Bryce Gibbs offered two-match ban

If it was a player in the team you support and he did the same tackle that Bryce Gibbs did on Gray would you still have that same opinion really it wasn't intentional he was trying to stop him from getting a run on and it was meant to be a harmless tackle that unfortunately resulted this way but he was able to come back. If he was concussed he would not have been allowed to come back on there is a sensitive ruling on that. I was unfortunate what happened to Gray but he obviously recovered and it was good to see but yes players do need to be careful how they tackle but you need to have an open mind about this.

Macca he might have got to the ground by less force by not slinging him there. Also he had the ball well and truly pinned in there, if it spilled out it would do so randomly (so probably leading to a 50/50 contested opportunity), just as it would of randomly spilled out after he slammed his head into the turf. That ball didn't go anywhere, showing no risk of it spilling out, sling or no.

Rick- So tough but fair but throw a few punches if you want to, doesn't seem to make much sense. And it isn't the method thT is illegal, as evidnecedby the fact that many identical tackles go unpunished and even rewarded, it is the injury that is penalised.

mattyb - I'm glad someone gets it :) Its been nice talking Macca, but I think we will have to leave this one for another rainy day.

"Rick- if you were coaching junior football would you teach you kids to punch someone behind the play or tackle their opponents and bring them to the ground?" Macca you've trying to argue the impossible here buddy. Your point is irrelevant. The fundamental issue here is what is deemed legal when trying to bring your opponent to the ground. So in answer to your question, I wouldn't be teaching them either if we are using your version of tackling. However, I'm not going to get too bent out of shape over a few punches here and there, just hopefully not at under 12's level and within reason. That would be a bit disappointing, but boys will be boys I guess.

Rick - the tackle Gibbs applied was legal just like it is legal to bump someone, however the player runs the risk of being suspended if the opponent gets suspended. Someone getting suspended for bumping hasn't stopped the bump, GIbbs isn't the first person to be suspended for laying a legal tackle and he won't be the last. Suspending Gibbs won't stop tackling like he did, the message from the coach would be to keep doing it and we'll take the suspension for the 1 in 100 that results in a concussion.

I see the connection Rick,I got it a while back and you were,were etc etc,are right,and your points have been well made.

I'm not saying much is legal, I'm simply saying it's part of the game. You and I must be watching different sports, because side punching goes on every week, you just don't see many to the head anymore, which is good. Just like this, I don't think we will see many of these tackles into the future, but we will still see tackles, just like we see punches. See the connection now? "tackling someone legally (like Gibbs did)" Well that's were the Carlton FC, the AFL and myself disagree with you, all of whom believed it to be illegal. Sorry.

Rick- if you were coaching junior football would you teach you kids to punch someone behind the play or tackle their opponents and bring them to the ground?

Rick - There is absolutely no way you can compare punching someone to laying a tackle one is legal the other is not simple as that- wh king someone behind the play is just dirty and should be stamped on hard, tackling someone legally (like Gibbs did) is nothing like that. Trying to link the2 is just ridiculous. I would have been mufh happier to see the Hawks players get weeks than Gibbs, Gibbs did something legal that has unintentional consequences, the Hawks players did something illegal and dirty deliberately.

Macca - I can tell you now there would be more punches in a game than tackles by far. As you even mentioned your self, it's all about degree and it's an excepted part of the game. I mentioned in another thread today about tummy ticklers and how the players are abusing this right now and are only getting fined $1500 for doing it. How often do you see the likes of Lewis and Mitchel giving a quick jap to the gut region behind the ball? Some times it's picked up, sometimes its not. However, many are seen and the umpires let it go because they consider it 'light' contact. If we picked up on every niggle then the game would be stopping every 5 minutes. You are failing to see my point and the direct connection I have made with your comments. In one instance you are condemning punching, but what I'm saying is it's just as much part of the game as tackling. It is legal within reason, otherwise you wouldn't see so many players getting away with the odd collar punch right in front of the ump. The difference between now and yesteryear is we don't see the 'king hit', which was an absolute disgrace in the 70's and 80's. Tackles and punches are a similar beast. Just like the 'king hit', tackles like Gibbs will gradually be removed. Tackle hard but tackle fair, I think that's what most of us want to see. There was a great example of this during Origin on Wednesday night when Thurston was slammed by a 110 kg front rower when kicking. He was winded for 2 minutes with bruised ribs. Tough but fair and I loved every minute of it!

Geez,every answer is followed by another question or a research assignment.

Rick - Punching a bloke has never been legal so never part of the game and everything in football carries the risk of injury, it's all about degrees, punching a bloke in the head has a very high degree, tackling a bloke doesn't, you just have to look at how many times a player was slammed into the ground in a tackle in that 1 game to see it isn't very common to get concussed. And you must have been an exceptional player Rick if you found tackling an 85kg bloke on the burst easy playing for Port, (I mean there is a reason why there is about 350 possessions a game but only about 70 tackles) but could I ask how many weights sessions the magpies did per week in the 90s?

Dalgety - How could he have taken him to ground with less force? Ask him nicely to lie down? And he had his arms pinned the ball could have got free. Finally taking a bloke to ground isn't about looking tough it is about wearing your opponent out, have you ever tried running 50m sprint doing just 1 push up every 10m?

"And when was the last time you tried to shift a an 84kg bloke who didn’t want to be shifted?" Did it regularly between 94 and 98 when I played for the Port Adelaide Magpies in the SANFL. The difference is I didn't go to the steer wrestling school of tackling like Gibbs clearly has: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD2WawNF2iI "And could you advise the rates of concussion in the 70s and 80s compared to today? If you could factor in an adjustment for those caused by punches that would be great." What's great about that comment Macca is how you have condemned punches that are dangerous and potentially can cause concussions, yet fail to acknowledge a negligent tackle which could have as equal or far greater consequences. Of course you will argue that tackling is part of the game. However, I'll argue that punching was part of the game 30 years ago until is was virtually eradicated over night by harsh suspensions and the '3rd-man' in rule back in the 90's. Much like this, dangerous tackles will one day be removed. Either that or players like Gibbs will become eliminated from the field of play permanently.

Rick- watch the highlights package I mentioned you will see a number of tackles like it, Bell laid a couple by himself. And when was the last time you tried to shift a an 84kg bloke who didn't want to be shifted? And could you advise the rates of concussion in the 70s and 80s compared to today? If you could factor in an adjustment for those caused by punches that would be great.

Two weeks is about right,the tackle was a bit over the top.I got the impression Gibbs isn't strong enough to hold Gray up so he had to use a catapult type motion to assist.

"Rick – How many players do you intend to have on AFL lists so that teams can field a side after all the 2 weeks suspensions that will be handed out?" As many as it takes Macca. AFL boys aren't that dumb though, they would catch on pretty quickly I'm sure. "And my point is that if Gibbs did something that is worthy of suspension then the other players who did them without the opponent getting concussed should have a free kick paid against them yet they are routinely rewarded with a free kick." I must have watched a different match Macca. I didn't see this and I certainly haven't seen this type of behaviour rewarded in the past, but I have seen it go unpunished - big difference. "Also you deem this tackle as old school and not appropriate in the 21st century but it has only become prevalent in the 21st century as clubs employ specialists to teach players how to throw an opponent in a tackle." There is nothing difficult about what Gibbs did and if Carlton are paying 'experts' to teach them this then perhaps that's one of the reasons they are bottom dwellers this year. You have missed my point entirely though. Injuries to the head were seen as common practice in the 70's and 80's. I can accept it's part of the game, but if the AFL doesn't want to lose its battle to football, then it would be wise to continue cracking down on the incidents it can eradicate - such as this.

Why not just ban tackling altogether Rick as any tackle has the potential to cause damage.

What would Barker say to him if he got a toe poke to the ball and it went to a Carlton player in space and they ran the ball up the other end and got a Carlton goal? Really he had the ball pinned, he could still of brought him to the ground with less force anyways if he really felt he had to, but it wasn't necessary and with no arms free for Gray to brace himself the chances of brain trauma are far too high, for the sake of looking tough.