+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Princes Park (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Robert Heatley Stand (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-14.html)
+--- Thread: Re: Round 12: Carlton vs. Port Adelaide - Post match celebrations (/thread-2086.html)
Re: Round 12: Carlton vs. Port Adelaide - Post match celebrations - PaulP - 06-22-2015
(06-22-2015, 07:25 AM)Vivian link Wrote:Finally got to watch the whole game.
Great improved effort from the team, with the tackling in particular quite fierce. Tended to get their bodies engaged more in tackles rather than just grasping with their arms.
Best players for me were Murphy, Cripps, Bell and Rowe. Other good contributions from Gibbs, Docherty, Buckley, Henderson, Casboult, Everitt, Graham and Yarren. Quite a few players drifted in and oht of the games, but the best players stuck at it the whole game.
We still had 100+ points kicked against us, when Schultz and westhoff had poor games, suggesting our defence still needs alot of work. But good run and carry out of half back and a preference for finding targets in the middle rather than thumping it along the lines.
In two minds about the Gibbs tackle, but the means of determining such incidents is a mess by the AFL. No proper tribunal would use the effect on the player as a primary determinant of a penalty. Did he break the rules? If the answer is no then he has no case to answer. 3 weeks is excessive for an act that was within the rules, and was without intent. Appropriate would be a few points to carry over as a warning to take a little more care. Club should appeal immediately.
The official line from the MRP is that the tackle involved careless conduct and high impact to the head, both of which in my view are correct. Whether this justifies a 3 match ban is causing some serious debate, which as is usually the case, will be short lived and not lead to anything, as we move onto the next thing. As I posted earlier, the sling tackle was discussed in 2011, and then seems to have disappeared until now.
Re: Re: Round 12: Carlton vs. Port Adelaide - Post match celebrations - PassIt2Carrots - 06-22-2015
(06-22-2015, 07:48 AM)PaulP link Wrote:The official line from the MRP is that the tackle involved careless conduct and high impact to the head, both of which in my view are correct.
So players have to be careful when they are tackling now? Tackle with intent by all means but do it with care? This is absolutely ridiculous. The bloke wasn't even concussed FFS. If we don't challenge this we are still a very weak football club. Might I add, if there is no intent to injure in the tackle then how can a player be suspended??
Re: Round 12: Carlton vs. Port Adelaide - Post match celebrations - Vivian - 06-22-2015
(06-22-2015, 07:30 AM)ItsOurTime link Wrote:@Viv, I believe that if there are 2 actions to the tackle then it is considered reckless.
Yes, the MRP guidelines do use a two action criteria to determine a reckless tackle. The difficulty is that it the issue of rough conduct can be applied in a great many situations, and as a consequence the injury sustained, or not becomes the primary determinant, in that rough conduct is not a clearly identifiable action compared to stricking or kicking.
It's a grey area and one that is difficult to deal with to the satisfaction of all. The 3 match penalty is hard to justify for an action that is so closely entwined with a legal tackle, unlike an isolated strike.
Re: Round 12: Carlton vs. Port Adelaide - Post match celebrations - cimm1979 - 06-22-2015
I'm with PaulP on this one.
Re: Re: Round 12: Carlton vs. Port Adelaide - Post match celebrations - PaulP - 06-22-2015
(06-22-2015, 07:52 AM)PassIt2Carrots link Wrote:So players have to be careful when they are tackling now? Tackle with intent by all means but do it with care? This is absolutely ridiculous. The bloke wasn't even concussed FFS. If we don't challenge this we are still a very weak football club.
The players are bound by contracts, rules, codes of conduct etc. Implicit in all of these would be an element of care. Tackling within the rules would hopefully involve an element of care. It's an area that the AFL seems very tardy in addressing.
As an example - If you have players lying on the ground, you will see other players walk around them, leap over them etc. Of course some players might give them a bit of a nudge. The players on the ground are not treated as part of the turf, with an army of other players stomping on them left right and center. Then people will say, "so players have to be careful where they walk now ?"
It's a ridiculous example, but hopefully it gets my point across.
Re: Re: Round 12: Carlton vs. Port Adelaide - Post match celebrations - PassIt2Carrots - 06-22-2015
But I really don't see how players are expected to tackle hard but carefully. First the bump and now the tackle. The AFL have to draw a line here. They are far too reactive. This is a physical game there will always be incidental contact and injury. As it was this bloke wasn't even injured.
Re: Re: Round 12: Carlton vs. Port Adelaide - Post match celebrations - Vivian - 06-22-2015
(06-22-2015, 08:04 AM)PaulP link Wrote:The players are bound by contracts, rules, codes of conduct etc. Implicit in all of these would be an element of care. Tackling within the rules would hopefully involve an element of care. It's an area that the AFL seems very tardy in addressing.
As an example - If you have players lying on the ground, you will see other players walk around them, leap over them etc. Of course some players might give them a bit of a nudge. The players on the ground are not treated as part of the turf, with an army of other players stomping on them left right and center. Then people will say, "so players have to be careful where they walk now ?"
It's a ridiculous example, but hopefully it gets my point across.
I agree with this argument, and the tackling one has been awfully difficult to deal with. The difficulty with rough conduct as a rule is that it requires more in terms of judgement to determine a penalty, than that afforded by the current MRP arrangements. Much of what has been formulated by the MRP has worked, in that it has put in place a prescribed matrix of criteria to determine sanctions. This works well in clearly identifiable instances where a reportable offence has occured, and has been a good result for the game.
But 'rough conduct' requires a greater level of judgement and discretion than what can be provided by the MRP guidelines. It might be better to get such cases to the tribunal itself and have it determined there. This of course creates more problems, and requires the use of precedent, which is not the case now.
Or as you suggest, gibbs will cop it and we will all move on pretty quickly.
Re: Re: Round 12: Carlton vs. Port Adelaide - Post match celebrations - PaulP - 06-22-2015
(06-22-2015, 08:09 AM)PassIt2Carrots link Wrote:But I really don't see how players are expected to tackle hard but carefully. First the bump and now the tackle. The AFL have to draw a line here. They are far too reactive. This is a physical game there will always be incidental contact and injury. As it was this bloke wasn't even injured.
It's possibly a multi step process, but the first step would be to ban sling tackles. If you've got the guy completely wrapped up like Gibbs did, there's no need to sling him down. I think this game has numerous examples of tackles that were hard, but fair. Now, you can get semantic and substitute the word "far" for "careful". I think the inconsistency from one MRP ruling to the next is causing a lot of issues.
Re: Re: Round 12: Carlton vs. Port Adelaide - Post match celebrations - PaulP - 06-22-2015
(06-22-2015, 08:15 AM)Vivian link Wrote:I agree with this argument, and the tackling one has been awfully difficult to deal with. The difficulty with rough conduct as a rule is that it requires more in terms of judgement to determine a penalty, than that afforded by the current MRP arrangements. Much of what has been formulated by the MRP has worked, in that it has put in place a prescribed matrix of criteria to determine sanctions. This works well in clearly identifiable instances where a reportable offence has occured, and has been a good result for the game.
But 'rough conduct' requires a greater level of judgement and discretion than what can be provided by the MRP guidelines. It might be better to get such cases to the tribunal itself and have it determined there. This of course creates more problems, and requires the use of precedent, which is not the case now.
Or as you suggest, gibbs will cop it and we will all move on pretty quickly.
Yes, you make some valid points. I think the confusion that we all feel with "correct" or "fair" tackling is that it is a complex issue. Players can be tackled from all different directions, they can be tackled high or low, they can be tackled stationery or moving, they can be tackled by more than one player etc.
Re: Re: Round 12: Carlton vs. Port Adelaide - Post match celebrations - cookie2 - 06-22-2015
(06-22-2015, 08:18 AM)PaulP link Wrote:It's possibly a multi step process, but the first step would be to ban sling tackles. If you've got the guy completely wrapped up like Gibbs did, there's no need to sling him down. I think this game has numerous examples of tackles that were hard, but fair. Now, you can get semantic and substitute the word "far" for "careful". I think the inconsistency from one MRP ruling to the next is causing a lot of issues.
As far as I recall P, there was no slinging action at all in the Gibbs tackle. He had Gray well wrapped up yes but went to ground with him. No sling at all. What are we saying now, that your not allowed to go to ground if you've got a bloke wrapped up?