So that’s it, no outrage or disgust in the broader football community, the caravan simply moves on?
Am so disillusioned with the game these days it actually saddens me. A great game ruined by private school, officious twats.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

Game is in a ****ing awful way, ****ing idiots are running it.