The tackle Taylor Walker applied to Steven Morris last weekend has been almost universally condemned, and a good thing too.

For some reason we can’t fathom, some people are describing this as a sling tackle. It’s not. It’s a spear tackle. Spear tackles are characterised by the opponent being lifted from the ground and driven forcefully into the ground, more-or-less head first.

The sling tackle is perfectly demonstrated in Jack Trengove’s tackle of Patrick Dangerfield in 2011.

Trengove holds Dangerfield’s arm and then rolls — like a crocodile death roll — so that Dangerfield’s body is dragged over the top of Trengove’s body and into the ground. The effect is similar to those plastic arms used for throwing balls for dogs to chase. The added length of the arm tends to produce a greater acceleration of the object being pulled in a (rough) circular path. This tackle is quite clearly different in form, execution and potential health damage from Walker’s tackle.

In Trengove’s case, the MRP decided, quite wrongly in our opinion, that the injury sustained by Dangerfield when his head hit the ground as part of the tackle made the offence of greater magnitude than, say, Lance Franklin’s tackle last week.

As we’ve plainly spelled out in the title of this post, there is no place for either the sling or the spear tackle in the AFL of the twenty-first century, but please, please, please people — use the correct term.

Alistair Clarkson’s musings over high tackles are interesting, and the free kick statistics (which we don’t have to hand, but we heard on Foxtel) show that the Eagles benefit from the umpire’s decisions more than anyone else does.

While we don’t put much store in Gieschen’s defence of his umpires, the image (below) gracing the AFL’s story on the issue somewhat destroys Clarkson’s ground.

With Franklin’s eyes determinedly closed as he applies the tackle, it’s hardly surprising that he’s about to give a free kick away!

Tackling is no less a skill than kicking, handballing or marking. None of these happen effectively unless there’s full concentration on their implementation.

Perhaps Clarkson should be closely examining the footage and trying to determine whether or not his players are actually watching their targets as they tackle . . .

One thing’s for sure: Aussie Rules stirs passions and passionate opinion. And then there’s what you can see with your own two eyes.

Both sliding tackles and ‘drive’ tackles have generated a fair degree of hyperbole since the weekend and, frankly, AussieRulesBlog is bemused by it all.

If you can take your eyes off Gary Rohan’s leg being snapped, it’s as clear as day that Lindsay Thomas isn’t executing a slide tackle, albeit that his right knee is on the ground as his left foot impacts Rohan’s leg.

Contrast Thomas’ position with that of Adam Goodes executing the definitive slide tackle that saw him suspended.

The clear difference is that Goodes is leading the ‘tackle’ with both knees and using his knees and legs to impact his opponent. Thomas’ position is clearly and obviously not a slide tackle.

Rohan’s awful injury was nothing more than unfortunate circumstance. Not only are the media guilty of hyperbole, the Match Review Panel seem, most unfortunately in our view, to feel bound to cite almost any incident that excites controversy.

The other incident sending some into overblown hyperbole — especially Brett Ratten — is Sam Lonergan’s tackle of Andrew Carrazzo. Regular readers will already be aware of our affection for the Bombers, but we declare it again here.

Lonergan no more drove Carazzo into the turf than we are the blogging equivalent of William Shakespeare! Fell into his back? Yes. Drove him into the tackle? Absolutely not. It was unhappy circumstance, once again, which saw Carazzo’s arm in such a position when it crashed into the turf that it caused a fracture in the shoulder blade.

Ironically, the player AussieRulesBlog would most associate with tackles intentionally driving an opponent’s shoulder into the turf is none other than the Blues’ own Jarrad Waite.

Simply, much of the florid controversy is knee jerk reaction, often driven by passionate support of one team or player or another. We can forgive fans, although the AFL should be taking steps to educate people, but overblown media reactions from the footy journalists is quite another thing.

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.

Tackling with the intent to inflict pain — the sort of tackles that saw Shane Mumford and Justin Koschitzke given short holidays this week — is brutal and unnecessary.

All that is required is to grab an opponent firmly to force them to have to make an attempt to dispose of the ball. At most, dragging them to the ground could be condoned, but these two instances clearly and obviously involve players trying to hurt and disable — perhaps only temporarily — their opponents.

It’s generally accepted — at least AussieRulesBlog thinks it is — that spear tackles and tunneling have been specifically outlawed due to the danger posed. How are the tackles administered by Mumford and Koschitzke materially different? They’re not!

If players want to slam other people’s bodies, let them take up professional wrestling! If they want to be AFL footballers, a higher standard of behaviour is required.