“Two and two are four,” claims Winston, the protagonist fighting to maintain his grip on reality in George Orwell’s 1984.
“Sometimes, Winston,” answers Ministry of Truth colleague O’Brien. “Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once.”
O’Brien would surely come under strong consideration for the head of football role under upcoming AFL CEO Andrew Dillon, given Dillon’s comments on Monday regarding the chaos that has surrounded tackling and the number of sanctions being handed out by the AFL this season.
“I don’t really see there being confusion,” Dillon claimed when asked the direct question.
Over the last 14 weeks, Dillon obviously hasn’t watched a single footy show on television, read a newspaper article, clicked on a sports website, listened to talkback radio, or seen any coverage of the sport whatsoever.
The people at AFL House are often accused of being out of touch, and this did nothing to quell those fears.
The lunacy of the James Sicily suspension has brought the tackling situation to a head, not helped by the ridiculous bye round structure which gives more time to analyse and discuss these situations.
Let’s state this clearly – James Sicily getting any sort of suspension for his tackle on Hugh McCluggage, let alone three weeks, is just plain wrong. It’s just wrong.
For the majority of “sling” tackles, a player does in fact have a choice as to whether to bring his opponent to ground. Usually they do it as the next step after making the tackle in the first place, because the umpire hasn’t blown their whistle for a free kick or ball up, but that’s another story.
Sicily made a desperate lunge for McCluggage, exactly as every single Hawthorn supporter would ask of their captain in that moment. McCluggage drops the ball upon being tackled, and actually causes his own injury by reaching for the ball – this is not to impugn him, for it was a natural football action, as was Sicily’s.
The combination of Sicily’s momentum from the tackle, McCluggage’s own momentum in reaching for the ball, and Tyler Brockman flying into the contest with his own momentum, is what causes the twisting and turning that leads to McCluggage’s concussion.
Hugh McCluggage is assisted by Brisbane Lions trainers. (Photo by Dylan Burns/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
Three football actions leading to one football accident, which should never, ever lead to a suspension. Ever.
We have now had 23 suspensions from 14 rounds, at an ever more escalating rate. Some have gotten four weeks. Some have gotten three weeks. Plenty have gotten two or one. There have been a whole host of players not even cited – some of these were confirmed as having been looked at, some were not.
Some of these suspensions have been from sling tackles, some have been from forceful tackles. Many have had the arms pinned the whole time, some have not. Some have won free kicks from the umpires, some have had it paid against. Some have started with the arm pinned, released it, and been suspended anyway. Some have gone to the tribunal and been let off. Some have gotten off at the appeals board, Sicily did not.
All of this in the space of half a season.
“I don’t really see there being confusion,” Dillon said. Righto, mate.
But hang on, the AFL sent a video out to the clubs two weeks ago, with specific examples around what is and isn’t a suspendable tackle. Why did they do this, if not to address confusion?
Of course, the most classic part of all was most coaches not even showing their players the video, and worse still laughing it off.
What a horrendous display of leadership this has been from the AFL.
Andrew Dillon. (Photo by Dylan Burns/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
Information breeds confidence and silence breeds confusion. The AFL always, always, always seems to take the latter path as their first instinct. And often when they do come out with information, such as in the Adam Goodes saga, it is only after they have over-analysed the optics, and tried to walk the path that will offend the least amount of people.
The solution may well be that tackles are no longer allowed to take players to ground, at least from a standing start. Chase-down tackles must always be allowed as part of the fabric of the game, as should lunging tackles. And if the occasional player gets concussed in a pure footballing accident, so be it.
The AFL should be leading this discussion, working with the clubs and players, and keeping the fans informed. Instead, they choose only to spread misinformation, in a pathetic excuse for leadership.
George Orwell loved writing about the evils of propaganda, most famously via 1984 and Animal Farm. He’d have had an absolute field day with the AFL.
Flagpies
Roar Rookie
More broadly, HQ seem to be, or actually are averse to future litigation and are trying to police incidents out of the game. Of course that attempt is doomed to fail, so then it comes down to, in regard to future litigation "we put in place measures to mitigate concussion". Seems adjudication is around action and outcome, rather than intent. So the game is at an impasse, and for mine can only go one of two ways. Either indemnity or remove contact from the game IF the end game is to remove incidents altogether, that is of course impossible in a contact sport. Obviously removing contact from the game will spell the death knell for it. And I suspect HQ has had a look at indemnity and have probably come to the conclusion that some lawyer somewhere will be able to override it, should future litigation (which will happen) arrive. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. And I agree Cam there definitely needs to be more transparency from HQ to the fans and other custodians of the game.
Nick
Roar Rookie
Well, aside from the obvious point of they wouldn't be getting paid if they went on strike, it would also be a ridiculous reason to go on strike.
Irie
Roar Rookie
Oooops.....sorry. Maybe he is in touch with the common man.... Like his gardener, or butler! :laughing:
Seano
Roar Rookie
I can’t understand why the players aren’t striking over this? The fans hate the best players getting suspended for tackles, the players want to play, the coaches want them to tackle so why isn’t there a strike? Weak as water.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
The anomalies abound.
Join In the Chorus
Roar Rookie
I think overall it's been pretty solid for tackling. Sicily is the first major eye raising suspension this season for me from a tackle. Feel for the bloke, not much he could've done to avoid it. I have noticed more care from players though which is exceptional. I just can't understand how Sicily gets 3 and Wicks only 2. His bump is careless, off the play, he jumped with intent to hurt. Seems like the recipe for 4 weeks easy. Truly a mystery.
RT
Roar Rookie
Exactly. The article states "...because the umpire hasn’t blown their whistle for a free kick or ball up, but that’s another story." But it's not another story. The AFL need to start looking at how they umpire the game and not expect all the fixes to come from the players changing the way they play.
Stubags
Roar Rookie
Except that's a lottery too these days.
Stubags
Roar Rookie
It is easy to predict which tackles will lead to suspension or at least review, it's any tackle resulting in concussion, we all know that, the confusion is around why. Why did picket get just 2 weeks for attempting to become a human skull seeking missile after the play but McAdam get 3 for the best bump in decades? How does Sicily and (especially) Mansell get 3 weeks for in play actions which clearly, according to anyone with a clue about footy shouldn't be penalised when Degoey gets the same punishment for elbowing a bloke in the face well after he'd disposed of the ball? Why did Butler get cited at all? The system is wrong, it's a contact sport, people will get hurt. Stop punishing the outcome and penalise the action instead, it has been getting worse for 4-5 years and has got to the point where people are not just saying they will stop watching and actually are. The custodians of the game have dropped the ball and instead of correctly calling the penalty instead said "he made an effort" ( which is NOT a thing if you don't correctly dispose of the ball) and carried on oblivious to the damage they're doing.
PeteB
Roar Rookie
I’ve supported the crackdown on players deliberately or unnecessarily hurting or injuring their opponents over the years. But it’s got out of control this year with many very legitimate tackles resulting in suspension. The AFL has a lot of work to do to clarify what the new rules are and how they expect players to tackle. And umpires need to stop giving players an eternity to dispose of the ball, so as to remove the incentive of the tackler to force their opponent to the ground.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Sounds like the Education "Industry"
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
The same thing. You stop the player and you get the free. It's one of the things that makes AF a better game than RL.
Nick
Roar Rookie
Agreed. And the term Orwellian is in itself a misnomer. George Orwell was obviously the opposite of what Orwellian is. Finally, as a general rule I also find that people who try to equate everything to 1984 and Animal Farm probably haven’t the read complete works of Orwell. If anything, the current situation the AFL, media and fans find themselves in is closer to “Coming up for Air” than 1984/Animal Farm.
Arges Tuft
Roar Rookie
And to top it off some players are chasing a free in these tackles. Yep some are dangerous but 3 and 4 weeks is crazy. I notice its sim in the NRL for head high danger tackles so its the way ahead (pardon the pun).
XI
Roar Guru
There should be a version of Godwin's Law but for references to Orwell: if you feel like referring to 1984, you need to read another book.
Johnno
Roar Rookie
I agree. All people have to do is watch Travis Boak tackle. He has changed how he tackles & keeps the player out of harms way, but at the same time, stopping them. I am not a Port supporter but this is the new way. And yes, there will be some grey areas as there always has been. The #1 priority from a tackle should now be to stop the opposition rather than to get a free kick.
Macca
Roar Rookie
Hang on, you think someone whose Grandfather was knighted, father was both president of the VAFA and chairman of the Melbourne racing club and who referred to the VAFA as "community football" may not have a strong grasp of the lives of the average football supporter?
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
what I find interesting is that so many of the AFL Umpires, coaches and admin predate the sling/dangerous tackles being introduced at junior levels. The newer people in the system have ideally now somewhat 'grown up' with these rules. My main sentiment in umpiring is generally - - was what the tackler did 'necessary'? If they've just dumped someone because they could; rather than because they couldn't help it and the tacklee or other players impacted the way the tackle played out......then - - it becomes a bit like the 'no d!ckheads' umpiring philosophy. Pay it - - because the player deserves to give away a free just for being too reckless/careless/needlessly rough.
Irie
Roar Rookie
Not surprisingly Dillon, like most people in senior roles, has no idea about anything that affects their employees or customers. Many live in a little world bounded by their own vanity and narcissism, not interested in anything but their own position and pay cheque
COB
Roar Rookie
I must say I haven't experienced the confusion most people seemingly have. I can predict in the majority of cases which tackles will lead to a suspension. Furthermore confusion over the MRO and tribunal decisions is nothing new. I feel the issue has been blown out of proportion. I agree that the AFL leadership hasn't been great on the topic of tackles but am willing to give them to the beginning of next season to sort it out. But regardless of what they decide there will always be grey areas.