Taylor Walker's dangerous tackle on Morris

Remove this Banner Ad

Vince12 said:
What are you even arguing. Of course the Nahas one was bad, however it wasn't as bad as Walkers one. They are both worth dangerous, Walkers definitely more so. Could've broken his neck. Nahas' one was bad, but had no chance of causing spinal damage.
Click to expand...

Nahas slams a guy head first into the ground and there's no chance of spinal damage....thanks doc:rolleyes:

Vince12 said:
Of course the Nahas one was bad,
Click to expand...
And yet, "no case to answer"...
 
Vince12 said:
What are you even arguing. Of course the Nahas one was bad, however it wasn't as bad as Walkers one. They are both worth dangerous, Walkers definitely more so. Could've broken his neck. Nahas' one was bad, but had no chance of causing spinal damage.
Click to expand...

unfortunately yes it could of caused spinal damage as Doc Larkin stated (on 3AW from memory) it was the slight turn of the guys head that saved him from serious damage.

this system at the moment is a farce and won't be fixed in our lifetime's by the way the AFL thinks.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Completely and utterly staggered if people think there is nothing in that - this IMO is what the rule should be brought in for. Lifted a bloke up and dumped him head down.

What will work massively in Walker's favour is the AFL look at the outcome, not the action. So even though IMO that's about the most dangerous tackle possible in the AFL, the fact there was no injury means all should be OK.c

Reminds me a little of Burgoyne's tackle on Kerr.
 
headache1 said:
I have an issue with this. Are we really going to start penalising players for being big and strong? Are the bigger players in the game supposed to timidly tackle their opponents for fear of perhaps injuring somebody in a full contact sport?
Click to expand...
Agree, but I think that tackle went beyond being strong and tough, lifting a player off the ground is bad technique, you can still lay a strong hard tackle without doing that.
 
DonsRule said:
Agree, but I think that tackle went beyond being strong and tough, lifting a player off the ground is bad technique, you can still lay a strong hard tackle without doing that.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm not disagreeing with that, I think Walker will definitely get weeks. Morris trying to kick the ball over his head during the tackle exacerbated how bad it looked, but he still lifted him off the ground, which the MRP don't like at all. Personally, I think he's still coming to grips with just how strong he is. Tackling has never been an issue with him in the past, because before this year, he didn't lay any. :D

What I don't particuarly like is how they seem to issue the impact levels of tackles. It's obviously a hard area to judge, but I don't think you should be dealt with more harshly than others purely because you're a bigger player, who is naturally going to dole out more force when applying a tackle. I believe the main penalty should lie within the action being deemed illegal or not. For example, had Walker applied the tackle that Nahas did earlier in the season, we'd likely have seen a player end up in hospital with serious neck injuries. Out of the tackles reviewed from that round (Nahas, NLM and Walker), I thought his was by far the most dangerous.
 
3 weeks is getting off lightly for that.
 
It's about what I expected honestly, I'm guessing it was judged High, Low Impact and Reckless which is 5 activation points and 225 points, plus 20% loading and his carry over it'd end up being about 310ish or something.
 
Considering how the system is supposed to work right now, it shouldn't have gotten medium impact, should have been low. The guy wasn't injured and jumped straight back up. The MRP uses injury to justify impact rating for some incidents but not others, which is crap.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Crows4Eva said:
Considering how the system is supposed to work right now, it shouldn't have gotten medium impact, should have been low. The guy wasn't injured and jumped straight back up. The MRP uses injury to justify impact rating for some incidents but not others, which is crap.
Click to expand...
I think it was medium, there was plenty of weight coming down. While I agree the impact is used to push decisions to their liking, the no injury, it must be low is poor thinking to me. As I mentioned previously, does that mean if you laid a full punch to someone's arm, or leg, resulting in no injury, that it is low impact?
 
No, personally I think he should have been suspended and I thought it'd probably be 2 or 3, it's the inconsistency that infuriates me mostly, as it does alot of people I'd wager.
 
Crows4Eva said:
No, personally I think he should have been suspended and I thought it'd probably be 2 or 3, it's the inconsistency that infuriates me mostly, as it does alot of people I'd wager.
Click to expand...

Yep, I think Leroy Jetta was unlucky with a slight gut punch earlier, the same round as his staging, there have been plenty of hits this season harder, and the RP has deemed them below the force needed for a report.
 
DonsRule said:
I think it was medium, there was plenty of weight coming down. While I agree the impact is used to push decisions to their liking, the no injury, it must be low is poor thinking to me. As I mentioned previously, does that mean if you laid a full punch to someone's arm, or leg, resulting in no injury, that it is low impact?
Click to expand...

actually yes, i think it does....
 
it's okay everyone, the big bad taylor monster is gone away. you can all sleep safely knowing he's not going to bulldoze your team for 3 weeks.

i agree with the suspension, but the consistency is horrendous. this gets 3 weeks, but lovett-murray gets nothing for actually knocking out priddis? ridiculous
 
DonsRule said:
I think it was medium, there was plenty of weight coming down. While I agree the impact is used to push decisions to their liking, the no injury, it must be low is poor thinking to me. As I mentioned previously, does that mean if you laid a full punch to someone's arm, or leg, resulting in no injury, that it is low impact?
Click to expand...

The tackle he laid on Taylor earlier this season was deemed as medium impact, and high contact. The reasoning they gave for this impact rating was that Taylor was forced to leave the field of play as a result of Walker's actions. Compare that with this tackle, also rated as medium impact and high contact, where Morris is back up off the ground and on top of Walker immediately after the tackle had been laid. The reason I bring up high contact, is that it would suggest a possible injury to the same part of the body, as a result of Walker's actions.

I fully expected Walker to go, but it seems as though the MRP use a different criteria to judge the level of offense committed from round to round, which is what I think most people find very frustrating. The line they trot out about reviewing every incident in isolation is purely to save them from being in any way accountable, for their complete lack of consistency.

tazhawk said:
Not even in the same ball park.

All your crying will not change that fact.

The ******* Crows player is lucky to get 3.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. Franklin's opponent was given a free kick for Franklin's tackle, where as Walker was actually awarded a free kick for his.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Taylor Walker's dangerous tackle on Morris

Similar threads

Mister Dog
MRP / Trib. Maynard dangerous tackle on Owies?
Replies
20
Views
1K
Grand Uncle Horace
Grand Uncle Horace
Chadwiko
Patrick Dangerfield 'dangerous tackle' - gone or safe?
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
295
Views
8K
myblueroan
myblueroan
Maddo11
Dangerous tackle roulette v6.9, Maynard v Powell
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
3K
TW Sherrin
TW Sherrin
kreuze_missile
Staging for dangerous tackle frees is more common than ducking ever was
Replies
14
Views
871
kickazz
kickazz
C
Daicos dangerous tackle on Daniel
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
245
Views
9K
Chronz
Chronz
Colonial
Tackling banned?
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
3K
FlowersByIrene
FlowersByIrene
Maddo11
  • Poll
Libba slinging tackle on Day
Replies
7
Views
625
hawkman
hawkman

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top