Judds Tackle.

[RoganSaint]

I think the whole sling tackle thing is an absolute joke.

I also think Judd might be looked at, particularly when Kosi was suspended for this tackle on Mitch Duncan, who clearly has an arm free??

 

[Kong]

It should be noted that the MRP don't use precedent.

That's not a tongue in cheek response; that's legitimate.

They didn't allow Essendon to defend Hocking's tackle using the precedent of Trengove's second tackle, which were very similar: back hit the ground before the head, arms free, player continued to play.

It's just pot luck which way they decide to go, really.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Judd's tackle wasn't overly aggressive, both players were moving, Gilbert got both hands free and actually handballed the ball away, and there was no momentum stopping before a secondary action.

All of the other examples show more aggression, and a possibility to just wrap up a player who was flat footed. The rule sucks I agree, but I don't even find this to be a sling tackle as I believe a sling tackle is a second deliberate action to sling.

Haven't really had a look at the King tackle though so reserve judgment on that.

It's a loggerheads issue I feel. If a player does not approach a tackle with aggression, there is every chance the ball is given off and your team is scored against. The coach is unhappy with you, the fans are unhappy with you and you have potentially cost your team.

I believe the clubs tell the players to play with ferocity and whatever will be will be. I'm sure no clubs are saying to go easy in the tackle.

 

[DonsRule]

Judd's tackle wasn't overly aggressive, both players were moving, Gilbert got both hands free and actually handballed the ball away, and there was no momentum stopping before a secondary action.

All of the other examples show more aggression, and a possibility to just wrap up a player who was flat footed. The rule sucks I agree, but I don't even find this to be a sling tackle as I believe a sling tackle is a second deliberate action to sling.

Haven't really had a look at the King tackle though so reserve judgment on that.

It's a loggerheads issue I feel. If a player does not approach a tackle with aggression, there is every chance the ball is given off and your team is scored against. The coach is unhappy with you, the fans are unhappy with you and you have potentially cost your team.

I believe the clubs tell the players to play with ferocity and whatever will be will be. I'm sure no clubs are saying to go easy in the tackle.

I agree, I just think it was a good tackle by Judd, not a thing more, the fact that is even spotted is just how silly the rule is.

But, one part of that I think was the issue with the Hocking tackle too, yes it was more aggresive, I think most thought the precident was arms were free, no injury, no more action. That Kerr stood up in the tackle, and was still capable of giving of a handpass, then Hocking was just trying to take him to ground to prevent it. I just don't like the rule

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I agree. I really believe this is a case by case issue based on how the MRP feel at the time. I think options and aggression are taken into account, and it seems to be based around a secondary action that they deem unnecessary. That's how I would be looking at it if I was coaching players to avoid it. Wrap him up, pin the ball in, tackle over. I think some players may also use the sling, not to avoid a handball being given away, but to dislodge the ball and create a turnover.

 

[camiam]

i think Adelaide have dobbed him in!!!

i saw the tackle, nothing in it, like jake kings. so thats the scary part for judd. if kingy gets 2 weeks for crap all then juddy should. the MRP have to be consistent with there decisions. but i suppose the golden child will get off because of the name

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

i think Adelaide have dobbed him in!!!

i saw the tackle, nothing in it, like jake kings. so thats the scary part for judd. if kingy gets 2 weeks for crap all then juddy should. the MRP have to be consistent with there decisions. but i suppose the golden child will get off because of the name

So according to you there is nothing in it, but if he gets off, it's because he's the golden child?

Talk about having a bet each way.

 

[DonsRule]

I agree. I really believe this is a case by case issue based on how the MRP feel at the time. I think options and aggression are taken into account, and it seems to be based around a secondary action that they deem unnecessary. That's how I would be looking at it if I was coaching players to avoid it. Wrap him up, pin the ball in, tackle over. I think some players may also use the sling, not to avoid a handball being given away, but to dislodge the ball and create a turnover.

I get the feeling that is why Adelaide questioned the King tackle last week a little, that the clubs themselves are a little confused about the rule, anyway, hopefully Judd is playing this week, as he should.

Edit:
I hate that Judd is a golden child he'll get off crap.

I think though that the rules is so open to interpertation is what makes it so hard. No one really knows what the interpertation is going to be like this week, there just seems a lack of consistancy.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I get the feeling that is why Adelaide questioned the King tackle last week a little, that the clubs themselves are a little confused about the rule, anyway, hopefully Judd is playing this week, as he should.

Just had a look at the King tackle, and he was extremely unlucky to get done for that. Did Otten have delayed effects from it, is that Adelaide's issue?

From what I can see, he got to the Otten just as he made contact with the ball, so had a chance to push him off his kick and turnover the ball, it was all one motion and strong but not overly aggressive. The only thing different to Judd's is that his tackle was later and they might have thought he could release it when the ball came off the boot (nigh on impossible to stop momentum just like that) and the arms were pinned.

MRP are guessing. Still think Judd's is the least offensive of all the examples given so far, and has so much going in his favour. No aggression, no second movement, no injury, bodies in motion, arms free.

 

[camiam]

So according to you there is nothing in it, but if he gets off, it's because he's the golden child?

Talk about having a bet each way.

lol yeah i think it can go either way. as in i dont think its reportable but he should get reported cause everyone else has been. its a bullshit rule

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

lol yeah i think it can go either way. as in i dont think its reportable but he should get reported cause everyone else has been. its a bullshit rule

Not the point I was making. If he gets off, it's because he deserved to get off, not because he is Chris Judd.

On top of that, none of the tackles suspended so far, replicate the circumstances of Judd's tackle so there is no precedent.

 

[Drizt]

Re: What did Judd do?

[youtube]NiFs4zq2dyU[/youtube]

6 weeks IMO, however with that type of barbaric behaviour police involvement may be necessary

Any other season that wouldn't even be looked at. But this season they have been red hot on that sort of thing. He would get a week if the AFL was consistent.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Re: What did Judd do?

Any other season that wouldn't even be looked at. But this season they have been red hot on that sort of thing. He would get a week if the AFL was consistent.

Nothing to be consistent about. It doesn't look like any of the tackles suspended so far.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Re: What did Judd do?

There you go, On twitter ...

Joseph fined for stepping on Milne's hand, Milne reprimand for hitting Joseph, Robinson assessed for his hit on Jones, force not sufficient enough.

Judd not even cited. Obviously, it is because the AFL loves him.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Not even looked at Milne and Joseph the only two that got anything and even then they only got reprimands or fines https://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122730/default.aspx

 

[ciaobella]

Ask the flogs on the MRP what the word consistency means and they'll say they've never heard the word before. So how can they exercise consistency when they don't know what it is? Add to that the MRP are not accountable to anyone and you've got a license to do anything you want! Not a bad job eh?

 

[Tiger2709]

It should be noted that the MRP don't use precedent.

That's not a tongue in cheek response; that's legitimate.

They didn't allow Essendon to defend Hocking's tackle using the precedent of Trengove's second tackle, which were very similar: back hit the ground before the head, arms free, player continued to play.

It's just pot luck which way they decide to go, really.

Also, according to their comments when shafting Jake King, the MRP aren't required to prove guilt, the onus is on the player to prove innocence and if you do come up with evidence ie. regarding when the injury occurred, it appears they ignore it or decide when it suits, to work on probability of when the injury occurred, this organisation needs to be disbanded and a set up created that follows some set rules, the whole process has become a huge joke.

 

[Tiger2709]

Judd's tackle wasn't overly aggressive, both players were moving, Gilbert got both hands free and actually handballed the ball away, and there was no momentum stopping before a secondary action.

All of the other examples show more aggression, and a possibility to just wrap up a player who was flat footed. The rule sucks I agree, but I don't even find this to be a sling tackle as I believe a sling tackle is a second deliberate action to sling.

Haven't really had a look at the King tackle though so reserve judgment on that.

It's a loggerheads issue I feel. If a player does not approach a tackle with aggression, there is every chance the ball is given off and your team is scored against. The coach is unhappy with you, the fans are unhappy with you and you have potentially cost your team.

I believe the clubs tell the players to play with ferocity and whatever will be will be. I'm sure no clubs are saying to go easy in the tackle.

It's not really about Judd's tackle which in my mind was fine, but to not even review it after they were frothing at the mouth to suspend Jake King last week at the merest hint from the AFC that something may have occurred is what is annoying, how long before a player takes this corrupt organisation to court to get a real and fair ruling?

 

[grogan]

It was a great tackle and no-one got hurt. Move on

 

[Nerv_01]

Judd's tackle was completely different to the Hocking tackle watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XUJ_ArxsUY

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

It was a great tackle and no-one got hurt. Move on

However, as we all know, there are certain players who would have had a case to answer for the same tackle. That's the thing that annoys people, it all depends who you are.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

However, as we all know, there are certain players who would have had a case to answer for the same tackle. That's the thing that annoys people, it all depends who you are.

You're paranoid.

Can you show me one example of a player having a case to answer for a 'sling' tackle with all the following characteristics:

* Arms not pinned
* No second action
* Head not hitting ground
* No injury
* Low aggression
* Tackled player not flat footed before slinging motion.

Many neutrals think there was nothing in it, but then some put it down to Judd being Judd that he was not cited on it. It's pure paranoia and tall poppy syndrome.

 

[PendlesPremiers]

You're paranoid.

Can you show me one example of a player having a case to answer for a 'sling' tackle with all the following characteristics:

* Arms not pinned
* No second action
* Head not hitting ground
* No injury
* Low aggression
* Tackled player not flat footed before slinging motion.

Many neutrals think there was nothing in it, but then some put it down to Judd being Judd that he was not cited on it. It's pure paranoia and tall poppy syndrome.

I agree with everything except for the 'no second action'. Once Judd made contact with Gilbert he took another three steps, turned his body around then planted his feet and wrenched Gilbert over his hip.

I'm against the 'sling tackle rule' in general, so I'm glad he got off.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I agree with everything except for the 'no second action'. Once Judd made contact with Gilbert he took another three steps, turned his body around then planted his feet and wrenched Gilbert over his hip.

I'm against the 'sling tackle rule' in general, so I'm glad he got off.

The motion was fluid. He didn't have Gilbert flat footed. Gilbert was still moving and Judd was still heading in the direction he was heading when going after Gilbert. What you are describing is more like the old Cumberland Throw, where you use your opponents momentum against them, using your own body to take them off balance.

In most of these other incidents, a player grabs the ball in traffic, flatfooted, instantly he is tackled, stopped but then pulled off his feet. This was not the case in the King tackle, but then King had the arms pinned so differed from Judd's there at least.

Because of momentum, and because Gilbert did not get rid of the ball until half way through the tackling motion, Judd had little other way to execute that tackle.

 

[DonsRule]

The motion was fluid. He didn't have Gilbert flat footed. Gilbert was still moving and Judd was still heading in the direction he was heading when going after Gilbert. What you are describing is more like the old Cumberland Throw, where you use your opponents momentum against them, using your own body to take them off balance.

In most of these other incidents, a player grabs the ball in traffic, flatfooted, instantly he is tackled, stopped but then pulled off his feet. This was not the case in the King tackle, but then King had the arms pinned so differed from Judd's there at least.

Because of momentum, and because Gilbert did not get rid of the ball until half way through the tackling motion, Judd had little other way to execute that tackle.

Glad Judd wasn't sited.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117788/default.aspx

Thats Trengroces 2nd tackle, wasn wasn't sighted because there was no injury, and minimal contact to the head/shoulder, under that required to constitute a report. I think it'sa fair assessment, but, it was agressive, and there was *some* head contact.