Live scores
Live Commentary
West Coast Eagles : 3.0 (18)
Melbourne : 4.4 (28)
| Q1 - 30:00

Naitanui faces one-game AFL suspension


 , ,

73 Have your say

    A brutal tackle from star West Coast ruckman Nic Naitanui is set to cost him a week’s AFL suspension.

    The Eagles’ win over Port Adelaide on Saturday has proved costly for Naitanui, who also faces a $1000 fine for attempted tripping.

    But match reviewer Michael Christian cleared Melbourne key forward Jesse Hogan of an alleged staging incident during Sunday’s win over St Kilda.

    Christian had a busy Monday, dishing out 11 charges, while over the weekend he also referred Geelong star Tom Hawkins to Tuesday’s tribunal for intentional umpire contact.

    Naitanui is the only player facing suspension from Monday’s charges.

    The umpire penalised him at the time for in the back when he drove Karl Amon into the ground during the last quarter of the Optus Stadium match.

    A couple of Port players went to remonstrate with Naitanui for the tackle, but Amon was quickly on his feet.

    Christian charged Naitanui with rough conduct, ruling the tackle was careless and medium impact to the head.

    Unless Naitanui successfully pleads his case at the tribunal, he will miss Saturday’s away game against GWS.

    He has made a successful return from a long spell out of the game because of knee surgery, playing all seven games, and the Eagles are on a six-game winning streak.

    Hogan was panned widely on social media for the incident with Jake Carlisle, where he appeared to milk high contact from the St Kilda defender to draw a free kick.

    The Melbourne star somehow missed the set shot from point-blank range.

    But Christian ruled that behind-goal vision showed Carlisle pushes Hogan with an open hand to the throat.

    “There was high contact made to the Melbourne player and the contact was not excessively exaggerated by Hogan,” Christian ruled.

    Port Adelaide ruckman Dougal Howard and Carlton veteran Dale Thomas face $2000 fines for rough conduct.

    North Melbourne onballer Shaun Higgins and Sydney veteran Jarrad McVeigh are $1500 out of pocket for misconduct against each other.

    Richmond defender Nick Vlastuin ($1500) and Melbourne co-captain Nathan Jones ($2500) were also booked for misconduct and St Kilda onballer David Armitage was fined $1000 for careless umpire contact.

    St Kilda utility Jack Steele and Brisbane youngster Alex Witherden can accept $2000 striking fines.

    © AAP 2018
    Rebuild announcement

    Have Your Say

    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (73)

    • May 7th 2018 @ 4:59pm
      Damo said | May 7th 2018 @ 4:59pm | ! Report

      Wait. ….what? 1 week for that tackle by Nic Nat? Body hit ground first, his arms were free, NN made no high contact and it wasn’t a sling.
      So you get suspended for just being bigger than the other guy?

      • Roar Rookie

        May 7th 2018 @ 5:08pm
        Mattician6x6 said | May 7th 2018 @ 5:08pm | ! Report

        Contest it WC, nic gets one week for that , should of knocked him out then it would of been OK judging with the baffling no case to answer of late.

        • May 7th 2018 @ 5:38pm
          Bread said | May 7th 2018 @ 5:38pm | ! Report

          Doubt we will contest it 6×6.
          Lycett playing well and have Vardy ready to play I reckon they will just bite the bullet and Nic can have a week off before tearing up Richmond!

          • Roar Rookie

            May 7th 2018 @ 5:57pm
            Mattician6x6 said | May 7th 2018 @ 5:57pm | ! Report

            Wouldn’t surprise if they didnt but as there is no negative repercussions besides forking out ten grand worth it imo

      • May 7th 2018 @ 5:25pm
        Aligee said | May 7th 2018 @ 5:25pm | ! Report

        One of his arms – the one with the ball was free, the other one was pinned, the only real way of protecting himself was throwing the ball away – the player was driven forward with no real chance of protecting himself and his fall.

        Why did the commentators have to look again to see, when it was clearly in the back.

        Verging on dangerous in my book.

        • May 7th 2018 @ 8:40pm
          BD said | May 7th 2018 @ 8:40pm | ! Report

          Haha so what you’re actually saying is that he had an arm free but chose not to protect himself by using it to brace the impact!?
          Why don’t you have a look again! Amon was side on when Nic Nat commenced the tackle and he turned his back upon impact. The tackle was all one motion and no slinging action. I’m not saying it shouldn’t have been a free on the day as the umpires don’t have the benefit of two angles, slow motion and replays. But the match review does and so do you!
          This and some of your other comments are verging on being quite silly.. IMO.

          • May 8th 2018 @ 1:10pm
            Guttsy said | May 8th 2018 @ 1:10pm | ! Report

            Naitanui clearly pushed Amon in the back and then drove Amon’s head into the ground with (extreme) force. I don’t think we want this type of action in the game.

            I think Naitanui should be suspended because it was an illegal tackle (in the back) that resulted in Amon’s head being driven into the ground with force and a concussion resulted.

            Further I also think it should be a suspension for another reason. As I see it, any tackle, even an otherwise legal tackle, that firstly pushes a players head into the ground with force and secondly doesn’t give the player being tackled a reasonable opportunity to protect their head from hitting the ground should be dealt with by fine/suspension and particularly so if the player being tackled is concussed or suffers a head/neck injury. Even though Amos had one arm free I don’t really think he had any opportunity to protect himself given the position of the free arm and the force and speed with which he was brought to ground by Naitanui.

            • Roar Rookie

              May 8th 2018 @ 1:29pm
              Mattician6x6 said | May 8th 2018 @ 1:29pm | ! Report

              Shall we arm players with a feather duster and replace tackles with tickles, if this is upheld then the precedent it sets is a slippery slope

              • May 8th 2018 @ 2:12pm
                Guttsy said | May 8th 2018 @ 2:12pm | ! Report

                Which premise for suspension do you have an issue with. The first or the second?

                As I said firstly, Naitanui should be suspended simply because he applied an illegal tackle (in the back) that resulted in Amon’s head being driven into the ground with (extreme) force and a concussion resulted.

                In general I think if a player does an illegal act to another player and that illegal act was of sufficent force to seriously injure that other player then they deserve to be suspended. Do you have a problem with this?

              • Roar Rookie

                May 8th 2018 @ 2:44pm
                Mattician6x6 said | May 8th 2018 @ 2:44pm | ! Report

                Push in back is not a suspension, arms were not pinned as stated, player took free kick so if he was severely traumatized the port staff would of not let him.
                It is not a week and will be overturned.

              • May 8th 2018 @ 2:59pm
                Aligee said | May 8th 2018 @ 2:59pm | ! Report

                Who says a push in the back can’t be worth a suspension ?

                A push in the back when a player is not expecting it but can soften his fall with his arms etc is just a free kick.

                A push in the back where a player has no real opportunity to protect himself and gets a concussion should be a suspendible option every time.

                What’s hard to understand ?

              • Roar Rookie

                May 8th 2018 @ 3:50pm
                Mattician6x6 said | May 8th 2018 @ 3:50pm | ! Report

                So players who take possession of ball are not expecting to be tackled, we played different games it seems.

              • May 8th 2018 @ 3:58pm
                Aligee said | May 8th 2018 @ 3:58pm | ! Report

                That’s not what i said, take the Nic Nat blinkers off

              • Roar Rookie

                May 8th 2018 @ 4:49pm
                Mattician6x6 said | May 8th 2018 @ 4:49pm | ! Report

                No blinkers just don’t believe it warranted any more than a free, which was awarded. It didn’t result in a fifty or report on the day and is not a suspension now , tomorrow or in the future.

              • May 8th 2018 @ 7:22pm
                Luke said | May 8th 2018 @ 7:22pm | ! Report

                Wow, this is considered a good tackle in rugby league, it’s this pansy sanitising that makes AFL the butt of jokes in league states. #goplaysoccer

      • May 8th 2018 @ 2:23pm
        Gr8trWeStr said | May 8th 2018 @ 2:23pm | ! Report

        I’m not sure how its substantially different from the Mumford tackle on Liberatore last year, that he MRP at the time cleared, and I think that was the correct decision. How else was he supposed to complete the tackle his coach, team mates and fans would have expected him to complete? Do the tribunal use precedence?

        “Small player gets ball and big player immediately tackles them in one motion”, IMO, needs to be allowed in the game irrespective of outcome.

        AFL is a fast paced contact sport where accidental incidents like this are going to occur.

    • May 7th 2018 @ 5:08pm
      Kane said | May 7th 2018 @ 5:08pm | ! Report

      Terrible decision

      • May 8th 2018 @ 2:13pm
        Birdman said | May 8th 2018 @ 2:13pm | ! Report

        yep the Port player got caned but that’s just footy – no case to answer in my book

    • May 7th 2018 @ 5:14pm
      Aligee said | May 7th 2018 @ 5:14pm | ! Report

      Niv Nat has come back much more aggressive from his knee wanting to prove he is a bit of an enforcer, perhaps he has taken it upon himself or he has been asked to step the aggression up, either way this is the type of tackle i don’t like seeing.

      A player who has his arms wrapped up driven forward so basically he face plants.

      Players IMO in all grades of the game should be deterred from doing this

      As i stated in another thread, i started talking to a bloke at a football match on the weekend whose son was umpiring and we got talking and he was telling me this practice also abounds at junior ( youth) level and has seen a number of kids concussed and that is from his travels following his son around umpiring.

      • Roar Rookie

        May 7th 2018 @ 5:17pm
        Mattician6x6 said | May 7th 2018 @ 5:17pm | ! Report

        Aggressive tackling has been part of nic game since first saw him at swan districts year he was drafted, nothing new ppl just forget quickly.

        • May 7th 2018 @ 5:29pm
          Aligee said | May 7th 2018 @ 5:29pm | ! Report

          You maybe right about him at SD, however from watching him this year, he has really stepped up the aggression – leadership, running out of time for flag/career, etc etc, who knows but IMO much more aggressive than previous years.

          • May 7th 2018 @ 5:46pm
            Baz said | May 7th 2018 @ 5:46pm | ! Report

            he shouldn’t even get a fine for this tackle

            • May 7th 2018 @ 6:14pm
              Aligee said | May 7th 2018 @ 6:14pm | ! Report

              Yep, players should be allowed to pin the arms and drive players face first into the turf ……..
              (thumbs up) !

              • Roar Rookie

                May 7th 2018 @ 6:21pm
                Mattician6x6 said | May 7th 2018 @ 6:21pm | ! Report

                You’re allowed to bump blokes and knock them out now so yep hopping up and playing out match does show that tackle to be much worse

              • Roar Guru

                May 7th 2018 @ 6:23pm
                Cat said | May 7th 2018 @ 6:23pm | ! Report

                Just out of curiosity what is the point, in your opinion, of tackling if a player doesn’t try to prevent the player with the ball from freely hand balling it? May as well outlaw tackling altogether.

                I’m not talking about face planting a player … that isn’t right.

              • May 7th 2018 @ 6:33pm
                Aligee said | May 7th 2018 @ 6:33pm | ! Report

                Today they say ‘ duty of care’, i would call it common sense, now we know footy is emotional and passionate and testosterone driven, but generally in a game of footy you can change your mind or make up your mind in a split second, you still have choices.

                For mine and Christian agrees that Nic Nat had a good opportunity to tackle properly and roll him over during it to prevent a face plant, arm pinned with a 110 kilo bloke on top of you.

                The replay show he didnt bother, just wanted to ram him into the ground.

              • Roar Rookie

                May 7th 2018 @ 6:48pm
                Mattician6x6 said | May 7th 2018 @ 6:48pm | ! Report

                Hmmmm contact sport via definition has contact to physically wear down or injure the opposition, that is the very nature of contact sport hence why recent events such as Higgins being knocked out cold was not a suspension, this is not in the same league as the Dangerfield on kreuzer tackle from last year.

              • May 7th 2018 @ 7:01pm
                Aligee said | May 7th 2018 @ 7:01pm | ! Report

                That Higgins one looked accidental to me, both players seem to be shocked they actually got near each other.

                The game is tough, but its not tough enough that you can drive players head first into the turf and we obviously don’t want players maimed.

                Anyone who has played footy has probably had plenty of chances to take out opposition players both legally and outside or on the fringe of the rules, its a 360 % game where plenty of the time you rely on the opposition to do the right thing and sometimes play with in the spirit of the game rather than the rules.

                And i agree Nic is a fair player and this is not like the Dangerfield one.

              • Roar Rookie

                May 7th 2018 @ 7:06pm
                Mattician6x6 said | May 7th 2018 @ 7:06pm | ! Report

                I’m sure you are well aware I’m a wce man so my reaction is more sh#tty than anything else atm, guess we’ll find out what wce will do by tomorrow morning.

              • Roar Guru

                May 7th 2018 @ 9:05pm
                Cat said | May 7th 2018 @ 9:05pm | ! Report

                So no answer aligee? Not surprised.

              • May 7th 2018 @ 9:40pm
                Aligee said | May 7th 2018 @ 9:40pm | ! Report

                @ Cat, seriously mate what are you going on about ?.

                If you pin a players arms and drive him into the ground so he has no balance or leverage to protect himself or prop his fall onto his face its dangerous.

                If you pin a players arms and he drops the ball after having possession of the ball and having time to dispose of it but doesnt its a free kick to the tackler providing you dont push him in the back etc

                Not even sure what you are actually asking me to comment on !

              • Roar Rookie

                May 7th 2018 @ 10:01pm
                Mattician6x6 said | May 7th 2018 @ 10:01pm | ! Report

                Arms aren’t pinned, push in the back yes but u can’t suspend a bloke because he happens to be bigger than the bloke he tackles

              • May 8th 2018 @ 1:29pm
                Guttsy said | May 8th 2018 @ 1:29pm | ! Report


                You wrote,

                “Just out of curiosity what is the point, in your opinion, of tackling if a player doesn’t try to prevent the player with the ball from freely hand balling it? May as well outlaw tackling altogether.”

                The point is to protect the player with the ball. When the player has hold of the ball they don’t have full capacity to protect themself by virtue that at least one hand or arm is used to hold the ball.

                So yes, in general outlaw all tackles that don’t provide the player with the ball a good chance of protecting themselves from serious (head or neck) injury. If a playing laying the tackle can obey this rule while preventing the disposal of the ball all well and good but in any case the umpire (not necessaryly the match review process) must give the player with the ball the benefit of any doubt.

                Protect the player with the ball and afford them the benefit of any doubt.

    • May 7th 2018 @ 5:23pm
      Pope Paul VII said | May 7th 2018 @ 5:23pm | ! Report

      Can’t argue it wasn’t rough. Ouch.

      • Roar Rookie

        May 7th 2018 @ 5:25pm
        Mattician6x6 said | May 7th 2018 @ 5:25pm | ! Report

        No doubt a free and possibly a fine but not a suspension considering what has slipped thru to the keeper this year.

        • May 7th 2018 @ 8:34pm
          Pope Paul VII said | May 7th 2018 @ 8:34pm | ! Report

          Yeah I reckon Matti. Not as bad outcome as Burton on Higgins.

          • Roar Rookie

            May 7th 2018 @ 8:49pm
            Mattician6x6 said | May 7th 2018 @ 8:49pm | ! Report

            Sounds like WC will take it to tribunal, in simmos regular TV spot he said we’ve got our lawyers looking at it, could see he’s filthy about the suspension.

    • May 7th 2018 @ 6:03pm
      DTM said | May 7th 2018 @ 6:03pm | ! Report

      I’m a fan of Natanui. However, I think 1 week is ok. He didn’t appear to make any attempt to roll the player and clearly Amon was dazed by the tackle.
      I think “careless” is accurate and whether it was medium or low impact is debateable. Not sure of the scales but I would think low impact, the player is able to keep playing. Medium would mean he had a spell on the bench and high impact would be he’s out of the game.
      On another point, I continue to be confounded as to why the AFL does not impose suspensions on offending players for the next time the teams meet. For example, in this instance, if Natanui either does not contest or is found guilty, any penalty should be plus the next game between Eagles and PA.

      • May 7th 2018 @ 6:13pm
        Aligee said | May 7th 2018 @ 6:13pm | ! Report

        Fair enough but what if he retires in the mean time?, how will that suspension stand ?.

      • May 8th 2018 @ 4:43pm
        Julian said | May 8th 2018 @ 4:43pm | ! Report

        What a bizarre suggestion. What if the next time they meet is in a grand final? Do you direct your players to go soft on any potential finalists?

        I think the game is compromised enough as it is.

      • May 8th 2018 @ 7:43pm
        Luke said | May 8th 2018 @ 7:43pm | ! Report

        IN the words of Luke Darcy (in response to ‘should have rolled him’), “that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard”. Since when has a player been suspended for not ‘rolling’ in the tackle. It’s never happened.

    • Roar Pro

      May 7th 2018 @ 7:00pm
      anon said | May 7th 2018 @ 7:00pm | ! Report

      He drove the guys face into the turf.

      Made no attempt to roll him over.

      Could have been a severe concussion.

      • Roar Rookie

        May 7th 2018 @ 7:09pm
        Mattician6x6 said | May 7th 2018 @ 7:09pm | ! Report

        Don’t ruin a quality day of posts on freo anon

    , ,