Rd 17 vs Richmond @ MCG - Match Thread

[Nico]

10mins red card
Reviewed by off field umpire
Then deemed send off or not

Pretty simple. If a player has to go off for a concussion test then the red card is least until it is deemed he can't come back on. As long at is an offence that is clearly against the rules. Or make it a mandatory 20 minutes with no replacement. Then you would see this stuff disappear.

[Auntie.Gerald]

10mins red card
Reviewed by off field umpire
Then deemed send off or not

[Bill Posters]

I think the other annoying part of the sentence is he got down from four to three simply by showing contrition. Who cares?

The AFL is - in my view at least, largely in a serious and systemic way - confronting and trying to minimise the risk of lifetime after effects from concussions. Someone saying sorry ain’t gonna help someone whose brain is permanently rattled. I’d love to see how that stands up when the class actions come.

“Your Honour, I know Mr Lloyd has sustained 30 years of diminished quality of life but the perpetrator did send him a contrite text after the event.”

Please.

Don't forget that with concussion Lloyd also misses the next game. So it's 2 games out for the victim, 3 out for the perpetrator. Hardly seems fair.

[Meg]

Rd 17 vs Richmond @ MCG - Match Thread

The categories were, and could again be, careless, reckless and intentional.

Broad: reckless - unnecesary action with foreseeable risk of serious harm, opportunity to mitigate but did not: Richmond defender Nathan Broad referred directly to tribunal for tackle - YouTube.

Serong: careless - attempting legitimate tackle, but didn't take sufficient care in doing so: Caleb Serong has been handed a one-match ban for this dangerous tackle. - YouTube.

I agree. And Nankervis was reckless.

I think if Liz’s category 1 category 2 system was considered, we would end up explaining it by using English word descriptors - such as 1. = careless and 2. = reckless. So use these words in the first place.

I also think ‘intentional’ is a discrete separate category (which fortunately seldom needs to be used).

I don’t agree that ‘intentional’ conjures up pre-meditated.

Pre-mediated means not only an intentional action but one that was planned in advance.

I don’t think anyone thinks that while Barry Hall was eating his breakfast cereal in the morning of the match he planned to king hit Staker later that day. But I think we would almost all agree Hall had a brain snap and intentionally hit Staker during the course of the match.

[MattW]

So which category does a slam tackle fall into? Reckless or negligent? Or if it could be either, which features of a tackle help distinguish?

The categories were, and could again be, careless, reckless and intentional.

Broad: reckless - unnecesary action with foreseeable risk of serious harm, opportunity to mitigate but did not: Richmond defender Nathan Broad referred directly to tribunal for tackle - YouTube.

Serong: careless - attempting legitimate tackle, but didn't take sufficient care in doing so: Caleb Serong has been handed a one-match ban for this dangerous tackle. - YouTube.

[troyjones2525]

That tactic just doesn’t happen at AFL level and it’s never going to

100%

Sent from my SM-F936B using Tapatalk

[caj23]

Without a sendoff rule, teams can select an enforcer to take out the best player on the opposition side in exchange for missing 3 or 4 weeks. Like if we play Collingwood, we would target Nick Daicos in the first quarter. We can rotate players like Same Wicks and Will Gould as our enforcers. I don't like it, but the way the rules stand, this would give the offending team a solid advantage in key games.

That tactic just doesn’t happen at AFL level and it’s never going to

[Blood Fever]

Delusion?

[Ludwig]

The funny thing is that Gould is probably faster in a sprint than Daicos. When Daicos has possession the ball is moving very fast, not because of Nick's leg sped, but rather due to his vision, decision making and precision disposal. It's an optical illusion.

[Blood Fever]

LOL. Wouldn't get near him.

[i'm-uninformed2]

You are 100% correct but at least Toby has acknowledged and apologised for his late bump. It shouldn’t have reduced his suspension but to me it shows that players do care about each other and that these harmful acts are not deliberate. Unfortunately these things happen in contact sports when split second decisions are made and when players are striving to assert maximum pressure. He should have got at least 4 weeks nevertheless.

Yep. And should have made clear in my post I don’t regard Nank as a dirty player and don’t doubt the contrition. In fact, I think the dirty player has largely gone out of the game. But an apology shouldn’t get you a discount.

- - - Updated - - -

Without a sendoff rule, teams can select an enforcer to take out the best player on the opposition side in exchange for missing 3 or 4 weeks. Like if we play Collingwood, we would target Nick Daicos in the first quarter. We can rotate players like Same Wicks and Will Gould as our enforcers. I don't like it, but the way the rules stand, this would give the offending team a solid advantage in key games.

We finally found a role Gould could play (if he could catch Daicos without self-combusting).

[Ludwig]

Without a sendoff rule, teams can select an enforcer to take out the best player on the opposition side in exchange for missing 3 or 4 weeks. Like if we play Collingwood, we would target Nick Daicos in the first quarter. We can rotate players like Same Wicks and Will Gould as our enforcers. I don't like it, but the way the rules stand, this would give the offending team a solid advantage in key games.

[Roadrunner]

I think the other annoying part of the sentence is he got down from four to three simply by showing contrition. Who cares?

The AFL is - in my view at least, largely in a serious and systemic way - confronting and trying to minimise the risk of lifetime after effects from concussions. Someone saying sorry ain’t gonna help someone whose brain is permanently rattled. I’d love to see how that stands up when the class actions come.

“Your Honour, I know Mr Lloyd has sustained 30 years of diminished quality of life but the perpetrator did send him a contrite text after the event.”

Please.

You are 100% correct but at least Toby has acknowledged and apologised for his late bump. It shouldn’t have reduced his suspension but to me it shows that players do care about each other and that these harmful acts are not deliberate. Unfortunately these things happen in contact sports when split second decisions are made and when players are striving to assert maximum pressure. He should have got at least 4 weeks nevertheless.

[i'm-uninformed2]

I think the other annoying part of the sentence is he got down from four to three simply by showing contrition. Who cares?

The AFL is - in my view at least, largely in a serious and systemic way - confronting and trying to minimise the risk of lifetime after effects from concussions. Someone saying sorry ain’t gonna help someone whose brain is permanently rattled. I’d love to see how that stands up when the class actions come.

“Your Honour, I know Mr Lloyd has sustained 30 years of diminished quality of life but the perpetrator did send him a contrite text after the event.”

Please.

[liz]

So which category does a slam tackle fall into? Reckless or negligent? Or if it could be either, which features of a tackle help distinguish?