Oppo Camp Other Club News/General Discussion

[sideswipe]

I wasn't aware that "suspending based on outcome" was law, when did this happen?

I thought that if player offends and is reported it was an unwritten law that the outcome would be taken into account

Learn something new everyday.

It’s called causation.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[NMBB]

To confirm..... the AFL has created confusion?

 

[sr36]

To confirm..... the AFL has created confusion?

It's just at a ridiculous point. The AFL are ignoring the reality that the bloke with the ball isn't a bag of potatoes that allows himself to be controlled. There is regularly a heap of force being applied by the bloke with the ball that impacts the outcome of the tackle. With the Cameron one, watch the side on shots of the bloke with the ball - he's trying to turn to get free which results in him dragging Cameron on top of him more than the other way around.

 

[Maggie5]

AFL Tribunal rules if anyone interested.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2024/03/13/bfe20552-9e6a-4464-88b6-509b31d77ed8/2024-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjUhLq85K-HAxUUs1YBHYk8DzwQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1NkrDlz9JlDWYJUaMoaD_F

 

[Jen2310]

 

[HoraceStrasbork]

Time sniper lives to pummel another day

 

[Jen2310]

Time sniper lives to pummel another day

He'll get his desserts one day

 

[Jen2310]

 

[slugger01]

He'll get his desserts one day

Yes, he might, but the right decision was made.
I would be ropeable if a Pies player got suspended for the same event as Cameron’s.
Can you imagine Naicos being suspended for that??
Cameron was pulled down in that tackle.. he didn’t cause it..
Anyway, Bedford’s appeal will be dismissed, even though again, he only had the upper left arm in the tackle - just below the shoulder. He didn’t have both arms “pinned” imo.

 

[sam_e]

It's just at a ridiculous point. The AFL are ignoring the reality that the bloke with the ball isn't a bag of potatoes that allows himself to be controlled. There is regularly a heap of force being applied by the bloke with the ball that impacts the outcome of the tackle. With the Cameron one, watch the side on shots of the bloke with the ball - he's trying to turn to get free which results in him dragging Cameron on top of him more than the other way around.

In both the Cameron and Bedford instances, both arms are locked, up to and including contact with the ground ie. tackling player does not let go. Why? And is it even possible /feasible to let go mid-tackle?

Reckon it's possible if the AFL tweak the rules to say, once both arms are wrapped up / locked, it will immediately result in a ball-up. This is almost where we're at now ..

The Cameron tackle is clearer, for mine. The tackled player (Duggan) tries to shrug /break the tackle, body weight & momentum shifts, Cameron's 'control' of the tackle is lost, legs tangle and they both fall to ground (like a tree being felled in the forest).

How do you encourage Cameron (as tackler) to let go earlier or at least before contact with the ground?
How do you encourage Duggan (as tacklee) to not try fight or break the tackle, which leads to the shift in body weight /momentum / loss of control?

The umpire needs to blow his whistle way earlier - Cameron & Duggan take 3 or 4 dance steps before they hit the turf - and the trigger (in my mind) needs to be immediately when both arms are captured & locked in the tackle. At that point, the ball should be deemed 'dead' and a ball-up the automatic outcome.

With that certainty, Duggan doesn't have to attempt to shrug or break the tackle, Cameron knows he doesn't have to hang on to the tackle to the bitter end. Both arms locked /captured in the tackle, the ball aint coming out and a ball-up will result.

The Bedford run-down tackle or, more specifically, the resultant concussion, is way harder to prevent/avoid. Bedford dives forward, both feet leaving the ground, as he launches at Taranto to lay the tackle. Both Taranto's arms are locked but there's really no time between the tackle being applied and both players hitting the ground ie. not sure there's really any time for Bedford to let go earlier or before both contact the ground.

The only possible change the AFL could contemplate here is, if your feet leave the ground in the process of tackling, you will be directly liable for the outcome, including concussion (see rule changes re the bump)

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Bedford's suspension was even more ridiculous than Cameron's, but since Cameron's was thrown out based on an error of law, I'm not confident Toby will be successful

 

[danielnajdek]

He should’ve been reported in the GF when he ran straight into Howes ribs. Dirty sniper who people seem to think is some nice guy.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

The Patrick Cripps

9

Patrick Cripps

Age

29

Ht

195cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

25.9

5star

K

9.8

4star

HB

16.1

5star

M

3.4

3star

T

5.8

5star

CL

7.4

5star

D

21.0

5star

K

10.1

4star

HB

10.9

5star

M

2.5

3star

T

3.8

4star

CL

6.3

5star

D

12.6

4star

K

4.8

2star

HB

7.8

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.2

5star

CL

1.4

4star

defence has come in handy tonight

 

[eddiesmith]

Guess it’s a free for all on tackles this week, is Ginni playing?

 

[sideswipe]

Lesson for the kids - quote rules, not guidelines.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Black_White]

Guess it’s a free for all on tackles this week, is Ginni playing?

He is.
Probably kicks 5 goals. And then goes to the track..
We dare not touch him though.

 

[eddiesmith]

He is.
Probably kicks 5 goals. And then goes to the track..
We dare not touch him though.

**** that, I want him slammed into the turf every time, all tackles are legal.

 

[sr36]

The Patrick Cripps defence has come in handy tonight

That's great that "likely to cause injury" is in the rules . And I think it's more than just an error in law like the Cripps one. I don't think you can adjudicate that either of those tackles were likely to cause injury. And it's what the rules should be. Hopefully it stays in the rules.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

That's great that "likely to cause injury" is in the rules . And I think it's more than just an error in law like the Cripps one. I don't think you can adjudicate that either of those tackles were likely to cause injury. And it's what the rules should be.

I hope they were successful on appeal not just due to an error in law.

I guess we'll find out when the next player gets suspended for a perfectly executed tackle resulting in concussion

 

[sideswipe]

That's great that "likely to cause injury" is in the rules . And I think it's more than just an error in law like the Cripps one. I don't think you can adjudicate that either of those tackles were likely to cause injury. And it's what the rules should be. Hopefully it stays in the rules.

Cripps got off on a mistake by the tribunal, the avenue of which has since been removed. These two were based on a different error by the tribunal. As technical as all get out which will now cause massive confusion the next time a similar tackle takes place.

None of Cripps, Cameron or Bedford actually ended up being decided on their merits.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sr36]

I hope they were successful on appeal not just due to an error in law.

I guess we'll find out when the next player gets suspended for a perfectly executed tackle resulting in concussion

I do't think they will be suspended for tackles like that - unless "likely" can be interpreted as 1 in 300+

 

[sr36]

Cripps got off on a mistake by the tribunal, the avenue of which has since been removed. These two were based on a different error by the tribunal. As technical as all get out which will now cause massive confusion the next time a similar tackle takes place.

None of Cripps, Cameron or Bedford actually ended up being decided on their merits.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I get that, but my point is that surely "likely to cause injury" is going to be bloody hard to uphold for tackles like those two. THey were unlikely to cause injury and the injured players got bloody unlucky. I think they can only be found guilty if it's an odd definition of "likely" that's being used.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Cripps got off on a mistake by the tribunal, the avenue of which has since been removed. These two were based on a different error by the tribunal. As technical as all get out which will now cause massive confusion the next time a similar tackle takes place.

None of Cripps, Cameron or Bedford actually ended up being decided on their merits.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yeah I wasn't suggesting it was the same error of law as Cripps case, just that it was overturned due to an error.

And as you say it was not on the incident itself.

Which means we could be doing this all again next week with another tackle. I'm sure the Tribunal wont be making the same mistake next week.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

I do't think they will be suspended for tackles like that - unless "likely" can be interpreted as 1 in 300+

Who knows anymore. It hasn't made it any clearer for me

 

[sideswipe]

My point is that surely "likely to cause injury" is going to be bloody hard to uphold for tackles like those two. THey were unlikely to cause injury and the injured players got bloody unlucky

I think the tacklers were unlucky to make a good tackle that caused damage then lucky to get off. If tacklers are in motion holding a bloke with his arms pinned, as good a tackle that may be, they are exposing themselves to trouble if the head hits the deck. This will be the way going forward.

That these two blokes got off on legal errors will only cause more confusion


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app