Britney Gutknecht

[soupman]

Sling tackles and driving heads into the turf is not football, but applying the perfect tackle like this situation is part of the game.
We can't outlaw every clash in footy.

It's not the perfect tackle. She concussed her. The perfect tackle would involve not hurting her opponent in a manner that left her unable to continue not just this week, but next as well.

Sling tackles were considered football, tackling with intent to hurt was often lauded as a good thing, Mitch Hahn used to do it and we loved him for it. Sure now that's not football, but it used to be considered "part of the game".

Big bumps were considered football, there are literally highlight videos solely of players dishing out potential concussions willy nilly, the Giansiracusa bump on Koschitzke was held up (much like the Gutknecht tackle) as the "perfect bump", now I'd suggest most football followers would deem it irresponsible and "not football".

Football, like society, will change and what is acceptable will change.

I know my opinion is unpopular, but I don't see how the hill people want to die on is "players should not be held liable for concussing a player when it's as a direct consequence of their action" is a good thing. People keep insisting that this is the "perfect tackle" and to punish it would be to outlaw something fundamental to the game when the 100's of "not perfect" tackles that don't potentially give a player lifelong issues are still (and will always be) fine.

Literally no one is advocating for us to change to touch football.

Fwiw I feel for Gutknecht, and clearly her intent wasn't to hurt the player, but regardless of intent her duty of care means that if she is going to initiate the tackle then she is liable for any unintended consequences.

[The Pie Man]

I’m in the Maynard should’ve been suspended camp, but I can’t for the life of me find fault with this tackle. Not everything needs to be judged by the end result.

I also don’t mind it going to the tribunal for review - this doesn’t automatically mean she’s in line to be suspended.

If she is suspended, then yeah that is a worry

[Grantysghost]

That's the challenge for the tribunal. Does it consider the tackle dangerous because of the resulting injury or does it consider that some injuries will occur within the spirit of the game. It could be a defining decision because on most measures the tackle would be seen as fair as it wasn't high or low and it wasn't a sling tackle or even a double motion.

Yes and the player had zero awareness which is like running out on the road and expecting not to be hit by a car.

[Grantysghost]

It's not the perfect tackle. She concussed her. The perfect tackle would involve not hurting her opponent in a manner that left her unable to continue not just this week, but next as well.

Sling tackles were considered football, tackling with intent to hurt was often lauded as a good thing, Mitch Hahn used to do it and we loved him for it. Sure now that's not football, but it used to be considered "part of the game".

Big bumps were considered football, there are literally highlight videos solely of players dishing out potential concussions willy nilly, the Giansiracusa bump on Koschitzke was held up (much like the Gutknecht tackle) as the "perfect bump", now I'd suggest most football followers would deem it irresponsible and "not football".

Football, like society, will change and what is acceptable will change.

I know my opinion is unpopular, but I don't see how the hill people want to die on is "players should not be held liable for concussing a player when it's as a direct consequence of their action" is a good thing. People keep insisting that this is the "perfect tackle" and to punish it would be to outlaw something fundamental to the game when the 100's of "not perfect" tackles that don't potentially give a player lifelong issues are still (and will always be) fine.

Literally no one is advocating for us to change to touch football.

Fwiw I feel for Gutknecht, and clearly her intent wasn't to hurt the player, but regardless of intent her duty of care means that if she is going to initiate the tackle then she is liable for any unintended consequences.

Understand your point, the impact was strong. I wonder what she should have done differently? I mean she won a free kick on the day.

I guess my mind also wanders to scale, where do we stop? Every injury caused by impact is sent to the tribunal?

I'm waiting for the day when a knee in the head in a marking contest is going to be ruled out.

As I said above, awareness is part of the game. I thought the Swans player was completely clueless as to any potential impact, maybe that's part of the up-skilling process for players.

[Jeanette54]

After the season we've had in AFLW, I am just glad to see someone playing angry. Great tackle, and the umpire had no problem with it. Move on.

[Flamethrower]

So if the Swans player had ruptured her ACL, rather than been concussed, would this have been sent to the tribunal?

A bad knee injury can be career ending and life altering as well.

[SonofScray]

There is an inherent risk of injury in playing contact sport. The OHS lens and panic around concussion only has one logical end point and we are creeping towards it every time a decision like this gets reframed as something within an opponent's duty of care.

[GVGjr]

I think this really opens up a lot of questions about the sport.

The tackle was more than okay if no injury occurred.
It wasn't done with reckless intent or a dangerous head high effort and it wasn't careless. If we get to an outcome based suspension that says because it caused concussion it needs to be penalised then if we go back a couple of seasons when Naughton flew for a mark and concussed Tim English in his attempt would that be subject a review and suspension in the future?

[westdog54]

The "the player was concussed, therefore it was a bad tackle" logic has completely contaminated the debate around tackling in football. It's completely insane.

There is nothing whatsoever in Britney's technique or level of force that would lead me to believe that tackle was unreasonable.

[Grantysghost]

The "the player was concussed, therefore it was a bad tackle" logic has completely contaminated the debate around tackling in football. It's completely insane.

There is nothing whatsoever in Britney's technique or level of force that would lead me to believe that tackle was unreasonable.

Plus she didn't choose to bump which could've been catastrophic for the unaware player.

If the player can't tackle, can't bump, only other option is maybe trying to steal the ball?

[Rocket Science]

If the player can't tackle, can't bump, only other option is maybe trying to steal the ball?

Congratulations. You just invented basketball.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I?m in the Maynard should?ve been suspended camp, but I can?t for the life of me find fault with this tackle. Not everything needs to be judged by the end result.

I also don?t mind it going to the tribunal for review - this doesn?t automatically mean she?s in line to be suspended.

If she is suspended, then yeah that is a worry

For mine, the Maynard incident and this one are the same. They both come down to duty of care. Both were "football acts" within the rules but are potentially careless. If the game is heading towards putting onus on the tackling player to ensure the tackled player isn't concussed as a duty of care, then the game has changed. Perhaps that is what is needed. It'd be very difficult to adjudicate though.

Fwiw I thought both incidents didn't deserve suspensions. But I can see the 'duty of care angle. I just don't know how you'd adjudicate it. It can't JUST be based on outcome.

[Grantysghost]

Congratulations. You just invented basketball.

Did you know that Scott Pendle bury... Ah I can't even go through with it.

[bornadog]

Sanity Prevails

Britney Gutknecht is free to play this weekend against West Coast after her rough conduct charge was dismissed by the AFL Tribunal tonight

[EasternWest]

It's unlike people on the internet to go off half cocked!