Taylor Walker's dangerous tackle on Morris

[D-N-R]

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?

All of those front on bumps where a player has his head over the ball and the tackler uses his hip to bump them. There have been plenty of these that haven't resulted in concussion or any other type of injury, yet players have received lengthy bans due to the potential for serious injury, especially to the neck. I would equate this tackle with these types of tackles.

 

[Anti-pow]

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?

so we only wait until someone has their neck broken and ends up in a wheelchair. Then we can suspend them? I'm sure the guy in the wheelchair will feel so much better knowing the player doesn't get to play footy for a few weeks. This type of tackle has no place in any sport.

 

[Ron The Bear]

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.

It was dangerous and everyone knows it was dangerous, but the scope for a significant suspension just isn't there using Anderson monopoly points without blatantly fudging the categories. I thought Heath Shaw was in serious trouble a few years ago because it was football lore that you simply don't lay hands on an official, but as stated earlier, the AFL has torn up traditional perceptions.

In an environment where Black can get off with a reprimand after striking Picken in the face and causing him to leave the field bleeding, while Minson gets suspended over a verbal taunt, nothing should surprise.

 

[fairfooty]

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.

Whether something like that is taken into account, I do not know. If a player with his head down changes his direction and you attempted bump hits the head instead of the shoulder, bad luck for you. Maybe that is the case here for Walker too. He attempted an aggressive tackle and maybe he wears the consequences of that decision, especially in today's climate. I'm just not convinced the intent was as bad as some are making out, and that the outcome would have been the same without Morris' movement.

Maybe I'd be screaming about it if a Carlton player was on the receiving end, I'm not sure. At the end of the day, no injury. I hate the idea that all incidents are now judged not only by actual injury, but by potential injury. No longer can you use a tackle as a weapon, because all but the bearhug tackle and quick release have the potential for injury.

OK have just ploughed through this whole thread: Here's how I see it (former brain and spinal cord rehab specialist), with flame suit on, and leaving the ridiculous vitriol and emotion from all clubs supporters, Crows included aside:

1. On first viewing on TV as it happened I viewed the tackle as dangerous. Immediately thought to myself 'he's gone' - that was my first reaction.
2. On reviewing the video and posts here I haven't changed my mind. The tackle was dangerous IMO.
3. The issue of spear versus sling versus OK tackle is unimportant. I don't know what the rules say and how far they define different types of tackles. But IMO the question is whether or not it was dangerous - and IMO it was.
4. The Old Dark Navy's post above is IMO the most objective analysis from the information that we have.
5. Morris' movement (kicking over his head?) may have worsened the tackle. It also does appear to me that Walker does appear to somehow 'lose control' of the tackle mid-stream at that point, potentially and inadvertently increasing the danger of it. This does not excuse the danger of the tackle IMO but does go some way to explain it.
6. I don't think it was intentional - Walker is a clutz at times - sorry Taylor - but he's really not smart enough IMO to be malicious. And last season I was one of his most serious critics on the Adelaide board.

So if we assume that the tackle was dangerous (and to be technically correct its the possibility of neck injury resulting in quadriplegia or tetraplegia, not paraplegia that I would be concerned about), then how does the MRP deal with it? And the fact that this thread has in part been a huge debate about tackle definitions and inconsistent penalties then I don't see how anyone here can second guess them. The MRP seriously needs to be transparent and consistent in their decision-making on penalties. Their lack of transparency and apparent inconsistency is adding to their fairly severe credibility problem and players and supporters need certainty around the rule. IMO whether or not the tackle is/was dangerous, potentially leading to severe or permanent injury is paramount - and other issues follow as potential exacerbation or mitigation in a particular instance. Whether or not the tackle is dangerous is the purpose of the rule IMO, recognising that the moment judgement enters into any decision it becomes fallible. For what its worth, I actually agree that the Buddy tackle did not deserve an MRP penalty.

So at this moment, where does this leave Walker?

On the information I have and The Old Dark Navy's post above I stand by my early post of yesterday - he should be suspended for at least 2 weeks purely on the basis that IMO the possibility of serious neck injury to Morris was high but making allowances for the fact there was no injury and his previous (poor) track record. Also I think biomechanics would show that Morris's movement contributed to the apparent dangerousness of the tackle. These types of tackles, intentional or not must not be allowed. As someone else pointed out it is not inconsistent for the umps to pay the HTB and leave the issue of the tackle itself to the MRP.

BUT... IMO the most important thing the MRP can do is to clearly define the basis of their decision if any, and communicate this to all clubs and supporters - so everyone has some certainty around the rules and penalties for breaches and then communicate this clearly and consistently. And in IMO its whether or not a tackle is dangerous to the point of potential severe or permanent injury as judged at that time - and then the degree of that danger and any mitigation that is important in determining penalties, if any. Not whether or not its a sling, spear or some other type of tackle - any of them can be seriously dangerous. And yes it is possible to get good consistent consensus on the dangerous/not dangerous dimension with the right expertise.

Once the rule is clear and clarified, supporters of all colours must then recognise that:

1. They don't have access to all the information that the MRP has; and
2. They don't have the players involved evidence either.

So they then need to trust that the process is fair, reasonable and evidence-based.
IMO its a nonsense that this ludicrous unclear and uncertain position should continue.

So MRP get your act together - you are the cause of this debate - and if you can't get your act together then do the decent thing, resign and find someone who can.

I now duck for cover.

 

[DonsRule]

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.

 

[sherb]

It was verging on a spear tackle.

He will go for it and he should. A tackle like that is plain dangerous.

 

[Ron The Bear]

And yes it is possible to get good consistent consensus on the dangerous/not dangerous dimension with the right expertise.

I've looked through the MRP guidelines and can't find that category.

"Players are on notice, next time the penalty will be far more severe" would be a total cop-out, but that's what I see happening, with another condition tacked on to the eight-year-old system for 2013. The only way open for the AFL to make an unambiguous statement is to refer the incident directly to the tribunal.

 

[fairfooty]

I've looked through the MRP guidelines and can't find that category.

Thanks Ron The Bear thats helpful. It think it exposes a severe flaw in the guidelines given that the purpose of the rule IMO is to stamp out potentially dangerous tackles and prevent severe and permanent injuries - of any type. (Anyone disagree?) So IMO thats what should be clearly defined in the guidelines - once its determined if the tackle is dangerous or not then the rest, I think flows from there. If its not there then IMO they've got it fundamentally wrong.

 

[bumsonseats]

The rules are clear, and if people took the time to have a look then you would understand this. Google 2012 AFL Tribunal Handbook and you will have all the answers that you are looking for. Its just that most of us dont know that this document exists, and yes, you do have access to it.

He will get 3 weeks.......
Reckless Conduct, High Impact and Medium impact........325 points
after discount for early plea, loading and carry over points.....he still gets a 3 week sanction......with about 60 (ish) carry over points.

 

[Ron The Bear]

He will get 3 weeks.......
Reckless Conduct, High Impact and Medium impact........325 points

Would your assessment change if Morris had a broken neck?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Would your assessment change if Morris had a broken neck?

You'd hope not. Does the injury change the intent? I mean, would it change it from an aggressive tackle gone wrong to a dirty sniping deliberate attack? Football is such an emotional business.

 

[bumsonseats]

Would your assessment change if Morris had a broken neck?

My assessment is based on what I think the AFL MRP will do.....not what I think they should do.
If the MRP treated this with the seriousness it deserved......ie took a similar stance to the NRL, then the MRP would refer this one straight to the tribunal.......because 3 weeks would be inadequate......but I dont believe that this will happen. The way the grading and points system works, I am not sure you could justify Intentional or high impact, so they really are restricted to a 3 week sanction.

The only points of conjecture IMO are the level of impact - which i believe will be assessed the same as the Harry Taylor tackle (medium), and if the conduct is deemed Negligent or Reckless. The AFL Tribunal Handbook (2012) states that the MRP shall take into account if a player is lifted off the ground etc when determining if the conduct is Reckless or Negligent. The MRP will also see that Taylor Walker has not learnt his lesson from Round 7 and give him a bigger whack.

In addition, I think this incident is worse than the Harry Taylor tackle, and so I believe that they will be looking for a greater penalty than he got for the Harry Taylor tackle.

All will be revealed tomorrow I guess........

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

You'd hope not. Does the injury change the intent? I mean, would it change it from an aggressive tackle gone wrong to a dirty sniping deliberate attack? Football is such an emotional business.

This is why the MRP is **** at the moment

Intent to hurt is intent to hurt regardless of if there is an injury or not

Then what we end up seeing is players getting rubbed out for stuff that's accidental because another player got injured and players getting off Scott free after lining someone up because there is no injury

 

[Raptor]

The MRP will throw the book at him. Mark my words. Because if they dont and he comes out in the next few week and really hurts someone, the AFL wont want blood on their hands. He needs to be taught a lesson NOW for himself and other players.

 

[fairfooty]

The rules are clear, and if people took the time to have a look then you would understand this. Google 2012 AFL Tribunal Handbook and you will have all the answers that you are looking for. Its just that most of us dont know that this document exists, and yes, you do have access to it.

He will get 3 weeks.......
Reckless Conduct, High Impact and Medium impact........325 points
after discount for early plea, loading and carry over points.....he still gets a 3 week sanction......with about 60 (ish) carry over points.

Thank You bumson seats - I didn't know these were available and I suspect that the majority of posters in this thread don't know either. So as you point out it would be helpful if people read this document. I've now read it and its clear and well written. Whether you agree with its basis and the way the system is structured is another matter for another time. However, on reading it, it still concerns me about its apparent lack of clarity on the potential for serious/permanent injury and consequences/penalty. I'm not saying its not there and accounted for in the system, just that its not clear.

Having said that, it still doesn't get away from the poor communicating of MRP decisions and so the consequent lack of confidence that people generally have in the MRP. Privacy issues understood, I think summaries of the bases of their decisions would go a long way to reducing the confusion and emotion and provide confidence in the decision.

 

[DonsRule]

I think an injury might change it to intent, though I don't think it was intentional, and it could also chance it from perhaps medium contacts to server/heavy contact. A serious injury it too, might have sent it straight to the tribunal.

 

[fairfooty]

My assessment is based on what I think the AFL MRP will do.....not what I think they should do.
If the MRP treated this with the seriousness it deserved......ie took a similar stance to the NRL, then the MRP would refer this one straight to the tribunal.......because 3 weeks would be inadequate......but I dont believe that this will happen. The way the grading and points system works, I am not sure you could justify Intentional or high impact, so they really are restricted to a 3 week sanction.

The only points of conjecture IMO are the level of impact - which i believe will be assessed the same as the Harry Taylor tackle (medium), and if the conduct is deemed Negligent or Reckless. The AFL Tribunal Handbook (2012) states that the MRP shall take into account if a player is lifted off the ground etc when determining if the conduct is Reckless or Negligent. The MRP will also see that Taylor Walker has not learnt his lesson from Round 7 and give him a bigger whack.

In addition, I think this incident is worse than the Harry Taylor tackle, and so I believe that they will be looking for a greater penalty than he got for the Harry Taylor tackle.

All will be revealed tomorrow I guess........

Having now read the guidelines bumsonseats I agree with your assessment. But I think from a slightly different angle you've highlighted my concern with the way the system works (if I have it correct) - and that is that some instances should be referred straight to the Tribunal but not because three weeks is inadequate (thats for the Tribunal to decide) but for the potential for severe/permanent injury. And I hate to say it but I think this is one of them.
Thanks you've helped clarified my thinking - and maybe that there needs to be a separate mechanism for dealing severely with instances which could have resulted in serious/permanent injury/disability and maybe thats straight to the Tribunal. Now I know I'll get crucified from other Crows supporters for saying that but as a rehabber of severe brain and spinal cord injury from way back these terrible injuries and the potential for them must be completely stamped out. Full stop.

As you say, Tuesday will tell...

 

[sherb]

I simply don't see the need for lifting tackles.

I hold the same view about tackling in Rugby League as well, where the practice is far more prevalent.

 

[fairfooty]

The MRP will throw the book at him. Mark my words. Because if they dont and he comes out in the next few week and really hurts someone, the AFL wont want blood on their hands. He needs to be taught a lesson NOW for himself and other players.

Raptor this is not helpful. What emotive nonsense. You don't have a crystal ball and neither does the MRP. Its a fundamental principle that you cannot be penalised for something that might happen or might not happen in the future.

The MRP will apply due process as per their guidelines and any penalty/reprimand will be based on the evidence before them.

I suggest you read them.

 

[fairfooty]

I think an injury might change it to intent, though I don't think it was intentional, and it could also chance it from perhaps medium contacts to server/heavy contact. A serious injury it too, might have sent it straight to the tribunal.

I disagree Dons Rule. The way I read the guide lines there isn't a connection between injury and intent - and IMO neither there should be. But I would certainly expect an injury to change the impact assessment.

On the serious injury/straight to the Tribunal issue, please see my post above - in short, I agree.

 

[bumsonseats]

Thank You bumson seats - I didn't know these were available and I suspect that the majority of posters in this thread don't know either. So as you point out it would be helpful if people read this document. I've now read it and its clear and well written. Whether you agree with its basis and the way the system is structured is another matter for another time. However, on reading it, it still concerns me about its apparent lack of clarity on the potential for serious/permanent injury and consequences/penalty. I'm not saying its not there and accounted for in the system, just that its not clear.

Having said that, it still doesn't get away from the poor communicating of MRP decisions and so the consequent lack of confidence that people generally have in the MRP. Privacy issues understood, I think summaries of the bases of their decisions would go a long way to reducing the confusion and emotion and provide confidence in the decision.

Glad to be of assistance.......I think it is pretty clear. The rest is a matter on contention and that is what the MRP is paid to pass judgement on. From the point of view of the average punter at this point in time, you can only go on past precedence, and the Harry Taylor tackle is the most recent and obvious example you can use as a baseline.
Your point about the communication from the AFL MRP is well made.
And importantly, your observation that there is no real guidence about the potential for serious/permanent injury is also very important in the context of this arguement. It backs up the fact that injury or the potential for injury is not a pre-requisit for a player to be reported.......though you could mount a pretty strong case that the MRP has been guilty of reacting to players being injured when they have made their assessments at times this season.....the Gary Rohan broken leg being the most obvious example. But the beauty of the system is that the Tribunal overturned the MRP assessment so balance was restored one might suggest.

The fact that Morris did not appear to be injured.....maybe he feels the effects after he cools down.....we dont know......should have no bearing on the assessment of the nature of the tackle. 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.

 

[fairfooty]

I simply don't see the need for lifting tackles.

I hold the same view about tackling in Rugby League as well, where the practice is far more prevalent.

I agree. The guidelines are clear in defining amongst other things, a dangerous tackle as 'a tackle where a player is lifted off the ground' p12. The words to note are 'lifted' and 'off the ground' - not feet off the ground as others in this thread have said. (Feet come off the ground in normal tackling).

On that basis I don't see how Taylor's tackle can be defined as anything but dangerous. (Ducking for cover ) The 'no injury' issue will only mitigate the penalty.

And to Crows fans who think I'm trying to hang him, nothing could be further from the truth. This is a genuine attempt to be objective and apply the rules and see it as the MRP might see it - nothing else. And no-one would be happier than me to be proved wrong on Tuesday. But barring other MRP interpretations, I fear I'm right.

 

[Ron The Bear]

The fact that Morris did not appear to be injured.....maybe he feels the effects after he cools down.....we dont know......should have no bearing on the assessment of the nature of the tackle.

But that's exactly what happened with King - it was more than half an hour later that Otten was taken from the field and diagnosed with concussion. The medical report even stated that it was unclear whether the concussion was a result of the tackle.

But the beauty of the system is...

There's no beauty in it. It ****ing stinks.

 

[fairfooty]

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.

 

[bumsonseats]

I agree. The guidelines are clear in defining amongst other things, a dangerous tackle as 'a tackle where a player is lifted off the ground' p12. The words to note are 'lifted' and 'off the ground' - not feet off the ground as others in this thread have said. (Feet come off the ground in normal tackling).

On that basis I don't see how Taylor's tackle can be defined as anything but dangerous. (Ducking for cover ) The 'no injury' issue will only mitigate the penalty.

And to Crows fans who think I'm trying to hang him, nothing could be further from the truth. This is a genuine attempt to be objective and apply the rules and see it as the MRP might see it - nothing else. And no-one would be happier than me to be proved wrong on Tuesday. But barring other MRP interpretations, I fear I'm right.

And I may also be proved wrong come later tomorrow afternoon...I have only based my judgements on what is in the AFL Tribunal Handbook (2012) and past precedence with the Harry Taylor tackle.

And with regard to intent.....point 2 on page 3 provides guidence on the difference between Negligent and Reckless. This one is a bit more serious than the Harry Taylor tackle.......so I think the intent will be increased from negligent (applied to the Harry Taylor tackle) to Reckless.......and this is backed up by the statement at point 2 on page 3.

We wait to see the outcome