Judds Tackle.

[blues4flag]

Here I was thinking the rule was brought in to protect players who had both arms pinned and couldn't break their fall with anything but their face.

One action, both arms free, Gilbert uninjured - an absolute farce if that's deemed worthy of suspension.

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

If we have any consistency he will be suspended

Fat chance

 

[boncer34]

Here I was thinking the rule was brought in to protect players who had both arms pinned and couldn't break their fall with anything but their face.

One action, both arms free, Gilbert uninjured - an absolute farce if that's deemed worthy of suspension.

Rubbish. Judd's tackle is clearly a sling tackle and as such should be given the same penalty that others (ie Hocking) have got. Which is one week.


Of course its entirely possible I'm only saying this so he misses next week.

 

[strategy]

I just started another thread of the biased TV cameras

 

[Heisenberg_]

Fat chance

This is correct, should have put a disclaimer down the bottom.

 

[Vincent Chase]

I just started another thread of the biased TV cameras

That's awesome, I'm sure it will be a great read.

No doubt it's a giant conspiracy .

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Re: What did Judd do?

you mean number 1 for falling on top off people when the ball is already held in a pack

Just like everybody high up in the tackle count. You get a chance to tackle more when there are multiple players around the ball. Go figure. Luke Ball is Collingwood's number one fall on top of people tackler incidentally. Goes with the territory being an inside midfielder.

Arms not pinned, no aggressive second action and as much as this should not matter, no injury. Those talking about consistency, are not comparing tackles that are consistent with each other.

 

[Burzum]

Here I was thinking the rule was brought in to protect players who had both arms pinned and couldn't break their fall with anything but their face.

One action, both arms free, Gilbert uninjured - an absolute farce if that's deemed worthy of suspension.

Didn't seem to matter when Hocking tackled Kerr, so Judd should go for this if the MRP was consistent.

 

[chestbrah]

Regardless of the outcome I really do hope the MRP provides clarification on both the Chapman and Judd tackles. Armitage, and particularly the Hocking/Kerr incident weren't too dissimilar, and obviously both resulted in suspensions. IMO neither Judd or Chapman will go, nor should they go, but the MRP has set some ridiculous precedents that will make a fair decision in both the above cases wrongfully being questioned.

 

[dan warna]

Regardless of the outcome I really do hope the MRP provides clarification on both the Chapman and Judd tackles. Armitage, and particularly the Hocking/Kerr incident weren't too dissimilar, and obviously both resulted in suspensions. IMO neither Judd or Chapman will go, nor should they go, but the MRP has set some ridiculous precedents that will make a fair decision in both the above cases wrongfully being questioned.

concur, the whole sling tackle thing is a fad and a stupid rule.

IMO ankle grabs are far more dangerous and hardly get a look in these days.

 

[kosifantutti]

Gilbert was obviously concussed. Did anyone see his kicking after the incident?

 

[blues4flag]

Gilbert's always concussed if his kicking is any indication.

 

[s_cranberry]

Re: What did Judd do?

Was at the game... Didn't see any sling tackle but as an essendon supporter obviously I'd be pretty happy if Judd was suspended

 

[DonsRule]

Here I was thinking the rule was brought in to protect players who had both arms pinned and couldn't break their fall with anything but their face.

One action, both arms free, Gilbert uninjured - an absolute farce if that's deemed worthy of suspension.

I agree. I don't think Judd should have anything to worry about. Who knows with how the rules are with the spear tackle thought, there have been a few simular lately, Heath Hocking on Kerr for one, arms were free, no injury, Kerr played out the game, yet, Hocking was suspended, in the tribunal for failing to meet his duty of care. The rule needs to to fixed and quick, the fact that the tackle is even being questioned is a joke, imo.

 

[liam_13]

Re: What did Judd do?

If he goes...jesus christ...him being suspended for the tackle will be worse then not being suspended for the elbow on Pavlich.

Gilberts head didn't hit the ground, so not head high. It was negligent. It was in the field of play. It was very low force. Below the force needed for a report I would think.

Thread will be locked come Monday night when it is looked at by MRP once then thrown out

 

[liam_13]

The Hocking tackle and the Judd tackle are very different. If you think differently, you are obviously an Essendon supporter hoping for Judd out next week.

Not to worry, Hurley will probably kick 6 against an undermanned defence

 

[DonsRule]

The Hocking tackle and the Judd tackle are very different. If you think differently, you are obviously an Essendon supporter hoping for Judd out next week.

Not to worry, Hurley will probably kick 6 against an undermanned defence

I don't want him out, I just think that the tackle is being questioned is crazy. But hocking isn't the only one. There was the Jake King tackle, too, players that have played out the game, and for some reason, they're getting suspended for it. They need to do something about it for next season.

 

[Ghostwriter]

Has the kid been rubbed out?

 

[gO_bOmBeRz]

Gilbert's always concussed if his kicking is any indication.

hahahha !

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Just had a look at the Hocking tackle on Kerr. It was completely different to the Judd tackle on Gilbert. Play was basically standing still. He wrapped Kerr up initially, then in a second movement flung him to the ground. Not commenting on whether a suspension was valid or not, just that they were different. For two incidents where the player was not injured, Hocking's was the more aggressive and the more avoidable.

 

[DonsRule]

Just had a look at the Hocking tackle on Kerr. It was completely different to the Judd tackle on Gilbert. Play was basically standing still. He wrapped Kerr up initially, then in a second movement flung him to the ground. Not commenting on whether a suspension was valid or not, just that they were different. For two incidents where the player was not injured, Hocking's was the more aggressive and the more avoidable.

I do think Judd should be safe, I think it's just a very poor rule. I'd agree Hockings was more aggressive.

Even check David Armitige just last week

http://www.afl.com.au/Video/tabid/76/contentid/384457/invoke/Default.aspx

At around the 1:10 mark.

I just find it a rule where you could almost suspend someone for every week, and for things most people go to the footy to see.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Won't go. No contact to the head.

 

[Dustin Credible]

Nothing will happen to Judd, or any other Brownlow medal contender. MRP too concerned with avoiding a McKernan/Chris Grant -like episode to consistently apply the rules.

FWIW IMO he shouldn't get suspended for that tackle, but neither should've Jake King or a number of others this season.

 

[DonsRule]

Won't go. No contact to the head.

I think that will be the case. Makes it odd though that not the tackler if being held responsible as to much much the guy being tackled protects themselves, uses their arms to break the fall etc. that exact tackle and any head contact he was in trouble., for what most would calll a great tackle

 

[Lord Nicholson]

I think that will be the case. Makes it odd though that not the tackler if being held responsible as to much much the guy being tackled protects themselves, uses their arms to break the fall etc. that exact tackle and any head contact he was in trouble., for what most would calll a great tackle

You're applying logic to an MRP-related issue. This is madness.