MRP

[Brodders17]

Because luck should nor come into it, but it does because the AFL are focusing on the outcome, not whether the tackle was well applied and not a sling tackle, etc. The tackler has very little control over the outcome, given it all happens in 1 or 2 sets and the action of the player with the ball can also influence the outcome of whether his head hits the ground and with what force. Listening to Dermie on SEN just now and he is mystified as to where we go from here. Especially re. the Bedford tackle which he describes as perfect and always had been and that tackle often does not cause a concussion. The AFL are on another planet if they think players can let go of one arm half-way through a tackle that only lasts 1 or 2 seconds. They must have never played the game.

There was no luck involved in Dangerfield getting off- Paddy would never do the wrong thing.

Bedford pinned TTs arms and took him to the ground, head first. IMO Bedofrd chose to take TT to the ground- the direct result of that choice was TT getting knocked out. That type of tackle doesnt always cause concussion, but the chance it will is always there.

 

[tigermike]

There was no luck involved in Dangerfield getting off- Paddy would never do the wrong thing.

Bedford pinned TTs arms and took him to the ground, head first. IMO Bedofrd chose to take TT to the ground- the direct result of that choice was TT getting knocked out. That type of tackle doesnt always cause concussion, but the chance it will is always there.

Have another look at the video Brodders. Bedford does not take TT to the ground head- first. He brings him to the ground on TT's right side from hip to shoulder and TT's head continues towards the ground making slight contact with the ground. I think his concussion came mainly from the whiplash effect of his head movement after his right shoulder contacted the ground. Bedford did not drive his head into the ground, perfect tackle....
Toby tackle leaves Taranto dazed as Tiger leaves field

Toby tackle leaves Taranto dazed as Tiger leaves field

Tim Taranto comes from the ground with concussion concerns after this tackle from Toby Bedford

www.afl.com.au

 

[TigerForce]

Cameron cleared through the Appeals Board. Bedford should get the same result soon.

Just shows how seriously dumb this MRO is. Errors.....FFS.

 

[Mantikorr]

What a farce. The AFL just continue to embarrass itself

 

[Streak]

What has our great game become? What further depths can it sink to?

FFS, the deliberations of a mob of self-aggrandising floggers about the technicalities, interpretations, insinuations and intentions of a rule regarding tackling gets media attention all week.

Meanwhile further north a code I have limited interest in has a cracking state of origin decider that even the most dis-interested couldn’t help but be fascinated by.

I feel sick to my stomach.

 

[immorta]

What has our great game become? What further depths can it sink to?

FFS, the deliberations of a mob of self-aggrandising floggers about the technicalities, interpretations, insinuations and intentions of a rule regarding tackling gets media attention all week.

Meanwhile further north a code I have limited interest in has a cracking state of origin decider that even the most dis-interested couldn’t help but be fascinated by.

I feel sick to my stomach.

First game of league of watched in years, I was riveted. Tough, unforgiving, electric.

I know the SOO is the cream of the crop but I might need to watch a few more games.

AFL on the other hand, stinks at the moment.

 

[Willo]

Cameron cleared through the Appeals Board. Bedford should get the same result soon.

Just shows how seriously dumb this MRO is. Errors.....FFS.

The whole afl organisation is a farce as we all know.
The MRO handed down the task from the afl to clean the game up, reduce concussions blah blah.
The Tribunal can’t make up its mind what they’re actually there for, who they serve, what their role is or anything else.
The Appeals dont know what the afl is on about, what they’re trying to do, what the rules are, what the interpretation is, why, what, if,
Not one part of the Judiciary is in step with another.


When afl head office is full of incompetent fraudsters getting paid a truckload of the clubs money to run a half arsed rigged organisation something needs to give.
Firstly, *smile* that incompetent bunch on the Commission off. What have they ever done for the good of the game? Where are the Clubs represented? Where is the voice for the people’s game that the Commission and their underlings are contend to stuff up?

It’s time all the Clubs, even those weak, lilylivered bastard clubs that owe their existence to the afl stand up to the fraudulent incompetence, unprofessional, rigged, biased sports entertainment company and save the game.
Fraudulent corporate hypocrites that espouse, lbqtai, Indigenous, domestic violence! The voice and all the res5 of it.Then profit from the myriad sports betting companies and their saturation advertising.
Bring in a decent company that can do a forensic audit on the whole nest of leeches. Sack the ones that aren’t needed, who are below standard, how much waste is there at afl House. Money that could be put into umpires training or grassroots football.

Drain the *smile* swamp.

 

[T-Shirt Tommy]

Both Bedford and Cameron free to play.

The game is in smithereens.

 

[HR]

When the redhead from Geelong knocked out his team mate, the ex gws forward last year, and was not cited for reckless intent as he threw his elbow at an opponent but hit a team mate, it displayed the ignorance of the afl.
It's all about who what where when. re Dangerfield again and again.
The action never gets questioned. It should. The outcome always varies, the action doesn't.
penalising the outcome causes confusion. It shouldn't matter. An accident can have a bad outcome. If the action is reckless, it's reckless for a reason.
The AFL look like *smile*. Again.

 

[seven]

Both Bedford and Cameron free to play.

The game is in smithereens.

Tell me the media has no say in how this game is run.

 

[tigerlove]

How can guys get suspended for 3 games and then get off? It's happening all the time. How can two associated departments that make up the decision process for suspensions be so out of sync with each other? They are as clueless about what constitutes a legal tackle and a legal bump as the umpires, spectators, commentators, coaches, players and you and I are. It can't go on like this. Oh I forgot, of course it can, Dillon says the MRO and tribunal system is in good shape just like the umpiring.

 

[WesternTiger]

How can guys get suspended for 3 games and then get off? It's happening all the time. How can two associated departments that make up the decision process for suspensions be so out of sync with each other? They are as clueless about what constitutes a legal tackle and a legal bump as the umpires, spectators, commentators, coaches, players and you and I are. It can't go on like this. Oh I forgot, of course it can, Dillon says the MRO and tribunal system is in good shape just like the umpiring.

Easy - you make changes on the run.

 

[larabee]

So it turns out the AFL Tribunal guidelines are out of whack with the AFL Laws of the Game.
Professional

But it’s ok, Dillon says the games never been better…

 

[tiger76]

Bedford pinned TTs arms and took him to the ground, head first. IMO Bedofrd chose to take TT to the ground- the direct result of that choice was TT getting knocked out. That type of tackle doesnt always cause concussion, but the chance it will is always there.

I would have thought the ruling on this would have been straightforward and resolute.

Setting aside the ‘this is what players sign up for’ and ‘what will happen to the game we know and love’ hyperbole, Bedford chose to continue the tackle until Taranto was forced to the ground horizontally (which, given that his arms were pinned gave him no chance to protect himself).

Thus if you’re tackling a player by pinning their arms and then following through with the tackle until they are forced to drop horizontally to the ground you wear the consequences if they get concussed.

The same way you are responsible for a sling tackle that ends up with a player hitting their heads and becoming concussed.

As once the motion is created with enough force the player being tackled can do little to protect themselves.

Like the sling tackle, this may include a shift in the mindset of the tackler and possibly even technique (in certain instances).

With tackles where both a player’s arms are pinned viewed as tools to ‘catch’ or ‘retard’ a player, rather than a way to drive them all the way to the ground (as part of a tackle).

This is no longer the eighties and the information on what is happening to player’s brains is very clear.

The AFL have pretended that they are serious about protecting the welfare of players (more due to future litigation concerns than genuine care), and as soon as a few commentators and coaches (who aren’t responsible for the welfare of the players) pipe up with abject bs they fold like cheap deck chairs.

Because ultimately their only real concern is the bottom line and the perception of them.

Not what actually the right thing to do.

Incredibly weak and unclear leadership from another corporate pretender.

 

[tigermike]

How can guys get suspended for 3 games and then get off? It's happening all the time. How can two associated departments that make up the decision process for suspensions be so out of sync with each other? They are as clueless about what constitutes a legal tackle and a legal bump as the umpires, spectators, commentators, coaches, players and you and I are. It can't go on like this. Oh I forgot, of course it can, Dillon says the MRO and tribunal system is in good shape just like the umpiring.

Trouble with these 2 cases is that even though the appeals were successful, as I believed they should have been, they succeeded based on a procedural point not on the legitimacy of the tackles themselves. So we, the players, coaches, are still none the wiser as what constitutes a legal tackle and what is not. If the AFL want a rule that you cannot tackle a player and pin both arms then be specific and say that. At the moment you can tackle that way but you risk a 3-match ban if the player is concussed. If he's not concussed then it's a great tackle, ball up. That's nuts. Bedford lunged fwd to grab TT to stop him disposing of the ball so could he have tackled him round the waist? Or by just his left arm? He might still have landed on his right shoulder and had a whiplash concussion. These tribunal guys have no idea.

 

[tigermike]

I would have thought the ruling on this would have been straightforward and resolute.

Setting aside the ‘this is what players sign up for’ and ‘what will happen to the game we know and love’ hyperbole, Bedford chose to continue the tackle until Taranto was forced to the ground horizontally (which, given that his arms were pinned gave him no chance to protect himself).

Thus if you’re tackling a player by pinning their arms and then following through with the tackle until they are forced to drop horizontally to the ground you wear the consequences if they get concussed.

The same way you are responsible for a sling tackle that ends up with a player hitting their heads and becoming concussed.

As once the motion is created with enough force the player being tackled can do little to protect themselves.

Like the sling tackle, this may include a shift in the mindset of the tackler and possibly even technique (in certain instances).

With tackles where both a player’s arms are pinned viewed as tools to ‘catch’ or ‘retard’ a player, rather than a way to drive them all the way to the ground (as part of a tackle).

This is no longer the eighties and the information on what is happening to player’s brains is very clear.

The AFL have pretended that they are serious about protecting the welfare of players (more due to future litigation concerns than genuine care), and as soon as a few commentators and coaches (who aren’t responsible for the welfare of the players) pipe up with abject bs they fold like cheap deck chairs.

Because ultimately their only real concern is the bottom line and the perception of them.

Not what actually the right thing to do.

Incredibly weak and unclear leadership from another corporate pretender.

Is your theory (AFL's theory also) "that a tackler can choose not to follow through with the tackle" really achievable in practice?
How does the tackler do that without letting his opponent get away and disposing of it to advantage?
How can that be done without the spectators being damn annoyed that the tackler let his opponent get away?
The AFL want to protect the head, I get that, but asking players to pull out of a tackle is just not workable.
I'd love to see them try to set up video examples of how this would work!!

 

[tiger76]

Is your theory (AFL's theory also) "that a tackler can choose not to follow through with the tackle" really achievable in practice?
How does the tackler do that without letting his opponent get away and disposing of it to advantage?
How can that be done without the spectators being damn annoyed that the tackler let his opponent get away?
The AFL want to protect the head, I get that, but asking players to pull out of a tackle is just not workable.
I'd love to see them try to set up video examples of how this would work!!

Given players are tackled from different angles and at different speeds it would be partly around the mindset behind the tackle (as I stated).

What ate they trying to achieve?

To catch the player?

To retard the player?

Or to drive them all the way into the ground?

If you tackle from behind and land on the players pack isn’t it a free kick? (For example)

If a player is tackled and slung around you now see players adjusting the motion so it doesn’t lead to players being smashed when they are in a vulnerable state.

When there are many examples of players being tackled throughout every single game that don’t involve the tackled player having both arms pinned and their faces driven into the ground, I don’t subscribe to the notion that ‘there’s nothing you can do’, or that if you didn’t the player ‘would escape being tackled’.

Are you suggesting that there are instances where the only tackling option is to pin both arms and then ride the player until they hit the ground with their face?

(Which I think you are describing as following through with the tackle?)

That’s like saying all sling tackles that lead to players heads being smashed into the ground are unavoidable.

If you ‘follow through’ to the point where their heads smash into the ground you pay the bill.

 

[shad]

Tell me the media has no say in how this game is run.

The media is just an arm of the AFL. They say whatever they are told to by head office.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

Both Bedford and Cameron free to play.

The game is in smithereens.

Why have a tribunal?
This will happen for 3 weeks in a row during the finals.
A bloke gets suspended but released without conviction 3 days later.

 

[artball]

Dillon and Kane need to fall on their flimsy swords.
Never seen such a weak ‘leadership’ that allows bureaucracy, big business and terminology to undermine what essentially is a pretty simple game.