MRP

[Jason King]

It wasnt a sling tackle but it was pretty close! At the end of the tackle he clearly turns Tarranto towards the ground. This is what caused the head injury:



For there to be no free kick was a howler. The ump should be banned for a few matches.

 

[TigerFlag2017]

It wasnt a sling tackle but it was pretty close! At the end of the tackle he clearly turns Tarranto towards the ground. This is what caused the head injury:

View attachment 23444

For there to be no free kick was a howler. The ump should be banned for a few matches.

It would certainly make the umpires more accountable if they faced the same consequences as the player for not protecting the player or awarding a free kick.

 

[Brodders17]

It wasnt a sling tackle but it was pretty close! At the end of the tackle he clearly turns Tarranto towards the ground. This is what caused the head injury:

View attachment 23444

For there to be no free kick was a howler. The ump should be banned for a few matches.

I think the ump was a bit blindsided- on the wrong side to see any head contact and the players between him and the tackle would have made it harder to judge. Where the other umps were needs to be asked.

On this tackle, the debate appears a rehash of what took place about 12 months ago, and i thought consensus was reached that if you pinned arms, drove a guy to the ground and his head hit you got suspended. Not sure why this is suddenly being questioned.

 

[Mantikorr]

On this tackle, the debate appears a rehash of what took place about 12 months ago, and i thought consensus was reached that if you pinned arms, drove a guy to the ground and his head hit you got suspended. Not sure why this is suddenly being questioned.

Because it was only a Richmond player that got concussed.

 

[Number8]

It wasnt a sling tackle but it was pretty close! At the end of the tackle he clearly turns Tarranto towards the ground. This is what caused the head injury:

View attachment 23444

For there to be no free kick was a howler. The ump should be banned for a few matches.

Good vision, JK.

You can see Taranto does all he can to stay upright, anchoring his right knee into the ground in an effort to retain his balance.

Even then, it was not enough to mitigate the force of the tackle.

Bedford is 100% culpable in this. As soon as he had TT's arms pinned, he had to release or loosen his grip and most certainly cease with the driving motion.

It looked bad live (my daughter couldn't believe it wasn't a free kick and we were in the forward pocket at the Punt Road end, a good 75m from the play). You can't tell me that not even ONE of the FOUR umpires on the ground saw TT's head hit the ground.

TT was a sitting duck in this situation. Dumb action from Bedford and a reasonable response from the MRO.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

Why are the media so against the 3 weeks?
Because it's a Richmond player, if it was Cripps or Neale not Tarranto they would be complaining 3 weeks isn't enough.
I like little Bedford but that tackle was so wrong for today's game.
Held both arms, fell straight into his back and Tarranto's first contact with the ground was with his Head.
2 weeks is plenty

 

[Number8]

To arrive at a 3-week penalty, the MRO has graded the TT incident:

Careless, severe impact and high contact (3 weeks or more)

To have the suspension downgraded, you'd think the Giants will argue it was:

Careless, high impact and high contact (2 weeks)

They can't really argue parts 1 and 3 of that: careless is the lowest level of 'misconduct' and high contact deals with the fact TT was hit in the head.

Unfortunately for them, causing a concussion has been graded as 'severe' impact in recent times.

It'll be interesting to hear the basis of their appeal.

Can't see them overturning the grading.

Why are the media so against the 3 weeks?

It's typical, isn't it?

The media talking heads are a pain in the arse when it comes to questioning suspensions.

Whether they like it or not, the grading determines the penalty.

 

[theglove3]

You can't tell me that not even ONE of the FOUR umpires on the ground saw TT's head hit the ground.

Amazing isn't it?
Had the anti glare (read anti Richmond) googles on.

Then Dill the Dill to reiterate how good The Umps are going as he did last week.

No Free, nothing.

I love how long TT took to get off ground too.

Let's see what happens to those Umps this week. Dropped?

 

[UKTiger]

They have form for doing this when it involves a Richmond player. Sniper Stewart and Dion.

A bit like Dangerfields straight arm tackle on Vlastuin in the 2020 GF. Nick got concussed and no free.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

This week they reckon a Kod Tarranto wasn't worth a 3 week suspension.
2 weeks ago Mansell is blamed for a Carlton player cannonballoning in his head.
whats going on???

 

[CarnTheTiges]

A bit like Dangerfields straight arm tackle on Vlastuin in the 2020 GF. Nick got concussed and no free.

They did at least stop play. With Stewart play went on around an unconscious Prestia and Geelong kicked a goal while we were one man down.

 

[HKTigerB]

I think the ump was a bit blindsided- on the wrong side to see any head contact and the players between him and the tackle would have made it harder to judge. Where the other umps were needs to be asked.

On this tackle, the debate appears a rehash of what took place about 12 months ago, and i thought consensus was reached that if you pinned arms, drove a guy to the ground and his head hit you got suspended. Not sure why this is suddenly being questioned.

Agree, the bald guy was blindsided and shouldn't guess at a call. There was a non-controlling umpire directly opposite the bald umpire with a clear view of the incident and the head hitting the ground. His non-interjection is just poor/typical/lack of competence/comprehension...... (You get the drift.)

 

[tigermike]

Cameron appeal dismissed is a joke. Look carefully at the WC guy, he holds the footy close to his chest with Cameron's arms around him. Is the WC guy walking backwards trying to break the tackle or is it all Cameron's pushing? No free kick given for a dangerous tackle. The game is a joke as many on here have said.

 

[TigerForce]

Cameron appeal dismissed is a joke. Look carefully at the WC guy, he holds the footy close to his chest with Cameron's arms around him. Is the WC guy walking backwards trying to break the tackle or is it all Cameron's pushing? No free kick given for a dangerous tackle. The game is a joke as many on here have said.

Bedford also upheld. This league needs to re-write the constitution.

 

[immorta]

Haven't read the thread, and might be out of date but I thought there was nothing in the Taranto tackle. Three weeks. Bloody 'ell.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

UPHELD.
Race 2 number 14
protest dismissed

 

[tigermike]

Haven't read the thread, and might be out of date but I thought there was nothing in the Taranto tackle. Three weeks. Bloody 'ell.

Perfect tackle, or it used to be when we all played. Tim's head ACCIDENTALLY hit the ground. No room for accidents now. Toby's only alternative was to not tackle him as he was running away with the ball! Tribunal wants us to play netball rules.

 

[DavidSSS]

One of the things that gets me is the way tackles pin the arms. Can't remember when that became a thing but it just makes tackles so much more dangerous.

DS

 

[Tigaman]

The AFL has made todays game for umpires to umpire a nightmare. When are they going stop tinkering with the rules. You pin a blokes arms so he cannot dispose of the ball correctly. Grounds are to hard not like old days when your head was cushioned by the mud.

 

[DavidSSS]

Bedford also upheld. This league needs to re-write the constitution.

Sorry, very confusing.. If the appeal was upheld then Bedford gets off, the appeal was dismissed. I had to sully my computer by visiting the AFL website to work it out.

DS