Rd 19: Post Game Conversations: Carlton vs Geelong

[Thryleon]

The pinning of arms is about prevention of disposal.

I saw plenty moaning about how our blokes don't do it, and tackle round the waist.

How easy would Kreuzer be to tackle at 200cm and roughly 100kg?

I'm guessing danger was just trying his hardest to bring him down let alone smash him into the turf head first.

[LoveNavy]

And let's not forget the other favourite, Dusty, should have been scrubbed for what he did to Curnow imo.

Anyone got that match recorded?

No. Here's what i find really interesting. We've now had several opposition players rubbed out by the mrp. Yet the umpire on the day fails to award a 50m penalty, or free kick. In fact, it somehow results in an opposition goal (occasionally). Go figure. I'll admit, I'm as bias as the next person, but seriously there's been more of these to be a fluke :o

[northernblue]

What screwed him over was Swann - Ratts wanted to go out and trade for tall forwards end of 2011 and Swann did not allow it and instead we draft Josh Bootsma and Sam Rowe

Provide a source... ????

[dodge]

The players don't care about individual honours - they all say it! It is surely obvious that it shouldn't matter who you are - if you do the wrong thing by the MRP, then you need to accept the penalty.

Only problem is that players do care about individual awards and the MRP is one of the more baffling things going round.

I am a little surprised that Danger had one week, however I'm just going to get splinters up the date from sitting on the fence on this one.

[LP]

The pinning of arms is about prevention of disposal.

Dangerfield was on Kreuzer's left side during the tackle, the ball exited on the left side, there is no way Dangerfield didn't know the ball had left the scene. The tackle was about preventing Kreuzer from re-entering the contest and the sling was unnecessary. Also Dangerfield stuffed up, he lied to the media when he claimed he thought Kreuzer had the ball but he had both of Kreuzers wrists/forearms pinned by his side, what was Kreuzer holding the ball with his teeth?

The minute Dangerfield completed the tackle and Kreuzer hit his head he knew he was in potential trouble, he spun around and watched the replay rather than returning to the contest with the ball still in play.

Media types are arguing there was no free to Kreuzer as a Dangerfield defence, but the question can be flipped on it's head and we can ponder why Kreuzer wasn't awarded a free for Dangerfield hanging on!

I saw plenty moaning about how our blokes don't do it, and tackle round the waist

I think that is a extremist view, there are plenty of complaints about our blokes not sticking tackles or otherwise acting meekly failing to constrain arms. Nobody is seriously asking for our guys to sling players in tackle, it cost Gibbs weeks.

The sling is probably more dangerous than tunnelling, and it's just lucky a player hasn't been slung into an adjacent players knee causing horrific car crash type injuries.

How easy would Kreuzer be to tackle at 200cm and roughly 100kg?

I'm guessing danger was just trying his hardest to bring him down let alone smash him into the turf head first.

There is not that much difference between Kreuzer and Dangerfield, these are similarly sized and strength trained AFL professionals, it's not a kindergarten kid trying to tackle Cameron Munster!

Also the sling action by design is a levering action, it allows the tacklers force to be amplified by using their body mass and feet anchor point as a pivot.

[PaulP]

Provide a source... ????

Ratts certainly wanted to target a tall forward at the end of 2011 - whether Swann interfered with that, I know not.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-18/bl...it/2904886

[DJC]

Ratts certainly wanted to target a tall forward at the end of 2011 - whether Swann interfered with that, I know not.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-18/bl...it/2904886

Sam Rowe was recruited as a key forward ... more blue collar than blue chip though.

[Thryleon]

Dangerfield was on Kreuzer's left side during the tackle, the ball exited on the left side, there is no way Dangerfield didn't know the ball had left the scene. The tackle was about preventing Kreuzer from re-entering the contest and the sling was unnecessary. Also Dangerfield stuffed up, he lied to the media when he claimed he thought Kreuzer had the ball but he had both of Kreuzers wrists/forearms pinned by his side, what was Kreuzer holding the ball with his teeth?

The minute Dangerfield completed the tackle and Kreuzer hit his head he knew he was in potential trouble, he spun around and watched the replay rather than returning to the contest with the ball still in play.

Media types are arguing there was no free to Kreuzer as a Dangerfield defence, but the question can be flipped on it's head and we can ponder why Kreuzer wasn't awarded a free for Dangerfield hanging on!

I think that is a extremist view, there are plenty of complaints about our blokes not sticking tackles or otherwise acting meekly failing to constrain arms. Nobody is seriously asking for our guys to sling players in tackle, it cost Gibbs weeks.

The sling is probably more dangerous than tunnelling, and it's just lucky a player hasn't been slung into an adjacent players knee causing horrific car crash type injuries.

There is not that much difference between Kreuzer and Dangerfield, these are similarly sized and strength trained AFL professionals, it's not a kindergarten kid trying to tackle Cameron Munster!

Also the sling action by design is a levering action, it allows the tacklers force to be amplified by using their body mass and feet anchor point as a pivot.

Danger is 188 and 91 kilos. 

Kreuzer is 200 cm and 101 kilos.


Bringing down big blokes is not something that everyone can do easily, and whilst I get your point if you think that he was able to exert that amount of force, concentrate on holding onto his opponent, AND see what ELSE was happening around him (regarding the ball coming loose) then you have a higher estimation of what he can do.  Lets not pretend that Danger is in peak phyical condition either, which means he was probably pushing through some sort of pain barrier himself, and his stats certainly would show that hes down on his usual output.

I dont like that one of our boys got hurt any more than anyone else but I see a certain level of hypocrisy in many people's comments here regarding these incidents.

Now that I have written the above, do not be surprised to see Geelong appeal, and for the suspension to get over turned at the tribunal because aside from Kreuzers medical report, the rest of it is line ball as to whether or not its a suspendable offense, and as far as Im concerned, if the umpires started paying holding the ball free kicks quicker, and balling things up sooner, they will do more to prevent these sort of tackles and rolling mauls than restriction of interchange or any other factor like that.  If you go back to the 80's you will see that the umpires get involved before these massive packs form which is where most of it comes undone.

[PaulP]

I don't see why there is an obsession with bringing the ball carrier crashing to the ground. If they're completely wrapped up and standing, the ball won't be coming out regardless, and the tackle is equally effective. Unless there are ulterior motives to the said crashing to the ground.

[PaulP]

Geelong not challenging Danger's ban.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-08-01/ge...e-decision