Taylor Walker's dangerous tackle on Morris

[bumsonseats]

bumsonseats:

'There should be no dobut that the tackle was dangerous and Walker is in trouble.....its just a matter of the depth that will vary'.

Yes sadly I agree. See my post above in reply to sherb above. The MRP will run its course.

At the same time, I think we can all agree that there is a young man at the centre of this who is 'innocent until proven guilty' by the MRP/Tribunal, had no intention of hurting Morris (his post-incident body language I think clearly shows this), is likely very worried at the moment and is likely to have to learn a hard lesson post-Tuesday. And on that basis I think we can all feel for him. Those calling him a thug and worse are so far off the mark its not funny. Clubs these days don't recruit thugs. Most have an unwritten 'no dickheads' policy. He's not the first of us to make a mistake and won't be the last - all of us included.

Here's hoping that someone at the Crows takes this young man in hand so he fulfills his incredible potential.

I agree in total with everything that you have said here
He is bloody lucky that he is only lamenting the fact that he may miss a few games of footy, rather than living with the rest of his life with the regret of having putting someone in a wheelchair had the outcome been a lot worse. Thankfully for all concerned it was not

 

[fairfooty]

I agree in total with everything that you have said here
He is bloody lucky that he is only lamenting the fact that he may miss a few games of footy, rather than living with the rest of his life with the regret of having putting someone in a wheelchair had the outcome been a lot worse. Thankfully for all concerned it was not

Well said.

 

[kirky]

I think it's 3-4 weeks, only the lack of any injury prevents it being perhaps a 5-7 week suspension. The no injury is no reason not to get him off, all it does, IMO, is reduce the severity of the suspension.

5-7 weeks, fcuking joking. Read the handbook for the tribunal and then take you hands off it.

If he gets cited, then it would be a Level 2 offence, Conduct = reckless, Impact = Low (why no injury), Contact = High points 225.

 

[bumsonseats]

5-7 weeks, fcuking joking. Read the handbook for the tribunal and then take you hands off it.

If he gets cited, then it would be a Level 2 offence, Conduct = reckless, Impact = Low (why no injury), Contact = High points 225.

If the MRP deemed it serious enough they could send it straight to the tribunal, in which case all bets are off.
I would be very surprised if it was classified as Low impact....it will be at least the same as the grading on the Harry Taylor tackle, which was medium.

 

[kirky]

If the MRP deemed it serious enough they could send it straight to the tribunal, in which case all bets are off.
I would be very surprised if it was classified as Low impact....it will be at least the same as the grading on the Harry Taylor tackle, which was medium.

No injury and response by the player suggests he wasn't hurt so that's why low impact. It won't go to the tribunal directly.

Fair dinkum, some of you are on whoppee weed.

 

[DonsRule]

5-7 weeks, fcuking joking. Read the handbook for the tribunal and then take you hands off it.

If he gets cited, then it would be a Level 2 offence, Conduct = reckless, Impact = Low (why no injury), Contact = High points 225.

I've seen, they could easy enough call it medium contact with the lack of consistency they have.

The 5-7 weeks, if you read was if there was an injury involved, had it, as come are claiming, had the potential to break a neck, they could impact as severe, Reckless,Severe, high would be 550 points, he won't get it because of no injury, my comment was in reference to some saying no injury, he'll be fine. All it does for me is puts it on the lower end of the scale.

 

[DonsRule]

No injury and response by the player suggests he wasn't hurt so that's why low impact. It won't go to the tribunal directly.

Fair dinkum, some of you are on whoppee weed.

I think it all depends what the MRP feel like at the time, Leroy Jetta barely touched a player in round 8 with a stomach tap, it was classed as low impact, and for me there was lot let force involved that Walkers tackle. Essendon tried to get him off citing not enough force, but they were unsuccessful.

Yet, I think we've had a few more forceful contact prior to and since, and they have called it not enough force for a reportable offense.

 

[Kickin_Goals]

I think it all depends what the MRP feel like at the time, Leroy Jetta barely touched a player in round 8 with a stomach tap, it was classed as low impact, and for me there was lot let force involved that Walkers tackle. Essendon tried to get him off citing not enough force, but they were unsuccessful.

Yet, I think we've had a few more forceful contact prior to and since, and they have called it not enough force for a reportable offense.

Likely couldn't believe any Jetta defence for obvious reasons from the same match which is why they would not have given him the benefit of doubt. Without the dive would have probably gotten off on the second charge

 

[DonsRule]

Likely couldn't believe any Jetta defence for obvious reasons from the same match which is why they would not have given him the benefit of doubt. Without the dive would have probably gotten off on the second charge

I agree, just what I mean with the inconsistency. I think too had the Melbourne player not reacted, he would have gotten off too, I said at the time he was reported I didn't think he'd get off, as soft as it was. Considering it's not Walkers first similar tackle, it's the kind of decision to call it medium the MRP can make, when they don't allow precedence.

 

[Vince12]

Do you actually know what a spear tackle is? That wasn't a spear tackle. Read the definition of a spear tackle then read it again carefully - Where a player lifts another player into the air and dumps/drops them up upside down. Now rethink what you said.

Look at post 235. Now rethink what you said and apologize to society for being a fool.

 

[Crows4Eva]

Morris wasn't injured, he bounced back up and started getting stuck into Tex straight away, Tex only pinned one arm and if you watch the footage carefully on the angle where you can see the impact around the head area, Morris lands on his shoulder, not his head. I'll agree that lifting a player off their feet like that isn't the best look but going on the precedent set by the Franklin sling tackle a couple of weeks ago (Clear sling, but only pinned one arm and head didn't contact the ground and no injury.) Tex shouldn't have anything to worry about, but knowing the MRP you never know.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Be extremely surprised if he doesn't get weeks . Just wondering which petty little incident Adelaide are likely to go to the MRP with ?

 

[Crows4Eva]

I find it amusing that Richmond supporters are still offended because we pointed out something that got missed by the umpires, we didn't demand King get suspended, the MRP decided it was worth suspension. It's like getting caught cheating on an exam when you think about it.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I find it amusing that Richmond supporters are still offended because we pointed out something that got missed by the umpires, we didn't demand King get suspended, the MRP decided it was worth suspension. It's like getting caught cheating on an exam when you think about it.

Assume you have no issue if Richmond ask for "clarification of the rule" if Tex manages to get off?

After all, we won't be wanting him to get weeks, we just want to better understand the rule

 

[Ron The Bear]

I find it amusing that Richmond supporters are still offended because we pointed out something that got missed by the umpires, we didn't demand King get suspended, the MRP decided it was worth suspension. It's like getting caught cheating on an exam when you think about it.

Maybe we can still get Bickley's sniping of Duncan Kellaway looked at and and have his overly generous HoF membership cancelled.

 

[Niximus]

Assume you have no issue if Richmond ask for "clarification of the rule" if Tex manages to get off?

After all, we won't be wanting him to get weeks, we just want to better understand the rule

No problem at all.

If the MRP don't even mention the Walker tackle I would expect that everyone would want an explanation of why not?

I can't see how not understanding a rule and not seeking clarification could be in the best interest for your club?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

No problem at all.

If the MRP don't even mention the Walker tackle I would expect that everyone would want an explanation of why not?

I can't see how not understanding a rule and not seeking clarification could be in the best interest for your club?

if that is the real motive of course

 

[Kailon]

if that is the real motive of course

2 words Robin Nahas.

Same tackle. No weeks if based on the same thing but because of record and it's Taylor Walker and not Buddie Franklin will be at the least 3 weeks.

 

[Niximus]

if that is the real motive of course

50% that

50% knowing the the MRP are inconsistent ****s and wanting to make them squirm in their own shit.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

2 words Robin Nahas.

Same tackle. No weeks if based on the same thing but because of record and it's Taylor Walker and not Buddie Franklin will be at the least 3 weeks.

Did Nahas lift the player up off their feet, top end them, and drop them on his head? Genuinely asking, because I cannot remember the Nahas tackle you are referring to, and personally struggle to see Robbie dropping a suplex on anything bigger than a Jack Russell

 

[Ned_Flanders]

50% that

50% knowing the the MRP are inconsistent ****s and wanting to make them squirm in their own shit.

I get the second part, just didn't like the first. As I posted at the time however, I don't think the Crows expected the AFL to really act on their "question" by re-assessing the case. I suspect they were just hoping to get a few umpire creds in the favor bank, but massively under estimated the ability of the MRP/AFL to be a law onto its own.

 

[Kailon]

Did Nahas lift the player up off their feet, top end them, and drop them on his head? Genuinely asking, because I cannot remember the Nahas tackle you are referring to, and personally struggle to see Robbie dropping a suplex on anything bigger than a Jack Russell

same week as taylor got banned for another tackle. realistically the mrp need to change the way they do things and not base the penalty on the outcomes. they should be saying spear tackle minimum of a reprimand.
3 reprimands for the same thing and at least a 3 weeks penalty for it then.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

same week as taylor got banned for another tackle. realistically the mrp need to change the way they do things and not base the penalty on the outcomes. they should be saying spear tackle minimum of a reprimand.
3 reprimands for the same thing and at least a 3 weeks penalty for it then.

cant argue with that, hate seeing soft weak hits being given SFA just because they deem "contact was negligible" as the guy they hit could take a punch without falling down and waa waa waaing.

We have had a few get off on that, and while you take the get out of jail free card, you know the guy is a dick for doing it.

Personally I think the spear tackle should be outlawed 100% (not referring to this issue, the tackle itself in principle). For the sling tackle, AFL have messed up the description of this something bad, with good tackles being pinged and poor ones being let off on technicalities.

 

[Necromancer Beth]

He will get 3 weeks

 

[Ron The Bear]

they should be saying spear tackle minimum of a reprimand.
3 reprimands for the same thing and at least a 3 weeks penalty for it then.

Far, far too lenient.