The head is sacrosanct. How many times must we hear this flimsy and contradictory defence of the decision-making process and verbiage within the AFL and Match Review Panel?
By now, you’re aware Brodie Grundy has been offered two weeks by the MRP for his textbook tackle on Ben Brown that unfortunately resulted in a concussion for the North Melbourne big man.
Grundy was deemed to have engaged in “rough” and “careless” contact for his involvement in a tackle that was deemed of such high quality (ie; dispossess player with the ball) that he was awarded a free kick.
The paradox of a free kick also being an offence worthy of suspension is baffling but enough has been made about that issue so I won’t touch on it.
As for the tackle itself, we must first clarify what the term “head first” means as I heard that bandied around quite a bit for those in favour of the suspension.
(And bear with me as there will be some pro wrestling references here.)
Head-first should be as it sounds, the first thing to make contact with the ground is the head, simple right?
For something to be head first in needs to be in the realm of a good ole’ fashion Jake The Snake Roberts DDT or Diamond Dallas Page Diamond Cutter (better than the RKO in my humble opinion).
(AAP Image/Julian Smith)
In regards to the tackle, both of Ben Brown’s knees, his left shoulder and right palm hit the ground before his head. Given that three different parts of his body hit the ground first it’s incorrect to imply he was driven ‘head first’.
Now by no means am I placing blame on Brown for the concussion, but that is part of the issue the AFL/MRP fail to understand. Sometimes, there is no fault.
I know it’s hard for industry types to believe – given their over-reliance in the power of the pen, legislature and god forbid “rules of the game” amendments – but sometimes there are parts of our great game that occur that we wish wouldn’t.
Where it gets confusing is when the rules are muddled and made almost indecipherable in the name of ‘player safety’.
The AFL is the first to toot its own horn about owning the fastest and most exciting brand of football in the world, but once it suits them they’d prefer to break it down into angles, movements, motions (whether one or two) and then hold it against the player despite the fact the game moves at supersonic speed.
This approach is partially used to further reiterate that players have a ‘duty of care’ for one another.
This duty of care concept as a whole is strange notion.
First of all, as a football player your duty of care is to your teammates, coaches, and club as at the end of the day everyone’s livelihood, whether it be the footy department, community engagement, membership or the top brass is dependent on on-field success.
That should be the players first duty of care, making sure a football is wrapped up tightly, the arms are pinned, and someone like Ben Brown is taken to ground as a man of his hulking stature sure as hell isn’t going to go down without a fight.
The duty of care of a footy player should simply be not to act like drop-kick (see: Toby Greene) and not engage in non-football acts.
I’m all for the AFL cracking down on gut shots and jumper punches as at their core, they have nothing to with football. You can’t win a free by jumper punching someone so hard the umpire has no choice but to simply applaud, whistle and have you go on your merry way.
Another issue with the duty of care reasoning is that it’s purely reactionary. If Ben Brown doesn’t suffer a concussion, the Grundy tackle is merely a footnote a Collingwood winning highlights package. Nothing has changed in the act except the outcome.
By this logic, why don’t players have a duty of care if a player injures themselves in other tackling attempts? Suppose a ball carrier is tackled to the ground and fractures his collarbone or suffers a high ankle sprain due to being landed on. Surely the impetus lies on the tackler to do everything in their power to not take them to ground in the first place, thus avoiding the situation all together?
Of course not, that would be ludicrous.
The standard response here would be “well the head is obviously different to an ankle, ever heard of a thing called concussions, have you read League of Denial or seen that underwhelming Will Smith movie?”
Yes, concussions and the resulting effects of CTE on certain individuals has been monstrous. But let’s not act as if the AFL is truly doing everything in its power to protect the head.
I mean, hell, in the past five years we’ve seen 140 years of ‘protect the ball carrier’ undermined by the sliding in rule protecting the shins rather than the head.
And when pundits scream about protecting defenceless players there’s never one mention to the most defenceless players of all.
Those taking a knee to the back of the head for the sake of the ever-amazing “Jesaulenko-You-Beauty” or “Howwweee-Did-He-Do-It” moment.
Why don’t we outlaw leaping onto defenceless players’ shoulders to protect their head? For the simple reason as the screamer is a good look for the game, the current soft – dare I say, sawft – climate of the AFL these days’ means tackling is not.
Which makes the Brodie Grundy decision just as much about public relations as it does football.
It’s sad because tackling once was/still is a great part of our game yet it looks as if the AFL would rather it resemble two shoppers shamelessly scrapping over the last “better than a Dyson $89 dollar vacuum cleaner” at K-Mart.
And as sure as I am that Digby Morrell has the greatest name in the history of footy; that definitely won’t be a good look for the game.
Steve009
Roar Rookie
The constant changes in rules are a problem in themselves. How are players to play an instinctive game of football when every year the rules change on how they are supposed to play it, along with a change of the interpretation of those laws every couple of months. When Grundy entered the league that was a great tackle with an unfortunate result. It was what he has trained to do for twenty something years, now now in the heat of the moment (a split moment), Grundy now has to do a quick review on the AFL's current standing rule interpretation on tackling and and apply an appropriate tackle to match that rounds interpretation.
John
Guest
Completely agree its a ridiculous suspension it was a good tackle. If protecting the head is paramount and there are no exceptions then next time a bloke takes a mark and knees someone in the head he should be suspended as he raised his knee.
Tricky
Guest
"The comparison to taking a screamer with a knee to the back of the head and knocking someone out doesn’t hold water. The shoulders are a much better platform too. A knockout is much rarer and the bloke in front is rarely injured and is able to break his fall as he hasn’t got 100kg pinning his arms" Disagree, just like tackling there is a possibility of concussion as it is 100kg coming at much more speed with the knee making 1st contact and that may be the back of the head and we've seen this happen already. So if it is a possibility of concussion because of the text book screamer we should then ban the attempt to mark on someones shoulders. Put simply you can't have it both ways; either the mrp judges on intent rather than result because this is a high speed contact sport and s*** will happen at times as it is unavoidable. The other choice is too take away the contact element altogether and I'm sure HQ will want not to do this it would kill the industry I was taught by every coach from juniors to seniors to tackle they way Grundy did - pin the arms for the obvious reason of attempt of dispossession or illegal disposal - that's called footy
Pope Paul VII
Guest
this is true
Tony
Guest
It was a perfect tackle, unfortunately Brown got injured in that tackle. There does not have to be any malice in a tackle for someone to get injured. Pretty soon we will have a game with no bumping or tackling allowed... Pathetic !
Cat
Roar Guru
Birdman
Guest
And this - the second last bullet point is particularly relevant 3. Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackles) The application of a tackle may be considered Rough Conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence and whether the offence is Careless or Intentional, without limitation, regard may be had to the following factors, whether: » The tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether the Player being tackled is in possession of the ball; » The tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle or a tackle where a Player is lifted off the ground; » The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (ie arms pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself; » An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force
GJ
Guest
I think I probably should have added that he was teaching blokes who were making the tackles to stay standing as well. His rationale on that front was that it wasn't necessarily the free kick you wanted. It was the loose ball spilling free that was the prize.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I think a dangerous tackle will supercede the holding the ball rule to save the umps embarrassment. Just minutes before Ziebell's tackle on Treloar, no action was taken by the nearest ump, it was overruled by a bloke further away as dangerous after the crowd went boo. Treloar walked away. It's strange that with Brown out to it, the original free for a clearly more dangerous tackle wasn't reversed.
Tony
Guest
AFL is becoming touch footy. It is a contact sport and people get injured.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I think we may find umpires are quicker to call holding the ball, so watch out Josh P Kennedy and other noted ball gathers. One of the common features of the Kreuzer and Brown donkings was that both were big blokes caught in the clear. The aforementioned ball gathers are frequently in traffic with opponents nearby not usually able to surprise or have enough space to pin and dump. So it will be interesting in the clinches.
Cat
Roar Guru
Tribunal guidelines have been available since before the season began. http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Coach_AFL/2017_Tribunal_Guidelines.pdf
Emphasis my own.Michael Simmonds
Guest
Tackling is an artform. Over recent years players have developed the skill of grabbing players by the wrist when tackling. When you are restricted in this manner there is no possible way of freeing your arm & bracing for impact to the ground. With a normal tackle you have the ability to roll upon impact with the ground. This is not possible when the wrists are grabbed. Outlaw wrist grabbing.!!!!
I ate pies
Guest
That will allow them to dispose of the ball, defeating the purpose of tackling.
Nikelnuts
Guest
Memo for Bucks - Surely a "perfect tackle" is not one that sends the the "tacklee" to hospital?
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
When was the memo sent? Can you send me a copy of it, because I still have seen a clear statement of exactly what the new interpretation is? There's evidence to me that the players and coaches haven't seen it either.
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
Well argued, and, IMO, spot on arguement. The reactionary and inconsist decisions clearly point to the fact that they are primarily PR decision, i.e. to show that the AFL is taking concussion seriously, so as to avoid any media crticism and/or future litgation. While it is okay to change the rules, that shouldn't be done on the fly in the midst of a season and needs to be clearly explained to all interested parties ahead of time and applied consistently in all situations. It seems that the rule has become, if you pin both arms in tackling a player and a concussion ensues then you can expect a sanction, while I have no problem with the rule in and of itself, it needs to be clearly expressed as such to all parties before it is officially implemented. Does anybody seriously claim that that has happened in this case?
Birdman
Guest
Just like changes to the bump, tackling has also changed, it's just some players have been late reading the memo.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Grundy deserved his suspension the moment he opted to throw Brown to the ground. He didn’t have to tackle him the way he did, and much like if you elect to bump, you know you can’t hit the head, if you’re going to sling a bloke to the ground you can’t let him smash his head on the ground. As his holiness intoned, the rules have changed – get over it.
GJ
Guest
Interestingly Paul Roos on the radio over the weekend talked about his time at Melbourne and that he was teaching the players to maintain their feet in tackles.