Match thread: Swans v Cats.

[Nico]

Luke Hodge on SEN last night, was bewildered Close wasn't suspended for 1 match, going by the precedents AFL had set earlier this season in similar scenarios.

He is confused MRO have now introduced further grey whether tackler had slown down tackle, despite player's arm being pinned & head making contact with the ground. In Close's case, the slowing down is very miminal, if at all.

I further add what medical evidence does the AFL have to support it's Close ruling, in relation to the speed of the tackle when the player's head hits the ground?

Every player may well have various tolerances to being concussion in such instances. It appeared clear cut to me if you tackled in the way Close did and player's head hits ground, that suspension is imminent.

The AFL have made an extra rod for themselves by introducing the element whether tackler slowed down the tackle.

What a load of old cobblers......Francis was desperately trying to keep his feet by digging the toes in, so Close needed a lot more force to take him down. "Slowing down", the MRO has to be gagging.

[barry]

What a load of old cobblers......Francis was desperately trying to keep his feet by digging the toes in, so Close needed a lot more force to take him down. "Slowing down", the MRO has to be gagging.

Exactly, Francis was trying to get to the goal line for a rushed behind

[Roadrunner]

Doesn't that negate a key objective of tackling - to stop the player being tackled from disposing of the ball.

Yes of course Liz, but you can pin an arm (or both) without necessarily forcing the player to the ground. But if that happens, the umps should automatically give a free to the tackled player and this will discourage the use of downward force in the tackle. Furthermore, due to potential concussion, it should carry a minimum 1 week suspension and only needing review in really bad cases.

[liz]

Yes of course Liz, but you can pin an arm (or both) without necessarily forcing the player to the ground. But if that happens, the umps should automatically give a free to the tackled player and this will discourage the use of downward force in the tackle. Furthermore, due to potential concussion, it should carry a minimum 1 week suspension and only needing review in really bad cases.

So what you're suggesting is not bringing players to ground in a tackle, rather than not pinning their arms.

I thought that was the way the game was headed - bring a player to ground in a tackle and you are culpable if the head hits the ground. A bit like "you can bump but you're culpable if you make head high contact." For the first eight or so weeks, that seemed to be a mantra applied consistently by the MRO and tribunal. Suspension after suspension was challenged, and suspension after suspension was upheld. It was certainly a change to how the tribunal had operated in previous seasons, and I don't think it was easy for players to adapt, but I think we understood in the context of heightened awareness of the seriousness of concussion, or even the cumulative effect of multiple knocks to the head.

But then the tribunal abandoned this consistent application, and started making all sorts of arbitrary distinctions. I reckon players are more confused now than ever. I know I am.

[Mountain Man]

The sad truth is Paddy McCartin has had weeks of concussion from hitting his head with virtually no force - as I recall just falling forward.

Circumstances for him are well known, but my point is just hitting of a head on the ground is enough.

[Scottee]

Doesn't that negate a key objective of tackling - to stop the player being tackled from disposing of the ball.

That's an interesting comment Liz. Having grown up with game in Melbourne in the 60s and 70s, the objective of the rules as we understood it was to ensure that the ball was released immediately after a player was tackled so that the ball kept moving. Now there is a reward for slowing the game down by taking players to the ground it seems. There was no ability to hang onto the ball and perform a 360 degree spin before disposing.Unless the ball was disposed of immediately it was a free.It would have been called unduly rough play back then and a free payed to the ball carrier to take a player to the ground.Very rarely was a player tackled to the ground.

However, to compensate there was some very hard bumping and shirt fronting on occasions, which I am glad has left the game.

If you want to get an idea of what I am talking about, look at grand finals from the 60s and 70s.

The code, if you can call it one, has changed dramatically, in fact its not really the same game in my opinion.

Somewhere along the line it appears that tackling became the object of the game ahead of speed of ball movement and that, amongst all the other confusion caused an inability to consistently apply the rules, it is detracting greatly from the free flow and speed of the game.

Some people might say that I am living in the past, but it was in many ways more enjoyable to watch, and besides, we didn't live in the past in my day.



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[waswan]

I for one am glad guys dont get rubbed out for tackling.

If no one is injured and the only intent is a tackle then i think its better people dont talk about it like its a reportable offence.

Intentions and actions are very easy to judge from the arm chair when your not playing at AFL speed.

[Meg]

So what you're suggesting is not bringing players to ground in a tackle, rather than not pinning their arms.

I thought that was the way the game was headed - bring a player to ground in a tackle and you are culpable if the head hits the ground.

....

But then the tribunal abandoned this consistent application, and started making all sorts of arbitrary distinctions. I reckon players are more confused now than ever. I know I am.

I agree with this. And I think as a result of inconsistency from the tribunal the MRO has now adjusted his decisions. (Not entirely unreasonable on a ‘case law’ basis.)

I suspect we might have a rewrite of the rules for next season to clarify the legality of tackles. (Well I hope ‘clarify’ is the right verb.)

This is what happened in the season in which Gary Rohan had his leg broken by a Lindsay Thomas slide and the tribunal subsequently cleared Thomas. From then on in that year sliding and taking out legs was a free kick offence but not a reportable offence. Then the rule was rewritten for the following year.

And then got ignored anyway ..... but that’s another story.

[Maltopia]

I for one am glad guys dont get rubbed out for tackling.

If no one is injured and the only intent is a tackle then i think its better people dont talk about it like its a reportable offence.

Intentions and actions are very easy to judge from the arm chair when your not playing at AFL speed.

The problem with CTE is that you can’t track the cumulative damage from the head hits whilst the player is living.

So Francis didn’t get concussed, but neither did the soccer players who headed the ball multiple times but still they have brain damage years later.

We should avoid head hits/collisions as much as possible even though this a contact sport.

Edit:

Just read this after my post. Former AFLW player who took her own life confirmed to have CTE with multiple lesions in her brain.

https://apple.news/AloBVqOIjQBWztkP7sWHKxg

[waswan]

The problem with CTE is that you can’t track the cumulative damage from the head hits whilst the player is living.

So Francis didn’t get concussed, but neither did the soccer players who headed the ball multiple times but still they have brain damage years later.

We should avoid head hits/collisions as much as possible even though this a contact sport.

Edit:

Just read this after my post. Former AFLW player who took her own life confirmed to have CTE with multiple lesions in her brain.

Crows premiership star diagnosed with brain disease CTE

Intentional hits yes, hard to penalise the action of tackling unless you ban it altogether.

Its a workplace hazard, you cant prepare for all of them. Knowing CTE and the early signs and the higher risks is all you can do.

Its random, Buddy has played 350 games, Paddy bugger all, its all random.

Brickies have back operations, plasterers have shoulder reconstructions they are known hazards that can only be limited not removed

[Roadrunner]

That's an interesting comment Liz. Having grown up with game in Melbourne in the 60s and 70s, the objective of the rules as we understood it was to ensure that the ball was released immediately after a player was tackled so that the ball kept moving. Now there is a reward for slowing the game down by taking players to the ground it seems. There was no ability to hang onto the ball and perform a 360 degree spin before disposing.Unless the ball was disposed of immediately it was a free.It would have been called unduly rough play back then and a free payed to the ball carrier to take a player to the ground.Very rarely was a player tackled to the ground.

However, to compensate there was some very hard bumping and shirt fronting on occasions, which I am glad has left the game.

If you want to get an idea of what I am talking about, look at grand finals from the 60s and 70s.

The code, if you can call it one, has changed dramatically, in fact its not really the same game in my opinion.

Somewhere along the line it appears that tackling became the object of the game ahead of speed of ball movement and that, amongst all the other confusion caused an inability to consistently apply the rules, it is detracting greatly from the free flow and speed of the game.

Some people might say that I am living in the past, but it was in many ways more enjoyable to watch, and besides, we didn't live in the Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Totally agreed Scottee- and there was only one umpire! The game is faster today, ( most of the time) but surely we don’t need more than two umps- however the rules should be simplified around tackling/ holding the ball and not allow the 180degree spins when tackled for starters!

[waswan]

Extra umps are ok but i think they should only be allowed to call off the ball when not in control. Only the controlling ump should be able to call the ball.

Remove the ruck nominations, thats under 10s crap and stop paying so many frees in the Ruck

[Ludwig]

The comments in this thread are reflective of the dilemma we face with sports that are inherently dangerous to the athletes that participate in them.

We either have to accept that some athletes will be injured, including serious brain injuries, or ban sports like football and boxing. The dangers can be mitigated to some degree, but not eliminated without undermining what we enjoy about these sports.

At a minimum, it's important that athletes are fully apprised of the dangers they face. In some cases, such as women's football, where the risks are well known to be higher than that for men, perhaps banning the sport would be the prudent thing to do.

We also need to be cognizant of the fact that dangerous sports, like boxing, attract participation from the economically disadvantaged, who risk their health and well being for the entertainment of the more privileged.

It's a difficult choice and something I don't profess to know the answer to. .

[Auntie.Gerald]

I suspect there is duty of care on the AFL to show that they are making adjustments in alignment with reducing head injuries each season

No doubt this is monitored in detail each season

All types of injuries

Recovery times etc

[Scottee]

What sticks in my mind from the game is the fact that the Swans had 2 players their heads hit the ground hardwith no free whilst a free was paid for a dangerous tackle to Geelong for a dangerous tackle where the head did not touch the ground.

Inconsistency or bias? Does my head in.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk