A.F.L. Thread II

[Spikey]

Rules changes made to protect players | Adelaide Now

"THERE will also be stricter interpretations to dangerous tackles where a player unnecessarily and dangerously drives an opponent into the ground when their arms are pinned." i assume the high contact thing is a follow on from that

 

[benchmark00]

But that's merely high impact, not contact.

Surely.


The rule is broken. Universally noone thinks that should be a three week penalty, so it must be broken.

 

[benchmark00]

For those not following, the tribunal found that there was:

Negligent conduct

High impact

High contact X

 

[Mr Casson]

Bailey says Demons tackles within rules - SPORTS NEWS - One

OH MY GOD IT IS SIMPLE YOU CAN'T SLAM PLAYERS' HEAD INTO THE GROUND ANYMORE. jesus ****ing christ.

Pretty stupid from Bailey.

The laws of the game are vague in the sense that they only refer to 'rough conduct' and nothing specific to this situation, but the video on the laws of the game released this year which pertains to rough conduct is clear. You can't do what Trengove did.

You can argue about whether or not it should be considered rough conduct, and I don't think it should, but the rule is there and it's clear.

If I were Galbally I wouldn't have even wasted my time.

 

[Mr Casson]

For those not following, the tribunal found that there was:

Negligent conduct

High impact

High contact X

That can't be right. If the tribunal found that it was body contact as opposed to high contact, it would only be a level two offence, the penalty of which for rough conduct is 225 points (i.e. a two match suspension).

The MRP assessed it as high contact originally which is where the three game suspension came from, but if the tribunal has found otherwise shouldn't he only receive two matches?

 

[benchmark00]

That can't be right. If the tribunal found that it was body contact as opposed to high contact, it would only be a level two offence, the penalty of which for rough conduct is 225 points (i.e. a two match suspension).

The MRP assessed it as high contact originally which is where the three game suspension came from, but if the tribunal has found otherwise shouldn't he only receive two matches?

Yes they did assess it as high contact... the ticks and crosses signify my attitude towards what they found.

 

[Spikey]

But that's merely high impact, not contact.

Surely.


The rule is broken. Universally noone thinks that should be a three week penalty, so it must be broken.

Surely. But it doesn't seem to be. I don't really have that much problem with it. I mean if you've got the arms pinned you don't need to smash him onto the ground do you? Just get the free-kick without fuss. If he didn't have the arms pinned but the same thing happened he wouldn't've got 3 weeks but. The rule probably needs tweaking but the penalty handed out was in accordance to the rule and they were never winning the case. "he got taught to tackle that way!!!!!' Yeah so?

 

[benchmark00]

YouTube - Ricky Nixon and Kim Duthie Feat. Derryn Hinch - ROCK BOTTOM

 

[benchmark00]

Surely. But it doesn't seem to be. I don't really have that much problem with it. I mean if you've got the arms pinned you don't need to smash him onto the ground do you? Just get the free-kick without fuss. If he didn't have the arms pinned but the same thing happened he wouldn't've got 3 weeks but. The rule probably needs tweaking but the penalty handed out was in accordance to the rule and they were never winning the case. "he got taught to tackle that way!!!!!' Yeah so?

Firstly, there is no way Trengove knew Dangerfield didn't have the ball. The correct technique is to bring the player to ground if he has the ball so it makes it harder for them to dispose of it.

Secondly, his intention wasn't to slam him into the ground. What do you expect him to do? Tackle him then stop halfway through and say 'jolly good sir, sorry about the tackling, good day!'. Rubbish. Hard tackling is pretty much the only way you can show your strength and dominance over an opponent now that the bump has pretty much gone out of the game.

Thirdly, their defence wasn't based on the 'he got taught to tackle that way' argument. It was based on the fact that Dangerfield wasn't concussed (got a letter from Adelaide saying that) and the fact that he's picked to play this weekend shows it wasn't high impact. They also tried to argue that it wasn't high contact.

 

[alternative]

Geelong Cats
Melbourne
Adelaide Crows
Essendon
Sydney Swans
Hawthorn
Western Bulldogs
Fremantle

 

[Jono]

Have said countless times in this thread and elsewhere, Folau has a better chance of succeeding than Hunt imo.

Talk going around in pre-season at an Eastern Suburbs AFL club was to the same effect, that Folau could end up being pretty darn good.

Anyone hear what Parkin said on AFL Teams on Fox Sports?

Said he had heard from someone really close to Folau that Folau hates the sport, and is not happy.

 

[Jono]

Round 8

Geelong Cats vs. Collingwood
North Melbourne vs. Melbourne
Adelaide Crows vs. Gold Coast Suns
Brisbane Lions vs. Essendon
Sydney Swans vs. Port Adelaide
Hawthorn vs. St. Kilda
Western Bulldogs vs. Richmond
West Coast Eagles vs. Fremantle

Bye: Carlton

 

[Jono]

man the guy defending Trengove is so so so bad. get burgey in there

Haha David Galbally is an eminent trial lawyer, and his dad and uncle were two of the greatest criminal lawyers this country has ever had.

 

[Spikey]

Firstly, there is no way Trengove knew Dangerfield didn't have the ball. The correct technique is to bring the player to ground if he has the ball so it makes it harder for them to dispose of it.

Secondly, his intention wasn't to slam him into the ground. What do you expect him to do? Tackle him then stop halfway through and say 'jolly good sir, sorry about the tackling, good day!'. Rubbish. Hard tackling is pretty much the only way you can show your strength and dominance over an opponent now that the bump has pretty much gone out of the game.

Thirdly, their defence wasn't based on the 'he got taught to tackle that way' argument. It was based on the fact that Dangerfield wasn't concussed (got a letter from Adelaide saying that) and the fact that he's picked to play this weekend shows it wasn't high impact. They also tried to argue that it wasn't high contact.

The correct technique don't mean ****. Rules in place say you pin them, bring them to ground and they hit their hard them you're ****ed. The technique is just gonna have to adapt like all techniques. (in any case smashing a defenceless opponent into the ground is hardly showing strength imo). If you're got the arms pinned nowadays all you have to do is keep the ball from going out and you'll be sweet more often than not. Now bringing them to ground is hardly more effective. Either way the arms are pinned. It's not gonna be easy to get rid of it. You don't get bonus points for bringing them to ground that's for sure.

He may not have meant to slam him to the ground (he was trying to spin him 360 i think, a silly thing because spinning them 360 doesn't seem to mean **** these days) but he didn't prevent his head from hitting the ground and the rules in place are basically once you got the arms pinned you treat them with respect. Argue with the rules, i don't like them that much although i see why they're in, but the suspension is perfectly fine and they were dumb-arses for fighting it. In any case they've been in for years now and the topic is hardly raised so it's hardly the death of the tackle like some have proclaimed.

And they only got that letter after the first appeal iirc so. Their defence was basically "well imo there's no way you can give this 3 weeks" and the Mp and other two were all "well according to the rules, we have to so"

 

[benchmark00]

The correct technique don't mean ****. Rules in place say you pin them, bring them to ground and they hit their hard them you're ****ed. The technique is just gonna have to adapt like all techniques. (in any case smashing a defenceless opponent into the ground is hardly showing strength imo). If you're got the arms pinned nowadays all you have to do is keep the ball from going out and you'll be sweet more often than not. Now bringing them to ground is hardly more effective. Either way the arms are pinned. It's not gonna be easy to get rid of it. You don't get bonus points for bringing them to ground that's for sure.

He may not have meant to slam him to the ground (he was trying to spin him 360 i think, a silly thing because spinning them 360 doesn't seem to mean **** these days) but he didn't prevent his head from hitting the ground and the rules in place are basically once you got the arms pinned you treat them with respect. Argue with the rules, i don't like them that much although i see why they're in, but the suspension is perfectly fine and they were dumb-arses for fighting it. In any case they've been in for years now and the topic is hardly raised so it's hardly the death of the tackle like some have proclaimed.

And they only got that letter after the first appeal iirc so. Their defence was basically "well imo there's no way you can give this 3 weeks" and the Mp and other two were all "well according to the rules, we have to so"

The first hearing is not an appeal for starters. The actual appeal argues the severity of the punishment so the letter would be most effective then.

In no way shape or form are they dumbarses for appealing it. In fact, they would be negligent if they didn't appeal it. No way is that a three week penalty when a bloke like Tambling gets a week for king elbowing a player from behind a couple of weeks before. What a disgrace.

And the correct technique enhances the game, and for them to bring a rule in which curtails this does mean ****.

 

[Spikey]

They didn't have a chance in hell of winning either appeal. A simple reading of the rules should have made them say "well this is ****, but they're spot on. Take the early plea. No we don't have a chance of winning an appeal". They didn't help themselves by trying to get rid of all three weeks instead of trying to downgrade but they wouldn't've succeeded in that either. It isn't the greatest rule ever, and you can bet they''ll tweak it, but it's still a rule and the MRP had to do it's job. It seems like their whole case was "It was a tackle you can't ban a player for that!" but the rules said differently. They didn't have a chance, and now because they were dumbarses they're gonna be without one of their best against Carlton (?).

Apples and oranges. Elbow's def. have to harsher but this wasn't an elbow so. I mean if Melbourne's thought process was "hey that other guy did something else unrelated to this and got less weeks!" than they're def. dumbarses

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Cats
Dees
Adelaide
Essendon
Sydney
Hawks
Dogs
Freo

 

[benchmark00]

They didn't have a chance in hell of winning either appeal. A simple reading of the rules should have made them say "well this is ****, but they're spot on. Take the early plea. No we don't have a chance of winning an appeal". They didn't help themselves by trying to get rid of all three weeks instead of trying to downgrade but they wouldn't've succeeded in that either. It isn't the greatest rule ever, and you can bet they''ll tweak it, but it's still a rule and the MRP had to do it's job. It seems like their whole case was "It was a tackle you can't ban a player for that!" but the rules said differently. They didn't have a chance, and now because they were dumbarses they're gonna be without one of their best against Carlton (?).

Apples and oranges. Elbow's def. have to harsher but this wasn't an elbow so. I mean if Melbourne's thought process was "hey that other guy did something else unrelated to this and got less weeks!" than they're def. dumbarses

Can tell you don't do law itbt.

 

[Mr Casson]

How good were everyone's facial expressions when Pods shanked the kick.

 

[morgieb]

Spoiler

Looks like Collingwood lost for once. Has anyone beaten the Cats yet?