- Nov 10, 2022
- 12,737
- 10,264
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Given tonight’s let offs, was will days 2 week suspension an absolut travesty?
Tackling the tackling issue, how do we resolve the issue?
- Thread starter Carringbush2010
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I can't wait for Brownlow night, when the 5 of the top ten are ineligible.
The act of banning a player would seem to suggest some kind of deliberate act or behaviour that was dangerous or abusive. We've gone so far away from that. Player executes a tackle, head hits grass, suspension.
This week I saw a player go for a hanger over the pack, lose his balance completely and smack his own head into the ground. My dad watched the replay and said "two weeks". I had to laugh. It does feel we're getting to that stage.
The act of banning a player would seem to suggest some kind of deliberate act or behaviour that was dangerous or abusive. We've gone so far away from that. Player executes a tackle, head hits grass, suspension.
This week I saw a player go for a hanger over the pack, lose his balance completely and smack his own head into the ground. My dad watched the replay and said "two weeks". I had to laugh. It does feel we're getting to that stage.
- Thread starter
- #103
Bump. Dan Butler tackle on Blakey.
What are everyone's thoughts on this?
What are everyone's thoughts on this?
If the league is intent upon suspending the tackler if the players' head hits the ground, then I believe the only way to reduce the amount of suspensions is to reduce the amount of tackles.
- Thread starter
- #105
IMO, this may lead to a disincentive to tackle.
Yes. The concussion debate isn't going to go away.
It's only my opinion, but at some point the league must accept that 120 tackles per game is virtually ensuring an accident. They need to make a rule change to reduce congestion, and so reduce the tackle count.
If we can reduce the numbers of concussions from tackles to 3 or 4 per year, then we don't need to hand out suspensions for tackling within the rules. This is totally possible if the tackle count average came down to around 50 per game, as it was in the 90s.
After watching the dangerous tackle free in the third quarter of the Freo v Richmond game I’ve got a suggestion as a partial solution.
All parties have a responsibility here tacklers need to be careful, players being tackled must not try to play through a tackle (which essentially forced the tackler to try and bring them to ground) and umpires must clearly signal when they think a tackle is complete. So:
- in addition to saying “mine” or whatever they currently say the umpire must say “complete” in their loudest voice (they do this in league)
One the umpire yells “complete”:
- if the tackler continues with the tackle including ( but not limited to) them bringing the player to ground then it is a free kick, if the tackle turns into a dumping or sling tackle then it is 50m and on report.
- if the tackled player tries to play through the tackle, swing their body this way and that or attempts to run on once the tackler lets them go then it os a free kick and possibly a 50m penalty depending on their actions.
At the moment too much is expected of the tackler. They need to first of all lay the tackle, then they need to ensure the player can’t dispose of the ball while at the same time controlling the momentum of two players and waiting for the key moment when they need to release the tackle so the player being tackled can protect themselves.
As it stands it is an entirely unreasonable expectation and will only lead to tackles that are just as dangerous where players try to completely drop their body weight meaning the tackled player is thrown forward with their lower body pinned.
Regards
S. Pete
All parties have a responsibility here tacklers need to be careful, players being tackled must not try to play through a tackle (which essentially forced the tackler to try and bring them to ground) and umpires must clearly signal when they think a tackle is complete. So:
- in addition to saying “mine” or whatever they currently say the umpire must say “complete” in their loudest voice (they do this in league)
One the umpire yells “complete”:
- if the tackler continues with the tackle including ( but not limited to) them bringing the player to ground then it is a free kick, if the tackle turns into a dumping or sling tackle then it is 50m and on report.
- if the tackled player tries to play through the tackle, swing their body this way and that or attempts to run on once the tackler lets them go then it os a free kick and possibly a 50m penalty depending on their actions.
At the moment too much is expected of the tackler. They need to first of all lay the tackle, then they need to ensure the player can’t dispose of the ball while at the same time controlling the momentum of two players and waiting for the key moment when they need to release the tackle so the player being tackled can protect themselves.
As it stands it is an entirely unreasonable expectation and will only lead to tackles that are just as dangerous where players try to completely drop their body weight meaning the tackled player is thrown forward with their lower body pinned.
Regards
S. Pete
Grockadoc
Brownlow Medallist
- Jul 25, 2008
- 26,012
- 50,406
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Fighting Furies, Man Utd, Cavaliers
Umps.need to take some onus. Once it is clear the ball is not coming out, they need to blow the whistle. The longer they let it go despite no chance of the ball coming out, the more likely a player is to twist and sling/dump the ball carrier in a tackle.
They say thry want the game to be sped up etc, well, blow the whistle sooner.
They say thry want the game to be sped up etc, well, blow the whistle sooner.
- Aug 6, 2021
- 6,957
- 12,748
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I think this should be a suspension, there was a second motion where he pushes Blakey’s head into the ground. The second motion was unnecessary as he already had him cold.
- Thread starter
- #110
Highly unlikely this was intentional, and this view on the 2nd motion is up for debate, not only that we're talking about milliseconds to make a decision.
Many commentators who've played at the highest level have lauded the tackle.
Butler did claim 'I didn't sling him', so if you believe him then he was attempting duty of care.
I really think the game is at an impasse, if the league really wants to eliminate future litigation it really needs to decide if the game can continue as full contact or not.
Take away the contact element in an immediate fashion and likely the game dies, likely though the league is ever so slowly eroding the contact element as it has been and before you know it's 10 years down the track and we're watching touch footy.
Precisely. The AFL is clearly trying to cover itself from future litigation from concussion legal action. The only way they can think of is handing out ridiculous suspensions every time someone falls on the ground. The only way to prevent accidental injury is to ban the bump and tackling, and who would want to watch that?
- Jan 5, 2004
- 1,825
- 2,925
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- collingwood vfl
Well they already have banned the bump, you can't do it without suspension.
We are currently half way through the elimination of tackling.
- Jul 16, 2013
- 15,189
- 20,040
- AFL Club
- Essendon
We are fast approaching this situation
*Dangerous tackle still stays as a free.
*Any concussion leads to suspension. No concussion, no suspension.
It is ridiculous but I can see the AFL bringing it in.
*Dangerous tackle still stays as a free.
*Any concussion leads to suspension. No concussion, no suspension.
It is ridiculous but I can see the AFL bringing it in.
- Jul 16, 2013
- 15,189
- 20,040
- AFL Club
- Essendon
It was an absolute travesty when it happened.
In a season of bad suspensions that one was the worst.
- Feb 5, 2018
- 15,469
- 38,346
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chicago Blackhawks Melb Renegades
It's all for optics. And it's ridiculous.
Rules are generally brought in to alter player behaviour. This simply isn't working.
Sicily, Butler etc are examples of football incidencts with unfortunate outcomes. Like can happen any second of any game.
It needs to be a free kick and nothing more because it's become farcical and the behaviour isn't changing.
Rules are generally brought in to alter player behaviour. This simply isn't working.
Sicily, Butler etc are examples of football incidencts with unfortunate outcomes. Like can happen any second of any game.
It needs to be a free kick and nothing more because it's become farcical and the behaviour isn't changing.
- Thread starter
- #117
Not exactly,
There was a solid front on bump last night (forget the players) and there was Bonts one on Friday, nothing have come of them.
Methinks HQ aren't exactly sure how to get what they want, no future litigation, and therefore eliminate accidents, problem is that is impossible.
At some point one of two things have to happen to eliminate future litigation against the league from players.
- Remove contact altogether (obviously not viable)
- Have all contracted players sign a waiver accepting the risks of playing the game for the purposes of employment.
That might work at AFL (professional) level, but nowhere else IMO.
It would destroy junior football - kids who all try and emulate their heroes (without knowing techniques to keep them safe(r), without 10 umpires on the field to see any/all minor contact to reward the action, and playing against uncoordinated opposition who have enough trouble controlling their own body, let alone someone they are tackling/bumping).
The ONLY solution that is remotely workable across all levels of the game is to instantly blow the whistle. We lose the strongman fighting out a tackle, we gain more 'chaos' play, with tap-ons and the like. It makes umpiring 100000% easier, and removes a very significant grey area in officiating.
Using the Sicily example, the distance he had to cover just to reach McLuggage meant the only action he could do was to dive at McLuggage, and roll him over his own body. Any less momentum and he doesn't reach him, any less force/grip and McLuggage can easily dispose. Sicily tackled exactly as instructed and took the majority of the landing force on his own body. Based on the 2nd (reverse angle) replay however and the unfortunate outcome (bad look/reporting as much/more than the concussion itself) he'll quite possibly go for >3 weeks.
If all Sicily had to achieve was two hands on McLuggage to win the free, then there is no need for him to use ANY force in the tackle - the simple act of getting both hands to McLuggage would have generated the holding the ball free.
It's not a rule I like necessarily, but I think it would distinctly improve the game at all levels, dramatically improve officiating by reducing interpretation and create a far more free-flowing spectacle, reducing congestion and providing greater reward 'smaller' players (more agility, speed) playing on-ball - opening up the game to a wider variety of body types and skills.
- Oct 30, 2012
- 338
- 522
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- PRS, Music Man, Mesa Boogie
FTFY
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,630
- 43,773
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
For sure the top 10 will contain at least 5 players who should have been suspended but werent.
- Thread starter
- #121
Totes agree, has to be only at the professional level.
*I don't think it'd be required at junior and amateur level.
I also like your sentiment on blowing the whistle immediately, as soon as that ball is not coming out, blow it < this would work very well at every level and somewhat mitigate any possible long term injuries that HQ don't want, *and therefore would negate a waiver requirement at non professional levels.
* The game will never be able to eliminate football accidents, however it seems HQ want to achieve this impossibility. The only ways is to remove the contact element.
They need to do what they love to do, start changing rules and seeing the impact. On top of the current rules I would do this -
- First thing is to get rid of holding the ball if 1 arm is pinned (no prior). Teams train for this to get free kicks, it never use to be a rule 3-4 years ago.
- If you have both arms pinned, you are responsible for the head contact on the ground. Player is responsible for using their free arm to soften the blow. With the footy if need be.
- Identify and warn both parties who don't do the right thing. Track and be onto any player who seems to fake for free all behind closed doors before doing it publicly.
- Suspend concussions. Suspend stars as well.
- Remove Brownlow rules for footy acts and a new line in the sand where it removes the Brownlow.
It’s beyond time to question the validity of players being made ineligible for the Brownlow due to suspension IMO.
That criteria is a throwback to a bygone era when deliberate acts of dirty play were the only reason players faced the tribunal - most suspensions these days are due to incidents that occur with no ill-intent from the offender.
That criteria is a throwback to a bygone era when deliberate acts of dirty play were the only reason players faced the tribunal - most suspensions these days are due to incidents that occur with no ill-intent from the offender.
That 1 arm pinned holding the ball is rubbish isn't it! Here's my fix for it...its a little decision matrix.
No Prior Opportunity
The only scenario a free kick is paid is if you dont make an immediate genuine attempt to dispose of the footy. Genuine like you're tackled in your own goalsquare and your team-mate is free beside you. Even if you dont get a legal disposal away, as long as you try, its play on as long as no prior. So if one arm is pinned and you try to kick it and miss...play on. Knowing that there is unlikely to be a ball up when tackled, the player with the ball we try to keep both arms free to get a more advantage disposal...AND the game moves faster.
With Prior Opportunity
Here a free kick for any outcome other than an immediate legal disposal.
Suspend the 2 motion tackles. Suspend the swinging slam tackles. Leave the rest alone. Butler and Sicily should both be playing.
