Eagles coach angry over Nic Nat AFL ban

I just saw the Tom Mitchel elbow on Goldstein, (I missed it at the time)... how many weeks did he get?? Cos thats a dog act if ever Ive seen one. It wasnt a mistimed tackle or a bump gone wrong, he had to run off his line to collect the guy.. then coat-hangers the guy as he runs past... he was lucky he didnt break the guys jaw. How many weeks did Michael Christian determine that was worth??

Its the ''sentimental Melbourne favorite versus the interstate interloper rule'' Swans hadn't won a flag in 70 odd years...they are the old South Melbourne..they needed every chance to beat the perfidious West Australian interlopers so he got of a clear striking charge. It was unprecedented, plenty of players had missed a grand final for less than that. Trent Cotchin same, Tigers hadn't won in 30 odd years, it was only against the Adelaide Crows so no harm in throwing the rule-book, or all the precedents. Just let the guy off cos he plays for Richmond. If the Swans and Tigers had of played a true blue blood Melbourne club like, Collingwood in those grand finals Hall and Cotchin get a couple of weeks, no question. And the whole AFL world knows it, TV commentators even admit it.... its the old ''grand final week'' rule. ''King hit a guy in the prelim but your playing an interstate side in the GF, your good mate'' nudge nudge wink wink.

XD

Some fair points by Adam Simpson particularly about the AFL being able to put their point of view to the Media while the West Coast are unable to put their case to the media. In general once a club has said they are going to contest a charge at the tribunal their should be no comments to the media by either party until the case has been completed.

Burton should have got a week too. As others have said, one mistake doesn't justify another. Any umpire who's asked by a player to 'square the ledger' will tell you that

One bad decision doesn't justify another. I think Ryan Burton should have been suspended for his bump on Shaun Higgins because firstly this type of head on collision at speed is something that should discouraged in the game where their are reasonable alternatives and secondly Ryan Burton had the option to effect a much safer (to both him and Shaun Higgins provided Burton executed it correctly, which might be easier said than done, given a moment after the Higgins/Burton colission Vickers- Willis knocked himself out trying to effect a head on tackle at speed in asimilar situation) tackle but elected to perform a much higher risk bump instead. Shaun Higgins had the ball and despite his lack of awareness of the presence of Ryan Burton, he deserved better protection from the umpire and the match review process. A cheek to cheek (i.e. face cheek of the tackler to bum cheek of the player with the ball, so they putting their head behind the player with ball) tackle should be seen as the correct and safe tackling technique in this situation.

All the minute dissection and analysing aside, it really seems a storm in a teacup...Circus Hysteria will move on, footy will move on and keep evolving as it does. This weekend it will be footy as usual and hard tackles as usual. NN will undoubtedly change his approach (whether right or wrong) because he simply won't want to miss more games! He will modify his approach and we'll all move on.

I think Cotchin was lucky he didn't get judged as being "late to the contest" with Dylan Shiel. But I also see that Dylan Shiel could have done more to protect himself when the ball bounced away from him by turning himself side on the approaching Cotchin. One thing footballers can't really get away from is the risk associated with the contesting the ball. Players have to have awareness so they can protect themselves while contesting the ball.

Regarding Burton most media were saying it was an accident and he didn't mean to hurt him? This is strange because bumps are meant to hurt. I would have thought it was pretty easy to foresee a knockout.

In fact Callan Ward was literally knocked out of the 2016 PF by a typically cunningly disguised clumsy Dunkley knee around 1/2 time. May very well have won them the flag. I reckon the NicNatSplat Rule is a splendid name for this type of incident.

Nic Nat gave away a free kick for his tackle. Hard to argue it wasn't careless when he rode Amon like a toboggan face first into the ground. Every week we see well executed tackles from behind, unfortunately Nic Nat's wasn't one of them.

I think a bit of common sense would tell you that a player is unlikely to get suspended in those situations.

"if Nic Nat elected to bump Amon instead and accidentally clashed head and knocked him out, then he would be fine?" Unless there was some careless element to the bump (like jumping of the ground to administer it), then yes. You've basically answered your own question. The AFL seems to accept accidental head clashes that aren't the result of a careless act. What constitutes a careless act is open to interpretation and it will inevitably take some time to achieve clarity while a body of precedent is built. BTW, I don't buy this 'fraction of a second' argument. Nic Nat had plenty of time to choose how he would tackle Amon and chose to drive him forward instead of just dragging him down or rolling him.

Call it what you want, Luke. It's clearly the way the system has worked for some time now. See Hall, Barry, 2005.

The human brain's ability to make instant decisions at well under a second is nothing short of amazing. Batsmen can hit a plus 140kph bouncer over square leg with a .3 of a sec window. NN had plenty of time to decide what sort of tackle he was going to do. NN probably thought it was Christmas when he saw Amon in such a vulnerable position.

He was lucky to only get a week. Very dangerous tackle. The tribunal went soft on him. Similar to Dangerfield last year, everyone said he'd get off but he deserved and got a week.

Really? Then how can you explain the Ryan Burton bump on Shaun Higgins? Burton had more time to consider his action than Nic Nat, he chose to bump instead of tackle and he concussed Higgins. The AFL deemed that it was OK because he couldn't foresee accidental contact to the head, so he gets off. Nic Nat chooses to tackle in a fraction of the time that Burton had, and unfortunately injures Amon (delayed concussion) and he gets rubbed out. I believe that hysteria around the Nic Nat suspension is due to the gross inconsistency that the AFL and MRO are setting. So by the precedent set by the AFL and MRO, if Nic Nat elected to bump Amon instead and accidentally clashed head and knocked him out, then he would be fine? The AFL and MRO have seriously opened up a huge can of worms this year with their rulings to date on head high contact.

I would have thought had you actually taken the time to try and understand this issue it’d be obvious that there are no hard and fast rules at the moment. If a player is concussed and it’s sent for review it’s going to depend on the circumstances of the particular incident.

Rule is the wrong word. Convention is a better term Don’t be facetious, of course it’s not written down. Doesn’t mean there’s not some truth to the comment

Where’s that rule written, do you have the source?