Taylor Walker's dangerous tackle on Morris

[Ron The Bear]

Not only didn't Morris get the slightest bit hurt, but Morris actually had a bit of a push & shove go at Walker immediately after Morris was pinged for holding the ball.

Maybe it's like Otten running upfield and getting involved in a chain of possessions straight after King's tackle...

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

He should go - there was no need to dump him the way he did

Even though there was no injury, there was potential

But unfortunately the AFL only suspends players based on injury, rather than intent

 

[Lifetime ban]

How is watching netball games going? Off to the retirement home for you.

The point of the post was to highlight that even in RL, where the game is dominated and run by Neanderthals, they recognise just how dangerous that type of tackle can be. If you honestly don't believe that there was any potential for serious damage to occur i.e. a broken neck, from that tackle, then I have a great job for you clearing fields in S.E. Asia where the US left some ordnance laying around under the dirt. It's not dangerous...honest.

 

[Tigerland]

So absolutely nothing in it then. Good to know.

Just another sh*t action by a sh*t bloke.

Taylor will get 3 for the spear tackle and the attempted kick won't even get a mention by the MRP other than highlighted on AFL 360 and on the couch.

Taylor is quickly gaining a reputation as a complete as*hole. Sooner or later he will get what is coming to him in a very big way. And when it happens a large majority of the AFL world will applaud. I certainly will be.

 

[bumsonseats]

Ironicly, the points system may actually save Taylor Walker a longer stint on the sidelines.
In the NRL, this would be considered one of the more serious Dangerous Throws, and I would be surprised if it didnt result in at least 6-8 week suspension in the NRL.
IMO, Taylor Walker will get 3 weeks - Reckless conduct, Medium inpact (same grading as the Harry Taylor incident), High contact = 325 demerit points. Plus loading, less 25% for early plea, plus 39 carry over points = 3 week suspension.

Perhaps the MRP should just refer this one straight to the tribuna so that the penalty can be more appropriate to the incident.

So could have ended up with a broken neck. Only luck saved them both.

 

[bumsonseats]

Just another sh*t action by a sh*t bloke.

Taylor will get 3 for the spear tackle and the attempted kick won't even get a mention by the MRP other than highlighted on AFL 360 and on the couch.

Taylor is quickly gaining a reputation as a complete as*hole. Sooner or later he will get what is coming to him in a very big way. And when it happens a large majority of the AFL world will applaud. I certainly will be.

I dont know you could go so far as in to call him a sh*t bloke, but he clearly he has an anger management problem.

 

[vonn]

He should go - there was no need to dump him the way he did

Even though there was no injury, there was potential

But unfortunately the AFL only suspends players based on injury, rather than intent

Goodes was ruled out for causing grass abrasions and he was suspended to make a point. If Walker with this tackle doesnt get a few weeks, II have NFI what to expect from the AFL anymore.

 

[Ron The Bear]

IMO, Taylor Walker will get 3 weeks - Reckless conduct, Medium inpact (same grading as the Harry Taylor incident), High contact = 325 demerit points. Plus loading, less 25% for early plea, plus 39 carry over points = 3 week suspension.

I would have no problem with Adelaide challenging at least the "medium" aspect, given Morris got up straight away and Ballantyne's elbow which floored Newman was graded as "low impact". All of which highlights what a crock of shit system it is that they operate under.

 

[JP Sauce]

I do think he'll go, but why do people keep talking about the penalty he'd supposedly get if he was in the NRL?

Last time I checked that was a different sport and a different league an therefore has nothing to do with this incident.

 

[JP Sauce]

I would have no problem with Adelaide challenging the "medium" aspect, given Morris got up straight away and Ballantyne's elbow which floored Newman was graded as "low impact". All of which highlights what a crock of shit system they operate under.

Yeah Morris got straight up and showed no sign of injury so this tackle has to be deemed low impact based on what the MRP has done previously.

 

[Vikingblood]

Taylor will get 3 for the spear tackle and the attempted kick won't even get a mention by the MRP other than highlighted on AFL 360 and on the couch.

Taylor is quickly gaining a reputation as a complete as*hole. Sooner or later he will get what is coming to him in a very big way. And when it happens a large majority of the AFL world will applaud. I certainly will be.

Very objective summary. Maybe he should ponce around like Riewoldt, then disappear when the game's there to be won. I'll take our "shit bloke" over your ponce.

 

[Ron The Bear]

The normal reaction of a player caught in a tackle after trying to fend off the tackle initially, is to dispose of the ball by whatever legal means necessary. He couldn't coordinate his hands and the bobbling ball to get a handball away and no doubt Walker lifted the weight of his feet. However, it definitely looks to me that Morris kicked his leg up towards the ball, as this was the only action open to him by this stage. In fact, his foot actually made contact with the ball but it dribbled off the side.

Would Morris have been lifted off the ground regardless? Yes. Would he have been dumped on to the ground? Yes. Was the height and angle of the tackle possibly accentuated by Morris' attempt to dispose of the ball. Objectively, I'd have to say that is a possibility.

Surely he'll be given some sort of suspension. Can see Adelaide bringing in a biomechanics expert at appeal, re "negligent" and "reckless".

 

[Lifetime ban]

I do think he'll go, but why do people keep talking about the penalty he'd supposedly get if he was in the NRL?

Last time I checked that was a different sport and a different league an therefore has nothing to do with this incident.

We have mentioned the NRL in this case, because as a sport, they have far more knowledge of the impact of spear tackles. They have had numerous cases where players have been crippled for life because of exactly that sort of tackle, and therefore understand infinitely better than the AFL just how dangerous that tackle is. As such, they brought in penalties they felt were appropriate with the potential, in an effort to wipe the tackle out entirely from the game. While they haven't succeeded totally, you can actually see players thinking about tackles when the potential to carry it to far occurs. There isn't much the AFL could learn from the NRL, but in this case they definitely could.

 

[Soul_Pie]

I find it absolutely stunning that a free kick wasn't even given, the amount of soft frees given on a weekly basis where an arm touches the shoulder in a tackle or a player headbutts an opponents leg and they ignore a terribly dangerous tackle which had the potential to do massive damage. Are the umpires even properly educated on dangerous tackles or do they have to wait for the MRP?

This is the kind of tackle that has absolutely no place in our game, especially given the amount of work the AFL has done to preserve the head and neck area. I really don't like seeing players upended like that.

 

[Dustin Credible]

I do think he'll go, but why do people keep talking about the penalty he'd supposedly get if he was in the NRL?

Last time I checked that was a different sport and a different league an therefore has nothing to do with this incident.

Because those types of tackle have been banned in that sport ( where this type of tackle was more prevalent) because of the risk of paralysis to the player on the receiving end.

One can only assume from the Crows supporters response that this type of tackle goes on all the time in SA ... They certainly would appear to have been dropped on their heads a lot!

 

[bumsonseats]

I do think he'll go, but why do people keep talking about the penalty he'd supposedly get if he was in the NRL?

Last time I checked that was a different sport and a different league an therefore has nothing to do with this incident.

The battle for hearts and minds.......the AFL want the soccer and rugby (league) mums to let their kids play Australian Rules and want to be seen as tougher than the NRL on these sorts of tackles that have the potential to put their kids in a wheelchair. The NRL have got this one right.......it will be interesting to see what the AFL MRP make of it. 3 weeks kinda seems inadequate given that the NRL would probably impose at least 5 or 6 week penalty for similar type tackles.

 

[Dustin Credible]

This was not a spear tackle, definitively so.



Did you decide that from the floor of the Universal Exaggeration Awards, on a space station, built by you, in low orbit, while being awarded as the greatest exaggerator... in the world?

I rate the dangerousness of the tackle by the potential for serious injury

The tackles that we normally see get bans are sling tackles which risk concussion or arm/shoulder injury. This tackle risked rendering someone paraplegic. Having worked in a spinal injuries unit I know just how devastating those injuries are, and how relatively easily they can occur.

If you rate the potential to cause concussion as being more dangerous than the potential to break someones neck, then it's not me on a space station.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

for all those arguing because Morris was unharmed no penalty should apply, is it the same for drink driving? As long as you don't smash into someone and cause damage to property or person its all good to drive pissed without being booked?

There is risk of harm in everything in life, but some actions are restricted because the probability of harm or serious injury is too high to be acceptable. Tackles can cause serious harm, but are allowed because in the normal course of events a serious injury is unlikely. Tackles were you upend a player and plonk them on their noggin are not, because the risk of serious spinal injury is deemed too high to be acceptable

 

[bumsonseats]

I would have no problem with Adelaide challenging at least the "medium" aspect, given Morris got up straight away and Ballantyne's elbow which floored Newman was graded as "low impact". All of which highlights what a crock of shit system it is that they operate under.

They can challenge it, but I find it highly unlikely that the tribunal will agree given that the incident with Harry Taylor was classified as Medium impact. The fact that he got up comes down to luck and should have no bearing on the outcome. It was dangerous no matter which way you look at it.

 

[kirky]

for all those arguing because Morris was unharmed no penalty should apply, is it the same for drink driving? As long as you don't smash into someone and cause damage to property or person its all good to drive pissed without being booked?

There is risk of harm in everything in life, but some actions are restricted because the probability of harm or serious injury is too high to be acceptable. Tackles can cause serious harm, but are allowed because in the normal course of events a serious injury is unlikely. Tackles were you upend a player and plonk them on their noggin are not, because the risk of serious spinal injury is deemed too high to be acceptable

What in he heck does drink driving got to do with it. Our tribunal system does not work on the basis of potential injuries.

Jesus, on that basis Franklin should have gone for weeks as he could have potentially broken someone's arms!

View the footage and you will see that Walker took a far proportion of the impact as he bought him to ground so yes it could have been worse but wasn't.

 

[kirky]

They can challenge it, but I find it highly unlikely that the tribunal will agree given that the incident with Harry Taylor was classified as Medium impact. The fact that he got up comes down to luck and should have no bearing on the outcome. It was dangerous no matter which way you look at it.

Taylor got concussion, Morris got no injury and thats easy by his response - pretty easy to defend I would have thought. Thank God you would never be my defense attorney.

And yet Franklins sling tackle which could have created injury got nothing. Yep your argument is consistent. Not.

 

[bumsonseats]

Taylor got concussion, Morris got no injury and thats easy by his response - pretty easy to defend I would have thought. Thank God you would never be my defense attorney.

And yet Franklins sling tackle which could have created injury got nothing. Yep your argument is consistent. Not.

So clearly you would not have been satisfied unless Morris ended up in a wheelchair.
When are you lot going to get over the fact that driving someone head first into the ground is entirely different to slinging someone to the ground. I would agree that Buddy was lucky......and if you bother to read the MRP determination (and read the AFL Tribunal Handbook for that matter), you will find that the MRP determined that Buddy's tackle was considered reasonable in the circumstances. That is a first for Buddy.....let me assure you. I thought he would get a week or 2 because he is Buddy....which in some strange sense is the arguement that many Adelaide people seem to be putting forward.....that they are being punished not because this kid could so easily have ended up in a wheelchair, but because Adelaide and Taylor Walker are being victimised.
Its not enough the the AFL hand you a soft draw, but you now think it is okay to dump a player to the ground head first. Its okay if he ends up in a wheelchair. I hope the MRP send this straight to the tribunal and the punishment is greater than the 3 weeks I suspect that the points system will deliver.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

What in he heck does drink driving got to do with it. Our tribunal system does not work on the basis of potential injuries.

Jesus, on that basis Franklin should have gone for weeks as he could have potentially broken someone's arms!

View the footage and you will see that Walker took a far proportion of the impact as he bought him to ground so yes it could have been worse but wasn't.

thats all good, but lifting Morris up and dropping him head down he was exposing Morris to a strong chance of major injury, and its lucky for all Morris was unharmed.

AFL bans plent of actions for their potential to cause harm. why do you think any impact on the head is treated more harshly than others, regardless of actual harm done?

 

[kirky]

So clearly you would not have been satisfied unless Morris ended up in a wheelchair.
When are you lot going to get over the fact that driving someone head first into the ground is entirely different to slinging someone to the ground. I would agree that Buddy was lucky......and if you bother to read the MRP determination (and read the AFL Tribunal Handbook for that matter), you will find that the MRP determined that Buddy's tackle was considered reasonable in the circumstances. That is a first for Buddy.....let me assure you. I thought he would get a week or 2 because he is Buddy....which in some strange sense is the arguement that many Adelaide people seem to be putting forward.....that they are being punished not because this kid could so easily have ended up in a wheelchair, but because Adelaide and Taylor Walker are being victimised.
Its not enough the the AFL hand you a soft draw, but you now think it is okay to dump a player to the ground head first. Its okay if he ends up in a wheelchair. I hope the MRP send this straight to the tribunal and the punishment is greater than the 3 weeks I suspect that the points system will deliver.

But he wasn't driven head first into the ground (his shoulder takes it first plus Walker also takes a significant part of the impact). Look at the footage, this wasn't like the Taylor tackle where he did drive him into the ground. Yes I have stated its clumsy but given no injury the impact is classified as low.

Keep to the argument and don't deflect - what has our draw got to do with anything?

I reckon the reason most of you have got your **** in a tangle is you are seeing an Adelade side with two genuine offensive threats.

 

[kirky]

thats all good, but lifting Morris up and dropping him head down he was exposing Morris to a strong chance of major injury, and its lucky for all Morris was unharmed.

AFL bans plent of actions for their potential to cause harm. why do you think any impact on the head is treated more harshly than others, regardless of actual harm done?

And thats the point, Walker as learnt from the earlier tackle on Harry Taylor and no injury resulted. Give me two examples where the AFL has suspended a player for potential harm and not where an injury occurred?