MRP thread 2017

[bornadog]

I was taught to pin the arms in tackles from my Vic Kick days in the mid eighties - players always have been. It's just this era's players have mastered the technique, the game is quicker and with firm grounds the consequences of players having their arms pinned at pace are higher.

Perhaps something needs to be done about it, sure, but it's not a new strategy.

What I don't recall is the way the tackler throws the player on the ground. I don't remember that in the past, and with arms pined it is bloody dangerous.

[Bulldog Joe]

The issue is the player being taken forcefully to ground.

There are 2 solutions available.

1. Ban the tackle that pins arms taking an opponent to the ground

and/or

2. Pay an immediate free for the tackle that pins the arms, rewarding what could be a perfect tackle, provided the player is not taken forcefully to ground.

Personally, I see an overdoing of the prior opportunity as part of the problem. The player taking possession has a duty to dispose of the ball and should be penalised unless he makes a GENUINE and IMMEDIATE attempt to do so. If he tries to break the tackle he needs to dispose of the ball correctly.

Too many stoppages are created because players simply take the tackle and hold the ball, which also causes the tackler to make an additional action to get the umpire to blow the whistle.

[Rocket Science]

Like the impending Hird-Norm Smith moment, the AFEL have inadvertently engineered another doozie with the Dangerfield suspension because as last year's winner he'll be presenting the 2017 brownlow which'll be interesting if he polls the most votes.

Awks.

[Remi Moses]

I see " Steel arm" top bloke Hodgey's one week is intact .
What a steaming pile of you know what, that defence was .

[Sedat]

I see " Steel arm" top bloke Hodgey's one week is intact .
What a steaming pile of you know what, that defence was .

Was kinda hoping he'd get off just to incense the Geelong inbreds more

[soupman]

This action didn't exist 5+ years ago. Coaches have brought this action in in recent times due to its effectiveness of defending the way the game is played today.

But it did exist. It has been a thing ever since I played junior footy, if you stop them getting their hands free they can't dispose of the ball. Our game has been slow to evolve in the past but this is not one of those things to have only appeared in the past decade.

What I am proposing is that the ball player still has an opportunity to dispose of the ball by hand or by foot.

If they fail to do so in adequate time whilst in the motion of being tackled then its holding the ball as it has always been.

So exactly as it is now?

Currently players have an opportunity to dispose of the ball by hand or foot either pre or during the tackle, and if they fail to do so in adequate time whilst in the motion of being tackled then it is holding the ball.

How is this proposal different to the current system?

Outrage exists today because prior opportunity for the ball player barely exists. Why is it now so bad for the ball player to be given time to dispose of the ball by hand whilst in the motion of being tackled?

I would prefer the ball player to be given every opportunity to dispose of the ball, by hand or by foot, before being ruled as holding the ball. As it once was.

I would argue the contrary, the worst thing about the holding the ball interpretations atm is the idea that "knocked out in the tackle" should go unpunished, and not be considered the same as failing to dispose of it legally by hand or foot. In fact as it stands a player is given every opportunity to dispose of it legally or illegally before being called. I think the tackler is too hard done by in most cases. Kind of similar to how Bulldog Joe puts it:

Personally, I see an overdoing of the prior opportunity as part of the problem. The player taking possession has a duty to dispose of the ball and should be penalised unless he makes a GENUINE and IMMEDIATE attempt to do so. If he tries to break the tackle he needs to dispose of the ball correctly.

We continue:

I disagree. Whilst pinning the arms and driving a player into the turf brings quite high risk of brain injury, the game should not be permitting an action leading to a situation where a player cannot protect himself with his arms and hands that might result in brain trauma, dislocation, break or fracture etc etc.

Yep I agree, this is a dangerous action and I am pleased the league is trying to stamp it out. But lets be clear, the dangerous action is the driving a player into the turf portion, not the pinning of the arms.

I'd prefer the conversation be started about abolishing from the game this current day approach of pinning / holding the arms of the player with the ball in the first instance.

Whilst I'm not a supporter of incessant rule changes, this action has become a blight on our game and I say it's time to get rid of it.

And how do you propose this is enforced?

As far as I can tell you'd have to ban any tackle that did not involve a player tackling around a players waist, upper legs or by holding onto their jumper. And to ban it effectively it means it would need to be a freekick against any tackle that had more than a glancing blow to the ball carriers arms. Meaning approximately 80% of tackles from the last forever years are now freekicks against the tackler. Hence my "supporters would be outraged" comment.

In terms of the impact that would have on the game, firstly players when faced with a tackler would keep the ball close to their chest, making it very difficult for a tackler to grab them without grabbing the arms. No more seeing Bontempelli or Macrae hold the ball high in the air as they take a tackle and fire out a handball from above their head. Dustin Martin would receive a freekick for every don't argue he attempts as his opponents will grab onto the only part they can reach, his arm, which is now illegal. Supporters will be practically jumping the fence when Dahlhaus does an inspirational chase down on a forward running into open goal, only to concede the free kick because in the process he inadvertently pinned the players right arm to his hip.

Soon players adjust to this new interpretation, and decide that tackling is not worth it. It is just too difficult to tackle someone around their waist and only around their waist (seeing as both the lower leg and above the shoulders are already illegal). In open play players opt for the bump instead of the tackle in an effort to dispossess their opponents, defenders try to corral their opponents away from goal like sheepdogs so as not to concede a free kick in a crucial position, and congested ball ups in the centre of the ground are a display of star midfielders trying to snatch the ball from eachothers hands.

The above is possibly an exaggeration, but to ban tackling by pinning the arms is to ban tackling.

I guess the alternative is to do what Bulldog Joe suggests

2. Pay an immediate free for the tackle that pins the arms, rewarding what could be a perfect tackle, provided the player is not taken forcefully to ground.

But again this punishes powerful players that can burst out of a tackle (think Mitch Hahn) and really seeing as most tackles of this nature end in holding the ball anyway I fee like this is basically another way to say get the umpire to blow their whistle quicker which is kind of what Bulldog Joe alludes to at the end of his post.


But really the best way to stamp out dangerous tackles where one player gets another in a vulnerable position by pinning their arms or any other means of defending themselves from impact, and then causes said impact by throwing/riding/pulling them to ground would be to punish those that do so, possibly with suspensions of 2-3 weeks, regardless of player profile, until players get it in their head that bringing an opponent to ground in that fashion is not worth it for the measly freekick they may get (and in Dangerfields case, didn't).

But then...isn't this what the AFL is already doing?

The AFL doesn't make a lot of good changes, but this is probably something where the compromise from both angles is about right, and certainly any player that does one of those tackles this week is an idiot. The AFL has made a statement rubbing Dangerfield out, and I'm sure it broke their hearts to do it, but it's a pretty decent awareness campaign that those tackles just aren't on anymore.

[jeemak]

Great post. You've covered a lot there Soup, by and large spot on.

[bornadog]

Great post. You've covered a lot there Soup, by and large spot on.

Could have saved himself some writing, the issue really is not the pinning of the arms, the issue is slinging the player to the ground, and when pinned, this is very dangerous. That is why the penalty was dished out, the player was concussed.

[bornadog]

​
The AFL wishes to advise the Match Review Panel has reviewed the matches played in Round 20 of the 2017 Toyota AFL Premiership Season. The following charges were laid:

Charges Laid:
Tom Hawkins, Geelong Cats, has been charged with striking Dane Rampe, Sydney Swans, during the second quarter of the Round 20 match between the Geelong Cats and the Sydney Swans played at Domain Stadium on Friday August 4, 2017.

In summary, due to a previous poor record, his two-match sanction is increased by one further game to three matches and he can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Sydney Swans Football Club, the incident was assessed as intentional contact with low impact to the face. The incident was classified as a two-match sanction. A poor record over the last two seasons increases the penalty by one-game to a three-match sanction. An early plea enables the player to accept a two-match sanction.

Mitch Duncan, Geelong Cats, has been charged with a striking Tom Papley, Sydney Swans, during the fourth quarter of the Round 20 match between the Geelong Cats and the Sydney Swans, played at Domain Stadium on Friday August 4, 2017.

In summary he can accept one-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Sydney Swans Football Club, the incident was assessed as intentional conduct with medium impact to the body. The incident was classified as a two-match sanction. The player has no applicable record which impacts the penalty. An early plea enables the player to accept a one-match sanction.

Shane Mumford, GWS Giants, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Max Gawn, Melbourne, during the third quarter of the Round 20 match the GWS Giants and Melbourne, played at UNSW Canberra Oval on Saturday August 5, 2017.

In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Melbourne Football Club, the incident was assessed as careless conduct with medium impact to the head. The incident was classified as a two-match sanction. The player has a no applicable record which impacts the penalty. An early plea enables the player to accept a one-match sanction.

Zach Merrett, Essendon, has been charged with striking Lachie Plowman, Carlton, during the second quarter of the Round 20 match between Essendon and Carlton, played at the MCG on Saturday August 5, 2017.

In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Carlton Football Club, the incident was assessed as an intentional conduct with medium impact to the body. The incident was classified as a two-match sanction. The player has no applicable record which impacts the penalty. An early plea enables the player to accept a one-match sanction.

Joe Daniher, Essendon, has been charged with striking Blaine Boekhorst, Carlton, during the third quarter of the Round 20 match between Essendon and Carlton, played at the MCG on Saturday August 5, 2017.

In summary, he can accept a $1500 sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Carlton Football Club, the incident was assessed as an careless conduct with low impact to the head. The incident was a second classifiable offence this season and classified as a $2500 sanction. An early plea enables the player to accept a $1500 sanction.

Brodie Grundy, Collingwood, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Ben Brown, North Melbourne, during the second quarter of the Round 20 match between Collingwood and North Melbourne, played at Etihad Stadium on Saturday August 5, 2017.

In summary, he can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from North Melbourne Football Club, the incident was assessed as careless conduct with high impact to the head. The incident was classified as a three-match sanction. The player has no applicable record with impacts the penalty. An early plea enables the player to accept a two-match sanction.

Josh Jenkins, Adelaide Crows, has been charged with a first wrestling offence for wrestling Jackson Trengove, Port Adelaide, during the second quarter of the Round 20 match between the Adelaide Crows and Port Adelaide, played at the Adelaide Oval on Sunday August 6, 2017.

In summary, he can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.

A first offence for wrestling is a $1500 sanction. An early plea enables the player to accept a $1000 sanction.

Jackson Trengove, Port Adelaide, has been charged with a third wrestling offence for wrestling Josh Jenkins, Adelaide Crows, during the second quarter of the Round 20 match between Port Adelaide and the Adelaide Crows, played at the Adelaide Oval on Sunday August 6, 2017.

In summary, he can accept a $2500 sanction with an early plea.

A third offence for wrestling is a $4000 sanction. An early plea enables the player to accept a $2500 sanction.

Other incidents assessed
Contact between Melbourne’s Jake Melksham and the GWS Giants’ Jacob Hopper from the third quarter of Saturday’s match was assessed. It was the view of the panel that the force used in the contact was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.

Contact between North Melbourne’s Ben Cunnington and Collingwood’s Tyson Goldsack from the third quarter of Saturday’s match was assessed. The panel said a Collingwood player had the ball and kicked upfield towards Goldsack. Goldsack begin to move to his left to seek to mark the ball while Cunnington ran towards the contest on his line to the ball. Contact was made between the pair as the ball arrived. It was the view of the panel that Cunnington ran in a direct path to the ball and his action was not a bumping action was not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.

The match day report laid against St Kilda’s Luke Dunstan for tripping West Coast’s Jack Redden was assessed. It was the view of the panel the force used was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.

[Mantis]

Geelong facing Richmond with no Selwood, Duncan & Hawkins... Ouch!!

[Ozza]

Geelong facing Richmond with no Selwood, Duncan & Hawkins... Ouch!!

And the word was that Danger probably would have missed the Sydney game with his foot injury even if he was available - so there is at least some small doubt around him. Real chance for the Tigers to lock up top 4 or better.

[hujsh]

Mumford, the Geelong boys and Merrit all seem good results for us

[Topdog]

Hopefully grundy appeals, that's an awful decision imo

[Twodogs]

Great player, very healthy ego.

Every great player has a healthy ego. They wouldn't bother with greatness otherwise.

Danger unlucky really, if Kreuzer was OK and played on he may have gotten away with it

I would prefer he did than see Dustin Martin with a brownlow medal

And deny Richmond the Cothcin/Martin dual accidental Brownlow medal midfield? That would be too much fun.

[Go_Dogs]

Hopefully grundy appeals, that's an awful decision imo

Yes, 3 down to 2 seems a bit harsh.