Match thread: Swans v Cats.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[liz]

Why don't they just outlaw pinning one arm? Too dangerous for both head injuries/concussion and potential serious shoulder injuries.

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

[Blood Fever]

Why don't they just outlaw pinning one arm? Too dangerous for both head injuries/concussion and potential serious shoulder injuries.

[KSAS]

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.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Coaches votes are in. Nice to see Campbell get some acknowledgement.

Coaches' votes, R16: Collingwood Magpies star Nick Daicos reclaims lead, five perfect 10s

[KSAS]

Robbo in his HS paywall article appears to be questioning the MRO decision on Close's tackle on Francis, going by the headline & accompanying photo of that tackle.

[wolftone57]

Yep, I'm sure there is a clause in the dangerous tackle rules that states that you can slam a Swans players head into the ground and that will be deemed ok.....especially if you play for a Victorian team.

MATCH REVIEW: Cats forward learns fate for Francis tackle

This is disgraceful. He should have gotten at least a week

Sent from my CPH2471 using Tapatalk

[dejavoodoo44]

AS frustrating as that was, I still preferred Friday night's umpiring efforts to the appalling over-umpired examples served up at the Saints and Lions games. Other than the contentious Melican deliberate (possibly technically correct but have literally never seen it paid?) I didn't see examples of where the umpires didn't understand the rules.

Thinking back on those two 50m penalties v Saints, I reckon virtually every single Swans mark the clever Cats players tried to crib 2-3m on the mark in the exact way that we were pinged for that night. As for the Sheldrick 50m, I see that same action go unpenalised about half a dozen times every game.

Yes, the constant standing forward of the mark was driving me a little bit crazy. The was one particular blatant example late in the game, where Hayward took a mark running towards the kicker, he was then rugby tackled around the leg and as a consequence, both he and the tackler slid along the turf. Then the tackler got up and stood 7 or 8 metres past where the mark was taken. I thought both the tackle and the encroachment could have been paid a 50.

Also agree about low free kick counts compared to high. While I was a bit miffed that we only received one free in first half, that was nothing compared to what I was feeling, after 38-20 caning that we received in the afternoon VFL game. And as well as that lopsided free kick count, there was around five 50s that went against us as well

[giant]

Good question - I wonder how often in the AFL a team has received one free kick in a half of football? I like to see the stats for that. The final count was 17 to 9 free kicks. I am glad we had the home ground advantage for the umpiring decisions.

AS frustrating as that was, I still preferred Friday night's umpiring efforts to the appalling over-umpired examples served up at the Saints and Lions games. Other than the contentious Melican deliberate (possibly technically correct but have literally never seen it paid?) I didn't see examples of where the umpires didn't understand the rules.

Thinking back on those two 50m penalties v Saints, I reckon virtually every single Swans mark the clever Cats players tried to crib 2-3m on the mark in the exact way that we were pinged for that night. As for the Sheldrick 50m, I see that same action go unpenalised about half a dozen times every game.

[Thunder Shaker]

Also worth noting is that West Coast will be boosting the percentages of an awful lot of mid-table sides. Our draw with Geelong actually helps us here by taking these sides out of the percentage equation.