Re: Round 12: Carlton vs. Port Adelaide - Post match celebrations

[PassIt2Carrots]

It's beyond farcical cookie.

[PaulP]

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?

I don't usually disagree with you cookie, but this time I must. I have watched the replay several times, and to me, if you watch Gibbs' head, back and the position of his legs, it definitely looks like he wants to get him to ground. If you watch Gibbs left leg, it tenses up as if he's getting ready to throw him down. At least that's how I see it.

[cookie2]

It's beyond farcical cookie.

That's the way I see it as well mate! I am pi55ed orf in fact.

[cookie2]

I don't usually disagree with you cookie, but this time I must. I have watched the replay several times, and to me, if you watch Gibbs' head, back and the position of his legs, it definitely looks like he wants to get him to ground. If you watch Gibbs left leg, it tenses up as if he's getting ready to throw him down. At least that's how I see it.

We'll have to agree to differ on this mate.

[PaulP]

We'll have to agree to differ on this mate.

I think so cookie.

[Vivian]

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?

But, (if I may) the sling tackle describes a style of tackle that has flung the tackled player into the turf face down. Banning such a tackle would be close to impossible, but rough conduct is a catch all offence that is in place to cope with such instances that arise in a contact sport.

Players do, according to the rules, have a duty of care to their fellow players, and it was, in the view of the MRP, rough conduct (the tackle) that was deemed careless and resulted in head high contact. Hence, 3 weeks with an offer of 2 with an early plea according to the matrix.

The result makes sense, but determing rough conduct can be tricky. The AFL have decided to err on the side of caution here and try to lessen the liklihood of such tackles being applied. It has also been helped by the recent holding the ball shift, whereby players are incentivised to dispose of the ball quicker, and lessen the chance of arms being trapped.

Call Gibbs a sacrificial lamb if you will, but a player got knocked out when his head crunched into the ground. The game is dangerous enough and tackling needs to be kept in check lest it become rugby league but played in 360 degrees.  Personally i think 3 weeks is overs as it lacked intent, but im struggling to come up with a better arrangement than what is currently in place with the MRP.

[PassIt2Carrots]

Call Gibbs a sacrificial lamb if you will, but a player got knocked out when his head crunched into the ground. The game is dangerous enough and tackling needs to be kept in check lest it become rugby league but played in 360 degrees. 

This is the exact kind of reactive attitude I'm talking about. It's footy, players will get hurt. Just because a player gets hurt, does not mean someone needs to be suspended. Unfortunately this is how the AFL deals with it.

[PaulP]

One final post from me on this, and I'm done. The issue behind all this discussion ?

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/concussion...l#comments

[Professer E]

The way they are trained to tackle - pin arms and rotate to side - is to prevent them getting the ball away or giving away a free for in the back... so the side roll is a consequence of the rules.  The smaller players tend to tackle more like this from what I have seen.

I have no dramas Gibbs getting a penalty... as long as everybody else who performs a similar slinging action in a tackle is penalised similarly.  And I mean everybody... even blokes from Sydney and the whorks.

[PassIt2Carrots]

One final post from me on this, and I'm done. The issue behind all this discussion ?

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/concussion...l#comments

Well we may as well ban the game altogether because tackling is not the main issue when it comes to concussion.