The Perfect Tackle?

[Matty10]

The commentary around the Brodie Grundy tackle on Ben Brown is bizarre. I haven't looked up the grading system, but it seems like an act that is worthy of a 2-3 week suspension. Nevertheless, you have a coach saying that it was a "perfect tackle", an umpire who awards a free kick to the tackler, with the comment "I didn't see it that way" and the player in question stating that "there was no malicious intent". How can this be the case?

A "perfect" tackle does not knock out another player. This is a modern phenomenon. In past eras (including Buckley's) this did not happen on the field. This has come about through the coaching of tackles that reinforce the concept of pinning the arms of the opposition and bringing them to ground with force. Grundy intention was unlikely to have been the end result (rendering Brown unconscious), but he absolutely meant to hurt him. His was a physical act designed to hurt his opponent (as many football acts are) - not simply to bring him to ground. However, when this is coupled with the pinning of the arms and the horizontal levelling of an opponent there is really no other outcome than what occurred. To suggest that this is "perfect" is a mischaracterisation that needs to stop.

I had previously argued that Dangerfield's tackle was okay (except that he held on too long), largely because the force was minimal, he attempted to turn Kreuzer and the head contact was relatively light (yet still enough to cause concussion). None of these qualities exist in the Brodie Grundy tackle. If Dangerfield got 1 week, Grundy needs to get 2 at a minimum and the AFL needs to issue a circular to the coaches and umpires about what constitutes a legal tackle.

The AFL also needs to revisit the concept of a free kick reversal. It was absolutely laughable that the umpire continued to declare that the tackle was legal after the numerous replays on the ground showed the heavy contact - particularly given there was a five minute break in play. Common sense needs to prevail. There is clearly a disconnect somewhere. Heeney has twice had a free kick paid against him with an umpire declaring that they were dangerous tackles (yet neither were deemed worthy of MRP action), while two incidents that have left players concussed have been given the green light by the on-field officiators.

[liz]

I don't see much difference between the Grundy and Dangerfield tackles. No two tackles are absolutely identical, but the differences seem relatively trivial in the context of the debate on whether these tackles are good ones with bad outcomes, or bad tackles.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall of the extended Scott family Sunday lunch. Brad was clearly perplexed by the idea that a tackle could be deemed to be perfect when it left one of his players in such a bad way. Yet Chris continued to argue that Dangerfield's tackle was perfect, even after he'd been suspended.

As someone who has never played a contact sport (if you exclude "murder ball" in the gym when I was at school, where literally anything went, from scratching to hair pulling to thumping), I do wonder why it is deemed necessary to bring blokes to ground in the way all these contentious tackles have played out. I understand the aim is to stop the player legally disposing of the ball but if you've pinned both arms, surely that achieves the goal. In both the Grundy and Dangerfield tackles, there was a fair degree of extra exertion on part of the tackler to then bring the players to ground - and clearly both Brown and Kreuzer are big guys. Can someone argue in favour of why we need to allow this if the game is to remain the game we all love?

I wouldn't argue that you can't bring someone to ground. In some cases the momentum of one or either player would make it almost impossible for a player not to be brought to ground. In other instances the tackler may have a little more choice (see some of Heeney's more forceful tackles). I can see this going the same way as the bump - ie you're still free to bump but you bear the consequences (in terms of a short suspension) if it all goes wrong, even if it goes accidentally wrong.

I don't think either the Grundy or Dangerfield tackles required the player to be brought to ground for the tackle to prevent the player legally disposing of the ball and in neither case was it momentum that starting the falling motion.

I am struggling to reconcile the comments of Buckley and Chris Scott, who both prefaced comments by agreeing that players' heads need to be protected, but then went on to defend the type of tackles under discussion.

[Matty10]

I suppose, from a coaching perspective, the idea of bringing a player to ground beyond the pinning of the arms is to ensure that the player with the ball is out of the play while his team has possession - i.e. it takes longer to get up from the ground and impact the next play than it would if you were left upright. I don't have a problem with that as a goal. The other aspect, which I mentioned earlier, is to hurt the opposition player. Players can be worn down from repeated tackles that bruise them, leave them winded or just sore. Being physically brought to the ground on numerous occasions can have a cumulative effect that might make players slower or less willing to engage in every contest with as much vigour as they might otherwise do. The cry of "make him earn it" falls into this understanding.

[monopoly19]

It should be illegal to pin someone's arms and drive them head first into the ground. It's just way too dangerous. Players have adapted to rule changes before and I'm sure they could adapt to this one.

[dimelb]

It should be illegal to pin someone's arms and drive them head first into the ground. It's just way too dangerous. Players have adapted to rule changes before and I'm sure they could adapt to this one.

In the category of bleeding obvious. I hope the AFL rules on it.

[liz]

In the category of bleeding obvious. I hope the AFL rules on it.

I think recent suspensions says they have, it's just that players and coaches seem not to want to accept it (judging by the comments of Chris Scott, Buckley and Dangerfield). And a majority of the footy public hasn't accepted it either, though many will agree, in the next breath, that seeing players concussed from a tackle is not what we want to see.

There was initially grumbling about the "death of the bump". There was whinging about players no longer being allowed to go to ground to take possession if it results in forceful contact below the knees. Despite the latter not yet being consistently policed by the umpires, I don't think the game has suffered unduly from these changes and the players have mostly adapted quite well.

With the tackle, I think it leaves players with a choice - either pin the arms OR bring the player to ground. Don't do both, or if you do, accept you might be suspended for a week or two if you don't execute perfectly (by which I mean in a way that doesn't result in head contact with the ground). That's not unlike the bump ruling. As with the other recent changes aimed at reducing the risk of serious injury, I doubt the game will suffer.

[Meg]

With the tackle, I think it leaves players with a choice - either pin the arms OR bring the player to ground. Don't do both, or if you do, accept you might be suspended for a week or two if you don't execute perfectly (by which I mean in a way that doesn't result in head contact with the ground). That's not unlike the bump ruling. As with the other recent changes aimed at reducing the risk of serious injury, I doubt the game will suffer.

I agree with this. And if it means the player being tackled is more often able to get the ball away then that is a reward for being first to the ball.