- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 19,071
- Likes
- 80,328
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
News Injuries & Suspensions
- Thread starter PC
- Start date
Isn't the Caminiti one a classic case of prosecuting the outcome, and not the act?!
If he had shoved a toughnut like that 1) he likely doesn't fall over 2) there'd be nothing to see here.
Maybe those with a history of often, frequent and "easy" concussions should wear an orange cap or something, so players know not to even brush by them!!!
If he had shoved a toughnut like that 1) he likely doesn't fall over 2) there'd be nothing to see here.
Maybe those with a history of often, frequent and "easy" concussions should wear an orange cap or something, so players know not to even brush by them!!!
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2015
- Messages
- 6,697
- Likes
- 30,160
- AFL Club
- Sydney
It's not an intellectual thing and that's what people don't understand about changing a rule overnight. These are habits that are built up over a period of time that become subconscious actions and now the AFL expects players to change overnight. It's pretty difficult in human nature to go from a subconscious action to a deliberate action because one day someone wakes up and says don't do it that way anymore.
It's like someone saying tomorrow we are all going to drive on the right hand side of the road and expect no accidents to cover.
It's like someone saying tomorrow we are all going to drive on the right hand side of the road and expect no accidents to cover.
Last edited:
It does my head in because the NRL shows how easy it is to fix. If you have an issue with the action, outlaw the action, not the result. Shoulder charges are gone. Swinging arms are gone. Grappling is gone. Even weird like "hip drop" tackles are on the way out. Sure, it's harder to tackle in the AFL because everyone going every which way but the AFL is already trying to take a half arsed approach to this same result anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2015
- Messages
- 6,697
- Likes
- 30,160
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I'm of the firm belief that the on-field umpires have a critical role to play in this latest 'sling' tackle debate.
At the center of this debate is their want (or AFL mandate) to reduce the number of stoppages in favour of a more free flowing spectacle. I'm sure that many of you here will agree when I say that there are countless times during a game where we see a player being tackled by a vice-like grip that there's no easy means for them to dispose of the footy. How many times though do we see these umpires, almost lurking in some instances, in the hope that the ball will eventually come loose in order to keep the game flowing.
From a player's perspective (note that I've never played competitive aussie rule football, outside at school), the player being tackle would make every effort to try and break free in order to not be penalised for HTB, by the same token, the tackler would make every effort to prevent the player from releasing the ball, by every means possible in the hope of getting a HTB decision. Typically during this type of physical struggles between two elite sportsmen, the likelihood outcome is that the 'forces' will inevitably lead to them falling onto the ground. From there, you're pretty much entering a grey area with regards to how the fall took place, which part of the body took the fall, height/weight of the players involved, was the ground hard or soft, etc.
My suggestion would be for a directive to the umpires that they need to be more diligent in quickly blowing the whistle for a ball up when it's obvious that 'natural' ball movement has come to a halt. I believe that by applying some common sense into how these type of football acts are umpired, rather than religiously adhering to the mandate of fostering a free flowing spectacle would hopefully go a long way towards eradicating these type of contentious MRO judgements.
At the center of this debate is their want (or AFL mandate) to reduce the number of stoppages in favour of a more free flowing spectacle. I'm sure that many of you here will agree when I say that there are countless times during a game where we see a player being tackled by a vice-like grip that there's no easy means for them to dispose of the footy. How many times though do we see these umpires, almost lurking in some instances, in the hope that the ball will eventually come loose in order to keep the game flowing.
From a player's perspective (note that I've never played competitive aussie rule football, outside at school), the player being tackle would make every effort to try and break free in order to not be penalised for HTB, by the same token, the tackler would make every effort to prevent the player from releasing the ball, by every means possible in the hope of getting a HTB decision. Typically during this type of physical struggles between two elite sportsmen, the likelihood outcome is that the 'forces' will inevitably lead to them falling onto the ground. From there, you're pretty much entering a grey area with regards to how the fall took place, which part of the body took the fall, height/weight of the players involved, was the ground hard or soft, etc.
My suggestion would be for a directive to the umpires that they need to be more diligent in quickly blowing the whistle for a ball up when it's obvious that 'natural' ball movement has come to a halt. I believe that by applying some common sense into how these type of football acts are umpired, rather than religiously adhering to the mandate of fostering a free flowing spectacle would hopefully go a long way towards eradicating these type of contentious MRO judgements.
The grey areas don’t help, but how often do you see a player turn 360+ in a tackle and then dispose of it. As the tackler, that’s ask ally incentivising you to tackle more aggressively or bring the player down.
For mine, the fundamental issue is that the AFL wants the ball in motion, so has changed the interpretation of its own rules to manufacture an outcome.. no it’s trying to manufacture away the consequences.
For mine, the fundamental issue is that the AFL wants the ball in motion, so has changed the interpretation of its own rules to manufacture an outcome.. no it’s trying to manufacture away the consequences.
Yeah, that's sort of my point. It's not the umpires "fault" or job to fix anything though. But the AFL hides behind them.
They want to keep the ball in motion so the "interpretation" of the rule lets the tackled player have longer to rid of it - but the tackler has to work harder not to break the tackle - that's where second movements and the slings come in. Pay holding the ball when it's being held earlier, there's no need to have any second movements, sling or otherwise. Dispose of the ball when you're tackled, not when you've been turned 360+ degrees, etc.
The other consequence is the throws and faux-disposals. It muddies the game, and every now and then there are good passages of play.
They want to keep the ball in motion so the "interpretation" of the rule lets the tackled player have longer to rid of it - but the tackler has to work harder not to break the tackle - that's where second movements and the slings come in. Pay holding the ball when it's being held earlier, there's no need to have any second movements, sling or otherwise. Dispose of the ball when you're tackled, not when you've been turned 360+ degrees, etc.
The other consequence is the throws and faux-disposals. It muddies the game, and every now and then there are good passages of play.
Last edited:
