Nic Nat's Tackle

[NoseBleed]

It’s easy to see things in still images.

Exactly.


A picture is worth a thousand words. Look at the seven pictures, they show you what's actually happening in the footage.

I look forward to your seven thousand word rebuttal. Not "But at real speed, I can't see what's wrong..."

;-)

[The Adelaide Connection]

Most seem to agree that it is an “in the back free”. So, essentially he was concussed by an “illegal” tackle.

Whether we like it or not, the black and white of it is that an illegal tackle (whether it is slinging, spear tackling a bloke in the back, bumping and catching the head, etc) that leads to concussion has got to attract weeks.

On one hand people are all “back in the day that’s not reportable” and on the other we have players from “back in the day” joining class action suits against the AFL for the concussions they sustained.

What I think we can all agree on, is that the MRO still battles (and baffles) with a lack of consistency/logic. Burton had to go for his hit on Higgins and Mitchell (who made a bee line for Goldstein off the ball and had to jump in the air to elbow him in the face) should also have attracted weeks (especially if Cordy did).

[LostDoggy]

Most seem to agree that it is an “in the back free”. So, essentially he was concussed by an “illegal” tackle.

Whether we like it or not, the black and white of it is that an illegal tackle (whether it is slinging, spear tackling a bloke in the back, bumping and catching the head, etc) that leads to concussion has got to attract weeks.

On one hand people are all “back in the day that’s not reportable” and on the other we have players from “back in the day” joining class action suits against the AFL for the concussions they sustained.

What I think we can all agree on, is that the MRO still battles (and baffles) with a lack of consistency/logic. Burton had to go for his hit on Higgins and Mitchell (who made a bee line for Goldstein off the ball and had to jump in the air to elbow him in the face) should also have attracted weeks (especially if Cordy did).

I agree with you TAC. I think the main problem is that the points/weightings don't differentiate between intentional (off the play) incidents and negligent/careless incidents that occur in the run of play. The football public consistenly feel that careless acts that occur in play (usually sloppy/poor technique bumps or tackles) that result in injury/concussions are viewed too harshly relative to snipes off the play. If the snipes were getting multiple weeks (as they should), the 1 week penalties for the in play incidents wouldn't seem so harsh.

[bornadog]

I have seen footage of Nic Nat executing this same tackle in many games. I think he needs to reassess the way he tackles. He doesn't just try to tackle his opponent he tries to bring them down to the ground and with his weight and size, it doesn't end up pretty. He should just try and concentrate on a good tackle without trying to go to ground. Of course his momentum may take the two players to the ground, but I don't believe that, I think it is intentional.

[westdog54]

I have seen footage of Nic Nat executing this same tackle in many games. I think he needs to reassess the way he tackles. He doesn't just try to tackle his opponent he tries to bring them down to the ground and with his weight and size, it doesn't end up pretty. He should just try and concentrate on a good tackle without trying to go to ground. Of course his momentum may take the two players to the ground, but I don't believe that, I think it is intentional.

In theory, Shane Mumford should have had a similar problem to Naitinui, however his tackling technique was quite good, and when he 'got' someone, he did so cleanly.

You've touched on something that doesn't just affect NicNat, there are far too many players in the AFL whose tackling techniques are either dangerous, lazy, or a combination of both. Franklin had the issue with his bumps, it now appears NicNat has it with his tackling.

I've got no issue with this being a suspension.

[bornadog]

In theory, Shane Mumford should have had a similar problem to Naitinui, however his tackling technique was quite good, and when he 'got' someone, he did so cleanly.

Libba would say otherwise

[Twodogs]

I have seen footage of Nic Nat executing this same tackle in many games. I think he needs to reassess the way he tackles. He doesn't just try to tackle his opponent he tries to bring them down to the ground and with his weight and size, it doesn't end up pretty. He should just try and concentrate on a good tackle without trying to go to ground. Of course his momentum may take the two players to the ground, but I don't believe that, I think it is intentional.

I've been at a match where a bloke ended up in a wheelchair. I don't want that to ever see that happen again.

[merantau]

I look at it like this: if he had punched someone and broke his jaw he'd get 8 weeks minimum. His tackle had the potential to cause a much more serious injury. I saw Anthony Rocca end Bob Murphy's season with a similiar tackle where he landed with his full weight on his opponent. Comments by Christian should not have been made. We have seen a lot more scruntiny being applied to tackles. I'm ok with this because players are stronger and move faster now. The potential for serious injury is greater. A one week suspension sends a message - if you don’t make some attempt not to land with your full weight on top of an opponent you will be suspended.
.

[Topdog]

Exactly.


A picture is worth a thousand words. Look at the seven pictures, they show you what's actually happening in the footage.

I look forward to your seven thousand word rebuttal. Not "But at real speed, I can't see what's wrong..."

;-)

Look at those 7 pictures taken in 1 second of real time and you are stating what Nic Nat was doing and how he was controlling his and the other players momentum. Do you need an advanced degree in physics to play AFL now? There is simply no way that he was thinking as much you claim in that little amount of time.

It is a decision made purely because the player was concussed. It is a ridiculous way to make a ruling and the main reason he was found guilty according to the person who made the decision is that both arms were pinned. Your photos never show the right arm being pinned.

[Topdog]

I look at it like this: if he had punched someone and broke his jaw he'd get 8 weeks minimum. His tackle had the potential to cause a much more serious injury. I saw Anthony Rocca end Bob Murphy's season with a similiar tackle where he landed with his full weight on his opponent. Comments by Christian should not have been made. We have seen a lot more scruntiny being applied to tackles. I'm ok with this because players are stronger and move faster now. The potential for serious injury is greater. A one week suspension sends a message - if you don’t make some attempt not to land with your full weight on top of an opponent you will be suspended.
.

I really dont think he would get more than 3 weeks for breaking someones jaw based off other decisions made this year.

And how can this be a suspension but the bloke that knocked out Higgins was deemed AOK????

[Twodogs]

I really dont think he would get more than 3 weeks for breaking someones jaw based off other decisions made this year.

And how can this be a suspension but the bloke that knocked out Higgins was deemed AOK????

That's where it goes into really silly territory. That they keep defending Higgins being knocked out is untenable. The Hawthorn player should have gotten weeks.
This is the problem when the afl are so keen to see some clubs players suspended and others let off. It just proves the AFL is run by Cowboys.

[westdog54]

I really dont think he would get more than 3 weeks for breaking someones jaw based off other decisions made this year.

And how can this be a suspension but the bloke that knocked out Higgins was deemed AOK????

Because the Higgins decision was wrong. Christian dropped the ball on this one, pure and simple.

[AndrewP6]

Exactly.


A picture is worth a thousand words. Look at the seven pictures, they show you what's actually happening in the footage.

I look forward to your seven thousand word rebuttal. Not "But at real speed, I can't see what's wrong..."

;-)

I don't need that many words, it is not that complicated. The pictures provided show that at no point were both arms pinned. The official charge refers to rough conduct, which Christian explains as involving having the arms (plural) pinned. That didn't happen.

[SonofScray]

They've butchered this whole aspect of the League. Too lenient on off the ball, unsportsmanlike play and too harsh on skills of the game executed poorly. I keep harping on about it, but Rough Conduct is a shit charge. It is applied arbitrarily, floating on the tide of PR and marketing.

[bornadog]

In the past tackles were tackles, there was no such thing as a sling tackle or driving guys into the turf. When you were tackled you got rid of the ball quickly so you wouldn't be pinged. Now what happens is players don't want to let go of the ball, and they know they won't be pinged for holding the ball due to no prior opportunity.