Monday, July 04, 2011

To sling, or not to sling . . .

The MRP’s Round 15 report makes fascinating reading. The sling tackle is OK as long as  the tackled player’s head doesn’t impact the ground and give him a headache.

 

Here’s the ‘report’ on Trengove’s latest sling tackle:

Contact between Melbourne's Jack Trengove and the Western Bulldogs' Callan Ward from the third quarter of Friday's match was assessed. Ward had taken possession of the ball when he was wrapped up in a tackle by Trengove. Trengove pivots and takes Ward to the ground. It was the view of the panel that while the action was a slinging motion, the impact on this occasion was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. The majority of the contact to the ground was to Ward's shoulder and there was no significant impact on Ward's head/neck area. The Western Bulldogs' player was immediately able to continue in the game when play proceeded. A medical report from the Western Bulldogs said Ward had sustained no injury and required no treatment after the incident. No further action was taken.

Looking back to the AFL Tribunal Booklet 2010, the section on dangerous tackles includes:

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, without limitation, regard may be had to:

• . . .

• whether an opponent is slung or driven into the ground with excessive force.

 

So, we can now confidently say that a sling tackle is perfectly OK as long as there is no discernable impact to the head.

 

AussieRulesBlog isn’t sure that the MRP has made things any easier for the players here. Did Trengove intend his opponent’s head to hit the turf in the tackle he was suspended for? Probably not. Did he mean Callan Ward’s head to hit the turf in this tackle? Probably not. The difference between no case to answer and a short enforced holiday? Luck.

 

Someone has to get fair dinkum about this issue. It’s one thing to tackle an opponent and drag them to the ground. It’s quite another to sling the opponent with the intention of hurting them, and with a much greater likelihood of causing an impact to the head.

 

We disagreed with the MRP’s assessment of Trengove’s first tackle being ‘high contact’. The high contact was incidental. Had the tackled player’s head incidentally struck a player’s boot, would the MRP have charged that player with kicking? We think not. Logically then, the high contact should not have been a factor in the assessment.

 

Assessing the danger of the tackle on the basis of head trauma leaves every player in the competition free to roll the dice and continue to sling tackle with the intent to injure. A better solution would be to penalise the sling tackle at every opportunity, regardless of head trauma.

No comments:

To sling, or not to sling . . .

The MRP’s Round 15 report makes fascinating reading. The sling tackle is OK as long as  the tackled player’s head doesn’t impact the ground and give him a headache.

 

Here’s the ‘report’ on Trengove’s latest sling tackle:

Contact between Melbourne's Jack Trengove and the Western Bulldogs' Callan Ward from the third quarter of Friday's match was assessed. Ward had taken possession of the ball when he was wrapped up in a tackle by Trengove. Trengove pivots and takes Ward to the ground. It was the view of the panel that while the action was a slinging motion, the impact on this occasion was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. The majority of the contact to the ground was to Ward's shoulder and there was no significant impact on Ward's head/neck area. The Western Bulldogs' player was immediately able to continue in the game when play proceeded. A medical report from the Western Bulldogs said Ward had sustained no injury and required no treatment after the incident. No further action was taken.

Looking back to the AFL Tribunal Booklet 2010, the section on dangerous tackles includes:

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, without limitation, regard may be had to:

• . . .

• whether an opponent is slung or driven into the ground with excessive force.

 

So, we can now confidently say that a sling tackle is perfectly OK as long as there is no discernable impact to the head.

 

AussieRulesBlog isn’t sure that the MRP has made things any easier for the players here. Did Trengove intend his opponent’s head to hit the turf in the tackle he was suspended for? Probably not. Did he mean Callan Ward’s head to hit the turf in this tackle? Probably not. The difference between no case to answer and a short enforced holiday? Luck.

 

Someone has to get fair dinkum about this issue. It’s one thing to tackle an opponent and drag them to the ground. It’s quite another to sling the opponent with the intention of hurting them, and with a much greater likelihood of causing an impact to the head.

 

We disagreed with the MRP’s assessment of Trengove’s first tackle being ‘high contact’. The high contact was incidental. Had the tackled player’s head incidentally struck a player’s boot, would the MRP have charged that player with kicking? We think not. Logically then, the high contact should not have been a factor in the assessment.

 

Assessing the danger of the tackle on the basis of head trauma leaves every player in the competition free to roll the dice and continue to sling tackle with the intent to injure. A better solution would be to penalise the sling tackle at every opportunity, regardless of head trauma.

0 comments: