News JOM offered a week

[arsesmart]

Well

Is the "no prior opportunity" rule somewhere at the root of the problem?
It encourages the player to take possession when they have no chance of disposing of the ball effectively, to turn a loose ball into a 50:50 at least,
but further for the chance of a free by some degree of staging, dropping to draw the high tackle, simulating a sling??
Players would then try to keep the ball moving rather than seek the no prior stoppage??

I look at all of this from how do we protect the players from head and neck injuries?

Getting rid of the prior opportunity clause would increase the value of a tackle, encouraging more of it. It's a pretty indirect way of trying to protect players' heads. Just stipulate players need to keep their feet in the tackle.

O'Meara didn't try to sling and it wasn't a sling tackle. But he did go to ground himself early in the piece, seemingly to increase the likelihood of Spargo going to ground.

Going off your feet as a tackler has been a technique used by AFL players for a while now and it unnecessarily increases the chance of not only head injuries but serious leg ones too.

I'd argue the tackle is a sideshow in the game. AFL players aren't and have never been particularly good at it as a whole. Reducing the value of tackling to protect safety wouldn't lose us much.

 

[kingswood71]

Well

Getting rid of the prior opportunity clause would increase the value of a tackle, encouraging more of it. It's a pretty indirect way of trying to protect players' heads. Just stipulate players need to keep their feet in the tackle.

O'Meara didn't try to sling and it wasn't a sling tackle. But he did go to ground himself early in the piece, seemingly to increase the likelihood of Spargo going to ground.

Going off your feet as a tackler has been a technique used by AFL players for a while now and it unnecessarily increases the chance of not only head injuries but serious leg ones too.

I'd argue the tackle is a sideshow in the game. AFL players aren't and have never been particularly good at it as a whole. Reducing the value of tackling to protect safety wouldn't lose us much.

Perhaps we re-instate the 1874 rule "A player with the ball required to immediately drop it if tackled by an opponent"

 

[arsesmart]

Perhaps we re-instate the 1874 rule "A player with the ball required to immediately drop it if tackled by an opponent"

One for the footy purists.

 

[Jezzitizle]

I’ve changed my view on this, initially I thought Spago’s head didn’t hit as the ground. It didn’t hit hard because fortunately he sort of landed on the ball, but it clearly did hit imo.

Omeara may get off but now I doubt it.

 

[DocT]

Well

Getting rid of the prior opportunity clause would increase the value of a tackle, encouraging more of it. It's a pretty indirect way of trying to protect players' heads. Just stipulate players need to keep their feet in the tackle.

O'Meara didn't try to sling and it wasn't a sling tackle. But he did go to ground himself early in the piece, seemingly to increase the likelihood of Spargo going to ground.

Going off your feet as a tackler has been a technique used by AFL players for a while now and it unnecessarily increases the chance of not only head injuries but serious leg ones too.

I'd argue the tackle is a sideshow in the game. AFL players aren't and have never been particularly good at it as a whole. Reducing the value of tackling to protect safety wouldn't lose us much.

I was with you all the way except the last bit about reducing the value of tackling. The bump is vastly reduced already. Aggressive body contact is part of what makes our sport what it is. A deliberate rotatory slinging action to increase the force with which a player hits the deck is unacceptable as is pinning arms and driving the head down into the ground. But I think the ouch factor is an integral part of footy and needs to remain ie there will always be an element of risk. I guess it's where we draw the line.

 

[kingswood71]

I’ve changed my view on this, initially I thought Spago’s head didn’t hit as the ground. It didn’t hit hard because fortunately he sort of landed on the ball, but it clearly did hit imo.

Omeara may get off but now I doubt it.

View attachment 1700292

This was Degoey on Meek. Low impact and a fine.
Now I live by fairness and equity. If this was graded as medium impact, then I would be happy with the JOM one graded medium too.

 

[kingswood71]

And in many respects, the De Goey one was worse. Meek had already handballed the ball away, yet he was still dumped with his head hitting the ground.
If thats low impact, JOM's is fleeting insufficient contact!!

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Is the "no prior opportunity" rule somewhere at the root of the problem?
It encourages the player to take possession when they have no chance of disposing of the ball effectively, to turn a loose ball into a 50:50 at least,
but further for the chance of a free by some degree of staging, dropping to draw the high tackle, simulating a sling??
Players would then try to keep the ball moving rather than seek the no prior stoppage??

I look at all of this from how do we protect the players from head and neck injuries?

Nah, I think the no prior opportunity rule is fine. We want players to try and win the ball

It's players going limp at the legs when tackled. Neale has done it twice now. Umpires and tribunal just need to acknowledge it.

 

[Taylor]

Free kicks will win you a game. Five games out of nine last weekend decided by less than two goals across four quarters of footy. That's incredibly tight contests. Two moments of individual brilliance across the game extra and the results are reversed. Or two free kicks awarded at the right spot, reversed.

It makes sense to try and game the system.

The coping from me on JOM is that he might benefit from a break. He was our second lowest time on ground for a non sub related player last weekend.

 

[Alfonz]

This was Degoey on Meek. Low impact and a fine.
Now I live by fairness and equity. If this was graded as medium impact, then I would be happy with the JOM one graded medium too.
View attachment 1700297

They would say Meek could put his left arm out and brace the fall. Plus the right one is free as well, even if it is tucked under. The optics of JOM pinning the left arm chicken-wing style will be his undoing.

I maintain it should have been holding the ball against Spargo. If Serong and Pickett were swapped, Spargo would have handballed it to Pickett. He had a chance with both arms free, but then chose not to dispose, after which JOM got his left arm. Then Spargo took a huge spin into the ground while JOM was trying to hold him up.

 

[Jezzitizle]

This was Degoey on Meek. Low impact and a fine.
Now I live by fairness and equity. If this was graded as medium impact, then I would be happy with the JOM one graded medium too.
View attachment 1700297

Yeh, but let’s not pretend who is facing the mrp doesn’t impact dictate what happens.

I don’t think O’Meara should get suspended given Spargo wasn’t hurt, he didn’t even grab his head from memory, but the mrp like to make a statement when the player/club in question isn’t likely to generate a huge media backlash.

 

[Alfonz]

Yeh, but let’s not pretend who is facing the mrp doesn’t impact dictate what happens.

I don’t think O’Meara should get suspended given Spargo wasn’t hurt, he didn’t even grab his head from memory, but the mrp like to make a statement when the player/club in question isn’t likely to generate a huge media backlash.

Is the "MRP" still just a singular person in Michael Christian, ex-Collingwood premiership player? That in itself is laughable. Not sure if it has changed recently, but it has certainly just been him in the past, when he was appointed in 2017 as the sole person comprising the farcically titled "panel".

 

[Nothing]

Is the "MRP" still just a singular person in Michael Christian, ex-Collingwood premiership player? That in itself is laughable. Not sure if it has changed recently, but it has certainly just been him in the past, when he was appointed in 2017 as the sole person comprising the farcically titled "panel".

It was a panel but changed to MRO from 2018. Christian has been MRO since inception of the role.

 

[ignoramus]

Is the "MRP" still just a singular person in Michael Christian, ex-Collingwood premiership player? That in itself is laughable. Not sure if it has changed recently, but it has certainly just been him in the past, when he was appointed in 2017 as the sole person comprising the farcically titled "panel".

The title was changed to MRO (i.e. Officer) at the same time, so not quite as farcical as all that.

 

[ignoramus]

It was a panel but changed to MRO from 2018. Christian has been MRO since inception of the role.

snap

 

[Nothing]

snap

 

[Alfonz]

The title was changed to MRO (i.e. Officer) at the same time, so not quite as farcical as all that.

OK point taken. The AFL still have a website labelled as such:

Tribunal and MRP - AFL.com.au

Read news about the AFL Tribunal and Match Review Panel

www.afl.com.au

And it is still highly dubious that an ex-Collingwood stalwart can make decisions independently that could benefit Collingwood.

 

[ignoramus]

My fault for taking the time to review and edit syntax

 

[ignoramus]

And it is still highly dubious that an ex-Collingwood stalwart can make decisions independently that could benefit Collingwood.

Doubtless. From memory, the rationale behind the change was to speed up the assessment and charging process. A single MRO means no need to have single scheduled time for the panel to meet and discuss.

 

[Nothing]

My fault for taking the time to review and edit syntax

If today's journalists have taught us anything its deliver first, review second.

 

[Taylor]

I would still expect an intern at the AFL actually forwards the incidents to the MRO in between dodging the management's sexual advances.

 

[arsesmart]

I was with you all the way except the last bit about reducing the value of tackling. The bump is vastly reduced already. Aggressive body contact is part of what makes our sport what it is. A deliberate rotatory slinging action to increase the force with which a player hits the deck is unacceptable as is pinning arms and driving the head down into the ground. But I think the ouch factor is an integral part of footy and needs to remain ie there will always be an element of risk. I guess it's where we draw the line.

There’s no “ouch factor” in going to ground while tackling though (not immediately). It’s possibly more the opposite and it’s more just lazy technique. That if we leave unnecessary risks of CTE unaddressed there might be no game to draw the line in.

 

[Channels]

I would agree if both arms were pinned. One arm (holding the ball) was free, he could have protected himself but chose to retain the ball.

 

[benfica]

Cerra got off...surely jom gets a pass

 

[BStaff17]

Cerra got off...surely jom gets a pass

Cerra plays for Carlton. JOM plays for Fremantle.

I know what way the tribunal will head when it comes to us. JOM may as well lube up now.

I would love to know that stats of what clubs are generally successful at the tribunal and what club aren't.

I reckon big Victorian clubs get a lot more leeway shock horror.