Of all the hysteria generated in an average AFL season, the white noise over Nic Naitanui’s one-week suspension is up there with the most nonsensical. Should the tribunal somehow take leave of its senses and acquit the champion West Coast ruckman tonight, it will do the game a disservice.
Regardless of the outcome, this case is one about which the AFL should think hard. For, when you drill down, it speaks some home truths about modern football.
You don’t follow? Well, I don’t expect more than a minority will. For most of you have been led up the garden path of a modern game almost without rules. Let me explain.
Ten years ago, on a Friday night, I took an English cricket commentator for his first experience of the Australian code. A lover, and long-time watcher, of sport, his reaction – after a couple of quarters – was illuminating.
“I see,” he said, “the referees just run around doing nothing and then, every now and then, they say: ‘Enough’s enough,’ and blow the whistle”.
In other words, a person viewing with fresh eyes was seeing all manner of tackling and other physical contact, and when a free kick was eventually paid it appeared to be for nothing more than what had gone unchecked for the previous five to ten minutes.
The whistle is, of course, blown with slightly greater discernment than that, but I could understand his confusion.
Free kicks, particularly those for ‘contact’ offences, have been wound back over many years. Defence has been encouraged by coaches. The game’s off-field managers have bowed to this, and to the mindlessness of those in the crowd who see the umpires as a nuisance.
There has been a lack of will from the top to say: “The implementation of the rules is actually good for the game; the rules define the game and we want a code that has definition.” That the on-field game has become such an amorphous, congested mass is not unrelated to the above.
So, why is this relevant to the Naitanui case?
(AAP Image/Tony McDonough)
Well, the tackle at issue from last Saturday in Perth tells of a game in which players aren’t sufficiently concerned about ‘contact’ breaches. They are encouraged by their coaches to defend as hard as they can, and they aren’t sufficiently discouraged by umpires as to know where to draw the line.
That coaches like Chris Scott and Alan Richardson have spoken in equivocal terms about Naitanui’s tackle tells of their mindset.
Then there’s the public, which seems to no longer care about the most basic of the game’s laws. And the ‘push in the back’ was once the most commonly awarded free kick.
Clearly, Naitanui pushed Karl Amon in the back. No one, surely, is arguing with that. But it’s the manner in which it was done that tells the story. And the story is that he approached Amon so fast and hard that he didn’t just push him, he rammed him with ferocity into the turf and caused a head injury.
You can go on all you like about the fact that Amon turned from a side-on position to rear-on as Naitanui approached, but he was in possession of the ball. He does have some rights as the ball-carrier, doesn’t he? Yet some analysis of the incident seems to portray Naitanui as the victim, as though Amon put him in an impossible position by turning his body.
If Naitanui is a victim, he’s a victim of the modern mindset. He is encouraged by his coach, every other team’s coach, his team’s supporters, every other team’s supporters, the umpires, and the game’s administrators to go flat-out in such moments. He approached flat out, without sufficient duty of care, and when things changed he couldn’t do other than lay an illegal, injurious tackle.
The underlying problem is that the umpires, in their modern, minimalist implementation of the laws, don’t do enough to discourage tackling breaches. So, Naitanui felt at liberty to approach the ball-carrier as he did.
Yet the umpires have a handbrake at their disposal. It’s called a whistle. Blow it more often when tackles slip high or, when applied from behind they carry the ball-carrier forward, and they will moderate the game’s speed. They will also make it better to watch.
What their lack of attention to these matters has had the effect of doing is to allow the methods of the ‘stopper’ to prevail over those of the creator. The game is, thus, less attractive to watch and it’s become harder to score.
The power brokers have been asleep at the wheel, have veered to the wrong side of the road, and there is now a big truck coming the other way. It’s not Nic Naitanui, it’s a growing problem with ugly games and low scoring, leading to spectator frustration and bad television viewing.
The big truck that rammed Karl Amon from behind last weekend should provide some food for thought.
Sam
Guest
Macca it wasnt great technique but his timing was perfect. For a game with 360 degree scope there does need to be a safe guard for the ball carrier who is tackled from behind. If you showed that to a Rugby league or Rugby union player or supporter they'd tell you its a technically perfect tackled when applied front on largely because the ball carrier can see it and brace for impact or attempt to evade the player leaving their feet!
Brian
Guest
But Trent Cotchin can, right?
Tim
Guest
A very poorly executed tackle. Lucky to only get one week. Similar to Dangerfield last year. His poor tackle was about right at a week.
Floreat Pica
Guest
Sorry for double-post..
Floreat Pica
Guest
Tim even acknowledges this in the article- I dont know if Naitanui’s defence brought this forward as a rebuttal, but they should have. To me Amon did contribute to the impact in this way as Naitanui (with all that inertia) had already committed to the tackle- and had Amon remained facing goal-wards rather than turning towards the boundary, or indeed braced or turned into the tackle, he would have been dumped onto his side rather than head. At worst if taken on the side, Naitanui’s action would have led to winding- a solid, legal tacke as it was intended. That the nimbler Amon turned is simply not Naitanui’s fault.
Floreat Pica
Guest
Tim even acknowledges this in the article- I dont know if Naitanui’s defence brought this forward as a rebuttal, but they should have. To me Amon did contribute to the impact in this way as Naitanui (with all that inertia) had already committed to the tackle- and had Amon remained facing goal-wards rather than turning towards the boundary, or indeed braced or turned into to the tackle, he would have been dumped onto his side rather than head. At worst, Naitanui’s action if taken on the side would have led to winding- a solid, legal tacke as it was intended. That Amon turned is simply not Naitanui’s fault.
Macca
Guest
Tackling a player and then diving forward like you are going for the try line isn't doing everything right.
Cat
Roar Guru
Nothing wrong with that one.
Shea
Guest
Take another look at when Nic Nat commits to the tackle. Amon is facing him waiting to receive the ball. Amon chooses to turn and present his back to collect a free kick. In essence, it is the same as ducking in order to collect a high tackle. Nic did everything right, he even left an arm free which Amon could have used to break his fall. He decided instead to keep hold of the ball instead of protect himself. The tribunal says that Nic should have made a split second decision to consider a weight differential. Amon has the same responsibility to himself.
Aligee
Guest
wrong post
I ate pies
Guest
What do you define as a push then? Nic was running at him, he ran into the back of him and his forward momentum propelled him forward. How is that not a push?
Maurice
Guest
Agree totally . Once his feet left the ground landing him was never going to be pretty. 1 week could of been 2 . Every year or so a line has to be drawn on something Nic Nat Has drawn that line.
Don Freo
Guest
The old, "you never played" comment. He probably has played but just with greater understanding of the game than you are demonstrating.
Don Freo
Guest
He's right.
Don Freo
Guest
Whenever people list these full forwards, they always leave out Longmire and Sumich.
Guttsy
Guest
I think Naitanui should have been at least warned by the match review process for both these tackles regardless of the fact that he received a holding the ball decision. Instead of diving on top of the player being tackled, he can drop the knee to bring the player to ground.
User
Roar Rookie
Paul he's gone so no worries but if the head is to be protected and players now have to take height and size into account then sandilands should of gone, lecras, Burton also. Its more the oh my he could've killed him outrage going on, its a contact sport and that is a inherent risk.
anon
Roar Pro
Naitanui's comments after the suspension was upheld were a little disturbing. Seems like he hasn't learned his lesson. All these commentators keep saying this was a great tackle. No, it was an illegal tackle. It was a push in the back. A minimum of a free kick everyday. You're taught to turn them over if you're chasing them down from behind with forward momentum. Not only an illegal tackle, but Naitanui's version of this tackle is particularly brutal. He uses all of his forward momentum to dump you face first in the turf. I wouldn't want my head hitting the turf at the wrong angle. I don't think most necks can withstand 110 kilos of force. So it's a little disturbing that he's going to continue executing illegal tackles. It's dangerous. I'd be really concerned if I were an opponent of Naitanui.
Peter
Guest
In spite of the personal abuse you hurl at Cat, you actually appear to be agreeing that the tackle was illegal. Did you mean to do so? If this is how you relate to people you agree with, you must be a real charmer if you disagree.
User
Roar Rookie
Appeal failed. Bridge built and we move on, a precedent now exist so hopefully things slip through, strange the height and size argument put fwd as it was same as the defence used as to why sandilands didn't go for head high bump. Oh well sh#t happens.