• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

A.F.L. Thread II

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
But that's merely high impact, not contact.

Surely.


The rule is broken. Universally noone thinks that should be a three week penalty, so it must be broken.
 

Mr Casson

Cricketer Of The Year
Bailey says Demons tackles within rules - SPORTS NEWS - One

OH MY GOD IT IS SIMPLE YOU CAN'T SLAM PLAYERS' HEAD INTO THE GROUND ANYMORE. jesus ****ing christ.
Pretty stupid from Bailey.

The laws of the game are vague in the sense that they only refer to 'rough conduct' and nothing specific to this situation, but the video on the laws of the game released this year which pertains to rough conduct is clear. You can't do what Trengove did.

You can argue about whether or not it should be considered rough conduct, and I don't think it should, but the rule is there and it's clear.

If I were Galbally I wouldn't have even wasted my time.
 

Mr Casson

Cricketer Of The Year
For those not following, the tribunal found that there was:

Negligent conduct

High impact

High contact X
That can't be right. If the tribunal found that it was body contact as opposed to high contact, it would only be a level two offence, the penalty of which for rough conduct is 225 points (i.e. a two match suspension).

The MRP assessed it as high contact originally which is where the three game suspension came from, but if the tribunal has found otherwise shouldn't he only receive two matches?
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
That can't be right. If the tribunal found that it was body contact as opposed to high contact, it would only be a level two offence, the penalty of which for rough conduct is 225 points (i.e. a two match suspension).

The MRP assessed it as high contact originally which is where the three game suspension came from, but if the tribunal has found otherwise shouldn't he only receive two matches?
Yes they did assess it as high contact... the ticks and crosses signify my attitude towards what they found.
 

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
But that's merely high impact, not contact.

Surely.


The rule is broken. Universally noone thinks that should be a three week penalty, so it must be broken.
Surely. But it doesn't seem to be. I don't really have that much problem with it. I mean if you've got the arms pinned you don't need to smash him onto the ground do you? Just get the free-kick without fuss. If he didn't have the arms pinned but the same thing happened he wouldn't've got 3 weeks but. The rule probably needs tweaking but the penalty handed out was in accordance to the rule and they were never winning the case. "he got taught to tackle that way!!!!!' Yeah so?
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Surely. But it doesn't seem to be. I don't really have that much problem with it. I mean if you've got the arms pinned you don't need to smash him onto the ground do you? Just get the free-kick without fuss. If he didn't have the arms pinned but the same thing happened he wouldn't've got 3 weeks but. The rule probably needs tweaking but the penalty handed out was in accordance to the rule and they were never winning the case. "he got taught to tackle that way!!!!!' Yeah so?
Firstly, there is no way Trengove knew Dangerfield didn't have the ball. The correct technique is to bring the player to ground if he has the ball so it makes it harder for them to dispose of it.

Secondly, his intention wasn't to slam him into the ground. What do you expect him to do? Tackle him then stop halfway through and say 'jolly good sir, sorry about the tackling, good day!'. Rubbish. Hard tackling is pretty much the only way you can show your strength and dominance over an opponent now that the bump has pretty much gone out of the game.

Thirdly, their defence wasn't based on the 'he got taught to tackle that way' argument. It was based on the fact that Dangerfield wasn't concussed (got a letter from Adelaide saying that) and the fact that he's picked to play this weekend shows it wasn't high impact. They also tried to argue that it wasn't high contact.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Have said countless times in this thread and elsewhere, Folau has a better chance of succeeding than Hunt imo.
Talk going around in pre-season at an Eastern Suburbs AFL club was to the same effect, that Folau could end up being pretty darn good.
Anyone hear what Parkin said on AFL Teams on Fox Sports?

Said he had heard from someone really close to Folau that Folau hates the sport, and is not happy.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Round 8

Geelong Cats vs. Collingwood
North Melbourne vs. Melbourne
Adelaide Crows vs. Gold Coast Suns
Brisbane Lions vs. Essendon
Sydney Swans vs. Port Adelaide
Hawthorn vs. St. Kilda
Western Bulldogs vs. Richmond
West Coast Eagles vs. Fremantle

Bye: Carlton
 

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Firstly, there is no way Trengove knew Dangerfield didn't have the ball. The correct technique is to bring the player to ground if he has the ball so it makes it harder for them to dispose of it.

Secondly, his intention wasn't to slam him into the ground. What do you expect him to do? Tackle him then stop halfway through and say 'jolly good sir, sorry about the tackling, good day!'. Rubbish. Hard tackling is pretty much the only way you can show your strength and dominance over an opponent now that the bump has pretty much gone out of the game.

Thirdly, their defence wasn't based on the 'he got taught to tackle that way' argument. It was based on the fact that Dangerfield wasn't concussed (got a letter from Adelaide saying that) and the fact that he's picked to play this weekend shows it wasn't high impact. They also tried to argue that it wasn't high contact.
The correct technique don't mean ****. Rules in place say you pin them, bring them to ground and they hit their hard them you're ****ed. The technique is just gonna have to adapt like all techniques. (in any case smashing a defenceless opponent into the ground is hardly showing strength imo). If you're got the arms pinned nowadays all you have to do is keep the ball from going out and you'll be sweet more often than not. Now bringing them to ground is hardly more effective. Either way the arms are pinned. It's not gonna be easy to get rid of it. You don't get bonus points for bringing them to ground that's for sure.

He may not have meant to slam him to the ground (he was trying to spin him 360 i think, a silly thing because spinning them 360 doesn't seem to mean **** these days) but he didn't prevent his head from hitting the ground and the rules in place are basically once you got the arms pinned you treat them with respect. Argue with the rules, i don't like them that much although i see why they're in, but the suspension is perfectly fine and they were dumb-arses for fighting it. In any case they've been in for years now and the topic is hardly raised so it's hardly the death of the tackle like some have proclaimed.

And they only got that letter after the first appeal iirc so. Their defence was basically "well imo there's no way you can give this 3 weeks" and the Mp and other two were all "well according to the rules, we have to so"
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The correct technique don't mean ****. Rules in place say you pin them, bring them to ground and they hit their hard them you're ****ed. The technique is just gonna have to adapt like all techniques. (in any case smashing a defenceless opponent into the ground is hardly showing strength imo). If you're got the arms pinned nowadays all you have to do is keep the ball from going out and you'll be sweet more often than not. Now bringing them to ground is hardly more effective. Either way the arms are pinned. It's not gonna be easy to get rid of it. You don't get bonus points for bringing them to ground that's for sure.

He may not have meant to slam him to the ground (he was trying to spin him 360 i think, a silly thing because spinning them 360 doesn't seem to mean **** these days) but he didn't prevent his head from hitting the ground and the rules in place are basically once you got the arms pinned you treat them with respect. Argue with the rules, i don't like them that much although i see why they're in, but the suspension is perfectly fine and they were dumb-arses for fighting it. In any case they've been in for years now and the topic is hardly raised so it's hardly the death of the tackle like some have proclaimed.

And they only got that letter after the first appeal iirc so. Their defence was basically "well imo there's no way you can give this 3 weeks" and the Mp and other two were all "well according to the rules, we have to so"
The first hearing is not an appeal for starters. The actual appeal argues the severity of the punishment so the letter would be most effective then.

In no way shape or form are they dumbarses for appealing it. In fact, they would be negligent if they didn't appeal it. No way is that a three week penalty when a bloke like Tambling gets a week for king elbowing a player from behind a couple of weeks before. What a disgrace.

And the correct technique enhances the game, and for them to bring a rule in which curtails this does mean ****.
 

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
They didn't have a chance in hell of winning either appeal. A simple reading of the rules should have made them say "well this is ****, but they're spot on. Take the early plea. No we don't have a chance of winning an appeal". They didn't help themselves by trying to get rid of all three weeks instead of trying to downgrade but they wouldn't've succeeded in that either. It isn't the greatest rule ever, and you can bet they''ll tweak it, but it's still a rule and the MRP had to do it's job. It seems like their whole case was "It was a tackle you can't ban a player for that!" but the rules said differently. They didn't have a chance, and now because they were dumbarses they're gonna be without one of their best against Carlton (?).

Apples and oranges. Elbow's def. have to harsher but this wasn't an elbow so. I mean if Melbourne's thought process was "hey that other guy did something else unrelated to this and got less weeks!" than they're def. dumbarses
 
Last edited:

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
They didn't have a chance in hell of winning either appeal. A simple reading of the rules should have made them say "well this is ****, but they're spot on. Take the early plea. No we don't have a chance of winning an appeal". They didn't help themselves by trying to get rid of all three weeks instead of trying to downgrade but they wouldn't've succeeded in that either. It isn't the greatest rule ever, and you can bet they''ll tweak it, but it's still a rule and the MRP had to do it's job. It seems like their whole case was "It was a tackle you can't ban a player for that!" but the rules said differently. They didn't have a chance, and now because they were dumbarses they're gonna be without one of their best against Carlton (?).

Apples and oranges. Elbow's def. have to harsher but this wasn't an elbow so. I mean if Melbourne's thought process was "hey that other guy did something else unrelated to this and got less weeks!" than they're def. dumbarses
Can tell you don't do law itbt.
 

Top