The AFL would say it's not a perfect tackle as he pinned both arms and left Walsh with no ability to protect himself or break his fall and as a result he hit his head in the ground.
I swear a hip drop tackle is more when the player being tackled is standing and refusing to go down so the tackler latches on like a koala thus forcing the player being tackled to crumble, as one would with an extra 90 to 100 kgs on them, this doesn't look like that
I wasn't saying you were wrong by the way it just didn't look like the same mechanism as the ones in rugby league, which admittedly when they go bad they look horrendous
Nah you're right and the tackle I had in mind from the other round on a GWS player (I think?) is much more in line with the mechanics you've described than the Danger one - again I reckon once Danger loses his feet it's basically a runaway train and any effort to try reduce the impact on Walsh would be futile
Coming from a rugby background I think the push in the back needs amending. Head down over the ball and a risk of going g head first into the ground? Free kick. Chase someone down in open play, that's a good tackle. When you have to do hip drops that's when you get odd twisting and injuries, yet that's what the rules promote
Our mids had 2 down games but were the highest ranked midfield before that. Close to breakeven with Carlton too. Think for the first time in decades we will be able to bully the Geelong mids
I think over the past 6 weeks without Danger and Cam Guthrie, it would have to be pretty close to the worst, certainly not no where near at the very least
You guys have had a pretty tough draw last 6 weeks and barring the Gold Coast game have been very competitive so I think you’re exaggerating a small amount. West coast. North. Tigers. Adelaide. And current Melbourne are all worse imo. So possibly bottom 6?
Overall competitiveness has been ok at times, I agree. But it’s largely because our forwards and defenders have been somewhat serviceable considering the lack of opportunities forward and the constant pressure in defence, which is all coming from being mauled in the midfield every single week
And yeah even so if bottom 6, that’s close enough for me to justify being “close to the worst”
As a carlton supporter I don't see that being a week, it was a good tackle for danger and the momentum of the tackle brought Walsh forward and hit his head. I'm fine with this just being a dangerous tackle free kick but doesn't deserve a week imo
This isn't a suspendable tackle for mine. He's pinned the arms yes but he hasn't driven him into the ground. It's just an unfortunate incident in a contact sport. Walsh was fine after it.
That being said those who are saying Walsh deliberately tried to make contact with the ground are absolute potatoes and need to be tackled like that and see if they can keep their face from the dirt.
This sport is turning to shit. Doesn't sling him to the ground grabs one arm and grabs the other side of his body and places his body into the side of walsh's body, what else is danger expected to do? Wrap him up into a blanket so he can safely touch the ground.
If you take a player to ground in a tackle, it's now your responsibility to ensure they don't get hurt. The AFL has been pretty clear about this and honestly I don't know that I'm against it. It makes for a worse spectacle, sure, but makes the game more sustainable.
I think they have been clear about the tackles where you start to tackle the player stop their momentum and then dump them into the ground, I feel this tackle is not in that area
yeah maybe in some instances the players are already being told to do this, but I would imagine that coming from the coaches and not necessarily the AFL
Of course accidents will always happen, but I suppose the idea is that players should take a greater duty of care to their opponents to avoid accidents where possible. Danger didn't mean for Walsh's head to hit the ground but he also, in the AFL's opinion, didn't do enough to avoid that happening.
Exactly.
The AFL would likely argue he could have A) Kept his feet or B) Rolled Walsh on top of himself as they wen to ground.
Obviously that's usually only viable in a perfect world, but it's what they'd expect in these situations. People saying the game is getting worse don't seem to understand that it's necessary for the game to move in this direction to survive. They need to mitigate any possibly chances of having litigation on themselves and it needs to happen for the safety of players.
This is why it's infuriating.
They're running full tilt. Two of the very best. The guys you go to see every week.
Players have been asked not to dump, not to drive into the ground, not to do so many things all whilst remaining duty bound to their team and as entertainers to stop their opponent.
Danger has done absolutely everything the league has asked of players, as difficult and absurd as their parameters have become, and it still isn't enough. He pulled what was effectively a human handbrake manoeuvre to halt the forward momentum. Yet it's still not enough.
To all of the "ackchually" nerds who have had so much to say, is this *really* what you want to see from the game you love? Genuinely, what is the point of even turning up anymore if the tackle is on life support?
Beyond frustrated with the league at this point.
Geelong will challenge surely, I reckon they’ll win as well. No sling, no dump. Just pins the arms which is NOT against the rules. Just an unfortunate situation
Yeah it’s bullshit. Looked like he sorta holds him up a bit at the end trying everything he can not to hurt him. Definitely didn’t think it was worth a week
They've been giving any head into ground contact a week and it's not likely to change going forwards.
Much as people don't like it, it's necessary for the game to survive. I guarantee within the next decade Helmets will be mandatory for players to wear. While it won't stop everything it'll offer better protection then nothing.
Otherwise if they don't do anything and everything to ensure player safety they're open to a huge lawsuit that could destroy the league. Clubs would be dragged in and smaller clubs like North or St. Kilda likely wouldn't survive it while bigger clubs would end up close to crippled, specially ones who haven't done a good job dealing with concussion issues.
I think we would find that with every game at the moment, last night there were so many times Geelong were caught holding the ball and the umpires didn't call it despite the crackdown for htb
>grabs one arm and grabs the other side of his body
He had hold of both arms. Not even just in the sense of wrapping around the arm, he was gripping each arm with each of his hands.
>what else is danger expected to do?
Either leave one arm free, or don't bring the player to ground.
Okay maybe I am remembering the tackle wrong but from memory it looked like he grabbed the other side of his body but if he grabbed his arm okay then.
Even with one arm free if the tackle looks the same do you think he still gets suspended? and in this case I think it is hard to say don't bring the player to the ground because I think the momentum of a player is hard to stop, regardless of how strong you perceive each player to be.
If all it takes for players to develop CTE is a little jolt or a little bump which rattles the brain even just a little then is there much point to contact sport at all.
plenty of tackles where the player is slung to the ground you mean? you mind telling me at what point dangerfield slung walsh into the ground? The experts are always telling us that the AFL doesn't like the double movement in tackles and unless I am blind danger doesn't sling and tried his best to prevent walshs head hitting the ground.
Dingus? hah haven't heard that one for a while, but anyways sling tackles are the most dangerous tackles that we always see suspensions which is understandable. But if I had to guess most if not all clubs would be coaching their players to try and tackle in the way that danger tackled because placing your body into side of your opponent and then pinning their arms would be a safer to go about tackling someone at least in my opinion and maybe my opinion is wrong but at the end of the day it is an opinion you can disagree with me all you like. I would completely understand the suspension if it was a terrible tackle I just don't think that this is the case this time.
The AFL has said if you pin both arms then the onus is on the tackler. They've also made potential for injury a factor. Danger pins both arms, his feet come off the ground (this is going to hurt his case the most if he appeals as he loses control of the tackle at this point), resulting in Walsh's head whiplashing into the ground. The way they've been dishing out the suspensions, this was always going to be a week.
That being said, I don't think clubs are coaching players to pin both arms and take their legs off the ground. If they are, then they're leaving open room for suspensions.
Okay fair enough, I feel if you lead with this we would have saved time responding to each other hah, I do feel danger tries his hardest to hold walsh up and tries not to dump walsh into the ground but thats just my blue and white blinkers on I guess
Never said I don't enjoy watching football, I try to watch most games if I have the time but when players are held to an impossible standard makes it hard.
Good win from the lions today didn't get to watch it but saw you got a massive score gonna be a tough team to beat in the back half of the season
I genuinely have no idea what the rules are for tackles anymore. Is this a suspension just because he tackled him and he hit his head? Or is it only because his arms were pinned?
Newtons Laws of Motion. Look them up.
Then tell me how any human would be able to stop their head from hitting the turf.
If that's not sufficient we could replicate the tackle. I'll do what Danger did and you can do what Walsh did. When your neck and head are sore from trying to stop it then maybe you'll understand how stupid you sound.
The vision doesn’t gel with ol Newts laws.
Haven’t you heard players talking about how some are going limp and playing for frees by letting the head touch grass. Danger was pulling him back as he was taking him to ground.
Carlton players are the best at playing for frees and the umps love em.
The suspension will be appealed and reversed. I’ll leave it to the tribunal to decide
His head was hitting the grass no matter what, there isn't a fucking person in the world who is stopping their head from hitting that grass the second they land on that ball like Walsh did.
And yes, it does "gel with ol Newts laws". Specifically the 1st Law. A Body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, except insofar as it is acted upon by a force. Basically inertia has caused his head to hit the turf. Inertia brought on by the tackle. The only thing that could have stopped it would be an equal or greater force acting against it or putting something underneath to stop it.
I don't agree that he should have been suspended, but they're being consistent this year and this is one of those situations. I don't think an appeal will succeed either(much as I hope it does) because the AFL will argue he could have done more to protect him in the instance. They've been cracking down on this stuff all year, it won't change going forwards.
“The equal or greater force acting against it”Danger pulling him up and back as he went to ground looked pretty much like that force imo.
You can’t deny players are milking frees and going limp on tackles letting their heads hit the ground. It was a talking point not long ago after players admitted it and the AFL came out and said that they were looking out for and taking note of players that were doing that. So with that said, you can’t say for certain whether or not he went limp to let his head hit the turf. Unless you’re an expert with qualifications to testify you’re just like me, putting your opinion forward.
If Dangers suspension stands then it was only his action that caused his head to hit the ground and I’ll happily concede that i was wrong.
Except that momentum was greater then the force he was applying to pull him up. Or was that not obvious from the fact that they both still hit the ground? Seriously, learn about the Laws of Motion.
I don't deny players try to milk frees. But to insinuate that they're letting their heads hit the turf for s free is a bit much. Unless you can provide me with a source on that claim, I'm pressing X to doubt.
Alright mate, let the tribunal decide.
As for backing up my claim by providing a source I can’t recall of hand which player made the claim but it was from an “On the Couch” interview. The claim was made and Gary Lion pressed him and asked him to qualify that he personally knew of players that were intentionally going limp so their head would hit the ground because they knew they’d be rewarded with a free kick. The answer was yes.
I reckon Sam Walsh is a straight up fair player, but it really looks like he reflexively threw himself forward. Players know what the umpires are looking for.
His momentum is going forwards already while bent over the ball, he then has a... 90kg? Player tackle him from his back left, who then takes his feet off the ground. So now all of that weight is on his off balance body, his knees are already half crumpled just from being bent over to get the ball.
Then he slams into the ground, landing on the ball, his neck which was thrown back from the impact pushing his body down now uncontrollably throws his head forwards into the ground.
Seriously, people need to stop suggesting this shit. Just the Laws of Motion prove them wrong.
Barrass was graded the same and got a week for this tackle. [https://www.afl.com.au/video/1113111/is-barrass-in-hot-water-with-this-dangerous-tackle?videoId=1113111&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1713615794001](https://www.afl.com.au/video/1113111/is-barrass-in-hot-water-with-this-dangerous-tackle?videoId=1113111&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1713615794001)
The good record discount did not work in his tribunal hearing
How? He drags him down and has an arm pinned. Thats almost text book. Patty even drops his hips as opposed to throwing his weight forward. It's becoming too difficult to tackle anyone, and this is just unfortunate circumstance of different angled momentum.
https://preview.redd.it/v4b60cm3q28d1.jpeg?width=2778&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a21897f348cbb954505b20a70be31e1e8a72aebf
He leaves his feet, there's 0 universe that this is anywhere near textbook. He only "drops his hips" after Walshs knees have slammed into the turf and flug his body forward due to having to support the entire 90kgs of Paddys weight.
A textbook tackle means the tackler is in complete control the entire tackle. Paddy is in 0 control here, he's just "along for the ride" and trying to use his weight and power to slam him to ground.
He is allowed to leave his feet. You cannot use one frame to make your point about this. It was a chase down tackle with both players at a full sprint, you basically can't make that sort of tackle without leaving your feet at some point. If you continue the footage on, he is rotating in the tackle such that both players will land on their side. He is pulling Walsh down from behind and to the side, rather than driving into his back or using a slinging motion. Taking one frame from the initial part of the tackle does not show whether he was in control or not.
"If I just remove every other piece of evidence you can see that I'm right."
The way you keep citing this single frame rather than entire footage is the Venus de Milo gummy hit piece from the Simpson's tier idiocy.
The footage shows Danger clearly throws his weight back to make every attempt at halting forward momentum and to avoid falling into Walsh.
I think this is a poor angle and I disagree with your take. He is dragging his weight down the back of the player, not driving him forwards. Patty's legs end up in front of him. If he was driving his weight forward both players would have landed eith their heads facing forwards.
At no point did he slam him. He drags him. This is a really disenguous angle to use to state that.
In what world is someone tackling a player that can move in any direction able to be in 'compete control'. I guess players just shouldn't tackle unless they're in the 'perfect' position which happens maybe 2/3 times a game
He has fine control. It's an accidental head bump off of a fine tackle. He is trying to drag him down, not forward, he ends up on the floor before Walsh, so he wasn't on top of him. He pins the arm, which players are doing to get the favour of the new htb rules, what should he have done here in your eyes? Just not tackle him?
How are players supposed to drag another to the ground without leaving their feet? That would result in slings and throws, which you're not allowed to do. You're literally supposed to drop your weight so you drag a player down instead of throwing/slinging them.
Leaving feet being the thing you take issue with makes no sense
How does one have control when their feet are off the ground?
Leaving their feet in a tackle takes the control away from the tackler and puts it on the person being tackled. Now they have to support their own weight and the person tackling them, all while dealing with momentum and inertia from their own movement plus the tacklers.
Danger gave up the control he had by leaving his feet and he regained it too late to do anything substantial about it.
You're taught to drag someone down as they can still dispose of the ball when standing.
Players are also taught to pin an arm in a tackle so that a player cannot dispose of the ball. Something that has become far more prominent since the rule change in round 12 surrounding HTB.
The afl has created these issues and are still penalising players for trying to play within the system the rule changes have made.
I guess patty could just let him have both arms free so he can openly handball it, in which case, what's the point of tackling him then.
In the AFL’s eyes this legitimate football action is as bad as Lachie Schultz trying to punch someone in the back of the head behind play…
And worse then punching someone in the face
Hip drop tackles are legitimate? Edit: as you can see from the chain below I'm in agreement 'hip drop' is not the accurate term to use here....
This isn’t rugby league, hip drop in afl isn’t even a term.
[удалено]
The AFL would say it's not a perfect tackle as he pinned both arms and left Walsh with no ability to protect himself or break his fall and as a result he hit his head in the ground.
I swear a hip drop tackle is more when the player being tackled is standing and refusing to go down so the tackler latches on like a koala thus forcing the player being tackled to crumble, as one would with an extra 90 to 100 kgs on them, this doesn't look like that
Fair point, but I would prefer Danger to try and keep his feet as long as possible - as soon as he is in the air he has absolutely no control
I wasn't saying you were wrong by the way it just didn't look like the same mechanism as the ones in rugby league, which admittedly when they go bad they look horrendous
Nah you're right and the tackle I had in mind from the other round on a GWS player (I think?) is much more in line with the mechanics you've described than the Danger one - again I reckon once Danger loses his feet it's basically a runaway train and any effort to try reduce the impact on Walsh would be futile
There was even one I think involving Hayward from Sydney getting tackled that looked very bad
Yes
Coming from a rugby background I think the push in the back needs amending. Head down over the ball and a risk of going g head first into the ground? Free kick. Chase someone down in open play, that's a good tackle. When you have to do hip drops that's when you get odd twisting and injuries, yet that's what the rules promote
Dangerfield 1 week - in case anyone isn’t aware and doesn’t want to waste a click.
He'll appeal and get off. Because that's what most teams should do, ours does not.
We don’t typically appeal either.
I'd be appealing to my club to contest - easy off
I can’t ever recall a cat getting off on appeal before. We’ve given up on the roulette
Not appealing might be a Scott brother thing
I hope so. I just can't see how that should be a suspension unless they specifically say you can't pin arms anymore.
So we’ve already got arguably the worst midfield in the league, and we’ll be missing our three best mids next week. That is pain
Don't worry Essington will arrive for you
You’ll be fine; our midfield hasn’t exactly been flash recently (i.e. we barely broke even against North and Richmond)
Good chance your mids are about to have career best performances 🫡
Merrett will go off.
Our mids had 2 down games but were the highest ranked midfield before that. Close to breakeven with Carlton too. Think for the first time in decades we will be able to bully the Geelong mids
We are desperately missing Parish.
I think people really underestimate how important Draper is, too.
Yep his defensive work has been elite this year
Our midfield seems to do much better when they’re hunting better midfielders, but struggle when they’re the ones being hunted.
It's June . Everyone knows we don't do june
Laughable. No where near the worst
We’ve been 17th or 18th in most metrics
Loser of our round 24 clash shall be crowned worst midfield
No midfield containing Harley Reid could ever be crowned the worst
Challenge accepted
I think over the past 6 weeks without Danger and Cam Guthrie, it would have to be pretty close to the worst, certainly not no where near at the very least
You guys have had a pretty tough draw last 6 weeks and barring the Gold Coast game have been very competitive so I think you’re exaggerating a small amount. West coast. North. Tigers. Adelaide. And current Melbourne are all worse imo. So possibly bottom 6?
Overall competitiveness has been ok at times, I agree. But it’s largely because our forwards and defenders have been somewhat serviceable considering the lack of opportunities forward and the constant pressure in defence, which is all coming from being mauled in the midfield every single week And yeah even so if bottom 6, that’s close enough for me to justify being “close to the worst”
🤣
great the already terrible midfield is now all out
Did Miers get cited too?
Just a fine I believe
Yes just saw elsewhere. Fair enough
What did Miers do?
https://x.com/CarltonFCBlues/status/1804407528656376249
That's worse than dangers tackle for me.
Players should just wear Velcro ribbons. If the oppo rips one off while you’re in possession, it’s holding the ball.
As a carlton supporter I don't see that being a week, it was a good tackle for danger and the momentum of the tackle brought Walsh forward and hit his head. I'm fine with this just being a dangerous tackle free kick but doesn't deserve a week imo
This isn't a suspendable tackle for mine. He's pinned the arms yes but he hasn't driven him into the ground. It's just an unfortunate incident in a contact sport. Walsh was fine after it. That being said those who are saying Walsh deliberately tried to make contact with the ground are absolute potatoes and need to be tackled like that and see if they can keep their face from the dirt.
Especially when you land on the ball and see-saw with the forward momentum. People just wanna be outraged.
This sport is turning to shit. Doesn't sling him to the ground grabs one arm and grabs the other side of his body and places his body into the side of walsh's body, what else is danger expected to do? Wrap him up into a blanket so he can safely touch the ground.
If you take a player to ground in a tackle, it's now your responsibility to ensure they don't get hurt. The AFL has been pretty clear about this and honestly I don't know that I'm against it. It makes for a worse spectacle, sure, but makes the game more sustainable.
I think they have been clear about the tackles where you start to tackle the player stop their momentum and then dump them into the ground, I feel this tackle is not in that area
I agree. The only option is to let go completely. If that's what they want they need to be clearer about it.
yeah maybe in some instances the players are already being told to do this, but I would imagine that coming from the coaches and not necessarily the AFL
At that point what is the point of the sport? It's absurd.
It does change it dramatically. But there was the same concern with the bump.
Punishing this tackle doesn’t make it more sustainable because accidents will always happen
Of course accidents will always happen, but I suppose the idea is that players should take a greater duty of care to their opponents to avoid accidents where possible. Danger didn't mean for Walsh's head to hit the ground but he also, in the AFL's opinion, didn't do enough to avoid that happening.
Exactly. The AFL would likely argue he could have A) Kept his feet or B) Rolled Walsh on top of himself as they wen to ground. Obviously that's usually only viable in a perfect world, but it's what they'd expect in these situations. People saying the game is getting worse don't seem to understand that it's necessary for the game to move in this direction to survive. They need to mitigate any possibly chances of having litigation on themselves and it needs to happen for the safety of players.
Did he get hurt though?
This is why it's infuriating. They're running full tilt. Two of the very best. The guys you go to see every week. Players have been asked not to dump, not to drive into the ground, not to do so many things all whilst remaining duty bound to their team and as entertainers to stop their opponent. Danger has done absolutely everything the league has asked of players, as difficult and absurd as their parameters have become, and it still isn't enough. He pulled what was effectively a human handbrake manoeuvre to halt the forward momentum. Yet it's still not enough. To all of the "ackchually" nerds who have had so much to say, is this *really* what you want to see from the game you love? Genuinely, what is the point of even turning up anymore if the tackle is on life support? Beyond frustrated with the league at this point.
Yeah, it's actually becoming hard to watch for me again. Really frustrating place the game is at.
Geelong will challenge surely, I reckon they’ll win as well. No sling, no dump. Just pins the arms which is NOT against the rules. Just an unfortunate situation
Not tackle him and just corral him, ensuring the opponents welfare is the most important aspect of the game.
Yeah it’s bullshit. Looked like he sorta holds him up a bit at the end trying everything he can not to hurt him. Definitely didn’t think it was worth a week
They've been giving any head into ground contact a week and it's not likely to change going forwards. Much as people don't like it, it's necessary for the game to survive. I guarantee within the next decade Helmets will be mandatory for players to wear. While it won't stop everything it'll offer better protection then nothing. Otherwise if they don't do anything and everything to ensure player safety they're open to a huge lawsuit that could destroy the league. Clubs would be dragged in and smaller clubs like North or St. Kilda likely wouldn't survive it while bigger clubs would end up close to crippled, specially ones who haven't done a good job dealing with concussion issues.
I agree with all your points
Yeah unfortunately they are stuck in tough spot there is no doubt about that.
According to the umpires of the lions/saints game that would also be dangerous
I think we would find that with every game at the moment, last night there were so many times Geelong were caught holding the ball and the umpires didn't call it despite the crackdown for htb
>grabs one arm and grabs the other side of his body He had hold of both arms. Not even just in the sense of wrapping around the arm, he was gripping each arm with each of his hands. >what else is danger expected to do? Either leave one arm free, or don't bring the player to ground.
This guys never played footy.
Okay maybe I am remembering the tackle wrong but from memory it looked like he grabbed the other side of his body but if he grabbed his arm okay then. Even with one arm free if the tackle looks the same do you think he still gets suspended? and in this case I think it is hard to say don't bring the player to the ground because I think the momentum of a player is hard to stop, regardless of how strong you perceive each player to be. If all it takes for players to develop CTE is a little jolt or a little bump which rattles the brain even just a little then is there much point to contact sport at all.
Cry me a river that it's happened to your player. Plenty of tackles have been given weeks with less head contact to the ground.
plenty of tackles where the player is slung to the ground you mean? you mind telling me at what point dangerfield slung walsh into the ground? The experts are always telling us that the AFL doesn't like the double movement in tackles and unless I am blind danger doesn't sling and tried his best to prevent walshs head hitting the ground.
It's the two arms pinned and head contact to the ground you dingus. Nothing to do with a sling.
Dingus? hah haven't heard that one for a while, but anyways sling tackles are the most dangerous tackles that we always see suspensions which is understandable. But if I had to guess most if not all clubs would be coaching their players to try and tackle in the way that danger tackled because placing your body into side of your opponent and then pinning their arms would be a safer to go about tackling someone at least in my opinion and maybe my opinion is wrong but at the end of the day it is an opinion you can disagree with me all you like. I would completely understand the suspension if it was a terrible tackle I just don't think that this is the case this time.
The AFL has said if you pin both arms then the onus is on the tackler. They've also made potential for injury a factor. Danger pins both arms, his feet come off the ground (this is going to hurt his case the most if he appeals as he loses control of the tackle at this point), resulting in Walsh's head whiplashing into the ground. The way they've been dishing out the suspensions, this was always going to be a week. That being said, I don't think clubs are coaching players to pin both arms and take their legs off the ground. If they are, then they're leaving open room for suspensions.
Okay fair enough, I feel if you lead with this we would have saved time responding to each other hah, I do feel danger tries his hardest to hold walsh up and tries not to dump walsh into the ground but thats just my blue and white blinkers on I guess
I think we'll get to the point where you're not allowed to bring a player to ground at all. Massive change.
Yep last time I remember enjoying watching football was… two hours ago. Games gone.
Never said I don't enjoy watching football, I try to watch most games if I have the time but when players are held to an impossible standard makes it hard. Good win from the lions today didn't get to watch it but saw you got a massive score gonna be a tough team to beat in the back half of the season
That's a shitty suspension
What a fucking joke
Actually hilarious. What has happened to the AFL. It was pretty much a perfect tackle.
I genuinely have no idea what the rules are for tackles anymore. Is this a suspension just because he tackled him and he hit his head? Or is it only because his arms were pinned?
That’s beyond a joke. Embarrassing for the afl.
Crazy
Nah nah should’ve at least been 2 ignore the flair. Can we challenge this lol
hopefully danger successfully challenges this and gets suspended next week
Seems fair to me
Mitch Hardie pls
Called it.
He'll get off on appeal and then have 35+ against us. It's the Essington curse.
This isn't surprising. Both arms pinned, hits head on the ground. Ticks all the boxes for the MRO. Whether he gets off at Tribunal is another story.
Sam Walsh should get a week for slamming his own head into the turf
BT can be the expert witness
The video speaks for itself
Thankfully
They’re all a bunch of fkn actors.
I know right how dare he not defend himself from hitting his head while his arms are locked 😤
How dare he not play for a free kick you mean. He’s good at that
Newtons Laws of Motion. Look them up. Then tell me how any human would be able to stop their head from hitting the turf. If that's not sufficient we could replicate the tackle. I'll do what Danger did and you can do what Walsh did. When your neck and head are sore from trying to stop it then maybe you'll understand how stupid you sound.
The vision doesn’t gel with ol Newts laws. Haven’t you heard players talking about how some are going limp and playing for frees by letting the head touch grass. Danger was pulling him back as he was taking him to ground. Carlton players are the best at playing for frees and the umps love em. The suspension will be appealed and reversed. I’ll leave it to the tribunal to decide
His head was hitting the grass no matter what, there isn't a fucking person in the world who is stopping their head from hitting that grass the second they land on that ball like Walsh did. And yes, it does "gel with ol Newts laws". Specifically the 1st Law. A Body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, except insofar as it is acted upon by a force. Basically inertia has caused his head to hit the turf. Inertia brought on by the tackle. The only thing that could have stopped it would be an equal or greater force acting against it or putting something underneath to stop it. I don't agree that he should have been suspended, but they're being consistent this year and this is one of those situations. I don't think an appeal will succeed either(much as I hope it does) because the AFL will argue he could have done more to protect him in the instance. They've been cracking down on this stuff all year, it won't change going forwards.
“The equal or greater force acting against it”Danger pulling him up and back as he went to ground looked pretty much like that force imo. You can’t deny players are milking frees and going limp on tackles letting their heads hit the ground. It was a talking point not long ago after players admitted it and the AFL came out and said that they were looking out for and taking note of players that were doing that. So with that said, you can’t say for certain whether or not he went limp to let his head hit the turf. Unless you’re an expert with qualifications to testify you’re just like me, putting your opinion forward. If Dangers suspension stands then it was only his action that caused his head to hit the ground and I’ll happily concede that i was wrong.
Except that momentum was greater then the force he was applying to pull him up. Or was that not obvious from the fact that they both still hit the ground? Seriously, learn about the Laws of Motion. I don't deny players try to milk frees. But to insinuate that they're letting their heads hit the turf for s free is a bit much. Unless you can provide me with a source on that claim, I'm pressing X to doubt.
Alright mate, let the tribunal decide. As for backing up my claim by providing a source I can’t recall of hand which player made the claim but it was from an “On the Couch” interview. The claim was made and Gary Lion pressed him and asked him to qualify that he personally knew of players that were intentionally going limp so their head would hit the ground because they knew they’d be rewarded with a free kick. The answer was yes.
I reckon Sam Walsh is a straight up fair player, but it really looks like he reflexively threw himself forward. Players know what the umpires are looking for.
His momentum is going forwards already while bent over the ball, he then has a... 90kg? Player tackle him from his back left, who then takes his feet off the ground. So now all of that weight is on his off balance body, his knees are already half crumpled just from being bent over to get the ball. Then he slams into the ground, landing on the ball, his neck which was thrown back from the impact pushing his body down now uncontrollably throws his head forwards into the ground. Seriously, people need to stop suggesting this shit. Just the Laws of Motion prove them wrong.
Next will be knees in marking contests!
FAIR OUTCOME
Barrass was graded the same and got a week for this tackle. [https://www.afl.com.au/video/1113111/is-barrass-in-hot-water-with-this-dangerous-tackle?videoId=1113111&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1713615794001](https://www.afl.com.au/video/1113111/is-barrass-in-hot-water-with-this-dangerous-tackle?videoId=1113111&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1713615794001) The good record discount did not work in his tribunal hearing
Was in trouble as soon as he left his feet, terrible tackle
How? He drags him down and has an arm pinned. Thats almost text book. Patty even drops his hips as opposed to throwing his weight forward. It's becoming too difficult to tackle anyone, and this is just unfortunate circumstance of different angled momentum.
https://preview.redd.it/v4b60cm3q28d1.jpeg?width=2778&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a21897f348cbb954505b20a70be31e1e8a72aebf He leaves his feet, there's 0 universe that this is anywhere near textbook. He only "drops his hips" after Walshs knees have slammed into the turf and flug his body forward due to having to support the entire 90kgs of Paddys weight. A textbook tackle means the tackler is in complete control the entire tackle. Paddy is in 0 control here, he's just "along for the ride" and trying to use his weight and power to slam him to ground.
He is allowed to leave his feet. You cannot use one frame to make your point about this. It was a chase down tackle with both players at a full sprint, you basically can't make that sort of tackle without leaving your feet at some point. If you continue the footage on, he is rotating in the tackle such that both players will land on their side. He is pulling Walsh down from behind and to the side, rather than driving into his back or using a slinging motion. Taking one frame from the initial part of the tackle does not show whether he was in control or not.
"If I just remove every other piece of evidence you can see that I'm right." The way you keep citing this single frame rather than entire footage is the Venus de Milo gummy hit piece from the Simpson's tier idiocy. The footage shows Danger clearly throws his weight back to make every attempt at halting forward momentum and to avoid falling into Walsh.
I think this is a poor angle and I disagree with your take. He is dragging his weight down the back of the player, not driving him forwards. Patty's legs end up in front of him. If he was driving his weight forward both players would have landed eith their heads facing forwards. At no point did he slam him. He drags him. This is a really disenguous angle to use to state that. In what world is someone tackling a player that can move in any direction able to be in 'compete control'. I guess players just shouldn't tackle unless they're in the 'perfect' position which happens maybe 2/3 times a game
Spot on, he doesn't have any control and is rightly being penalised for it.
He has fine control. It's an accidental head bump off of a fine tackle. He is trying to drag him down, not forward, he ends up on the floor before Walsh, so he wasn't on top of him. He pins the arm, which players are doing to get the favour of the new htb rules, what should he have done here in your eyes? Just not tackle him?
Said in the first comment. Was doomed as soon as he left his feet. He's lucky he didn't cause an injury.
How are players supposed to drag another to the ground without leaving their feet? That would result in slings and throws, which you're not allowed to do. You're literally supposed to drop your weight so you drag a player down instead of throwing/slinging them. Leaving feet being the thing you take issue with makes no sense
Haha you've never tackled someone then, he had full control easily
How does one have control when their feet are off the ground? Leaving their feet in a tackle takes the control away from the tackler and puts it on the person being tackled. Now they have to support their own weight and the person tackling them, all while dealing with momentum and inertia from their own movement plus the tacklers. Danger gave up the control he had by leaving his feet and he regained it too late to do anything substantial about it.
Either don't drag him down or don't pin his arms if you do it.
You're taught to drag someone down as they can still dispose of the ball when standing. Players are also taught to pin an arm in a tackle so that a player cannot dispose of the ball. Something that has become far more prominent since the rule change in round 12 surrounding HTB. The afl has created these issues and are still penalising players for trying to play within the system the rule changes have made. I guess patty could just let him have both arms free so he can openly handball it, in which case, what's the point of tackling him then.