06-22-2015, 08:15 AM
(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.