MRO Thread

[GVGjr]

Re: MRO Thread

I think we are trying to make the solution too complicated and we just need to come up with some rules and penalties that has the clubs modifying the way players tackle and bump more than finding clever ways to punish the offending player on match day.
Minimising the number of incidents from occurring is more important than defining the punishment.
If a player is found guilty perhaps an automatic 3 week suspension as a minimum is sufficient.
Clubs wont be happy losing players for multiple weeks and will work on technique and attitudes towards bumps etc to ensure it won't happen.
For some reason I cant warm to red cards but perhaps I haven't got the point of it.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: MRO Thread

Compare the red card given to England's Steward in the 6 Nations game v Ireland for a high tackle.

Sent off, team plays a man down. I appreciate we don't have a send off rule, but maybe for high tackles we should.

If it?s a direct harm reduction strategy for reducing concussions from actions that breach the rules causing it likely causing concussions. I?m very open to the idea.

[soupman]

Re: MRO Thread

It was suggested on Reddit and initially I had the normal reflex "don't change what has worked for years" thoughts but could banning the bump or reducing it's use be a valid pathway to go down?

I don't think I'd be in favour of a blanket ban but I think if we banned any bumps that were either front on or where the bumper left the ground in the action regardless of whether or not they were high I think that could rule out a lot of dangerous movements that aren't really football actions anymore, while still allowing for shepherds and contesting of the ball.

[hujsh]

Re: MRO Thread

It was suggested on Reddit and initially I had the normal reflex "don't change what has worked for years" thoughts but could banning the bump or reducing it's use be a valid pathway to go down?

I don't think I'd be in favour of a blanket ban but I think if we banned any bumps that were either front on or where the bumper left the ground in the action regardless of whether or not they were high I think that could rule out a lot of dangerous movements that aren't really football actions anymore, while still allowing for shepherds and contesting of the ball.

That's probably fair. Will still get a few elbows rising to knock the jaw but those bumps don't need to be in place.

[Bornadog]

Re: MRO Thread

Broad deserved 4 weeks. No need to slam someone into the ground like he did

[mjp]

Re: MRO Thread

Broad deserved 4 weeks. No need to slam someone into the ground like he did

Sure. So...Pickett got 2x last week for attempting decapitate Smith and McAdam got 3 for his hit and the 2 other sling tackles this week got 1 and 2 respectively?

Broad's was bad but explain the difference to me???

[Bornadog]

Re: MRO Thread

Sure. So...Pickett got 2x last week for attempting decapitate Smith and McAdam got 3 for his hit and the 2 other sling tackles this week got 1 and 2 respectively?

Broad's was bad but explain the difference to me???

I wish I could.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Re: MRO Thread

Sure. So...Pickett got 2x last week for attempting decapitate Smith and McAdam got 3 for his hit and the 2 other sling tackles this week got 1 and 2 respectively?

Broad's was bad but explain the difference to me???

Broads was at least a footy tackle. Sure it's dangerous and should be stamped out. But it was a tackle motion. Pickett's wasn't. Pickett was just trying to kill a guy. Broad got 4 because the victim was concussed. It's just a joke of a system.

I do wonder if it will be used against them in the lawsuit. Like has the afl done enough to discourage certain movements. I don't think they have.

[Bornadog]

Re: MRO Thread

Broads was at least a footy tackle. Sure it's dangerous and should be stamped out. But it was a tackle motion. Pickett's wasn't. Pickett was just trying to kill a guy. Broad got 4 because the victim was concussed. It's just a joke of a system.

I do wonder if it will be used against them in the lawsuit. Like has the afl done enough to discourage certain movements. I don't think they have.

Broads was dangerous as he picked up the player and slammed him into the turf, head first. Pickets, well could have been dangerous if he connected.

[Bornadog]

Re: MRO Thread

Not sure if anyone saw the incident where De Koning kneed Stanley pretty hard in the ribs at the Centre Bounce.

Tom De Koning has his fine for kneeing Rhys Stanley wiped off by the tribunal. Cats earlier sought clarity from the league on what they believe is a ruck "trend", with Chris Scott telling AFL360 the AFL told them:"You can't do that". Blues argued "football action"

The AFL has now acted:

THE AFL will today send a memo to all clubs stating that Tom De Koning's action should have been a free kick and isn't permitted under the banner of unnecessary contact. Doesn't explain the tribunal decision, but the league wants to stamp out the no-jump, knee-up technique.

[Bornadog]

Re: MRO Thread

How many weeks for Lynch's hit on Keath?

[josie]

Re: MRO Thread

How many weeks for Lynch's hit on Keath?

3 weeks?

[EasternWest]

Re: MRO Thread

How many weeks for Lynch's hit on Keath?

I didn't think there was much in it when I saw it live but watching it now it ticks a few boxes. He should get two weeks, but I doubt he gets anything.

[jazzadogs]

Re: MRO Thread

Yeh I think they'll excuse it as a football action despite the fact he didn't contest the ball and dropped his shoulder, directly causing a concussion.

[Grantysghost]

Re: MRO Thread

It's what forwards should do to defenders.

Nothing to see, don't get in their way.