One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on August 04, 2008, 05:36:26 AM
-
Close look needed at "Spear" tackles
Mike Sheahan | August 04, 2008
GEELONG veteran Darren Milburn should have been feeling a little uneasy on Saturday night, and decidedly uncomfortable last night.
The match review panel has no alternative to taking a close look at Milburn's decision to dump Richmond's Shane Edwards head-first into the Telstra Dome turf on Saturday night.
A similar incident at the Dome yesterday has put the issue on the panel's agenda for its review this afternoon.
Both Edwards and St Kilda champion Robert Harvey appeared to have been concussed in incidents within 24 hours. Both were slammed into the unforgiving surface with their arms pinned.
Yesterday, the villain was Port Adelaide's Jacob Surjan.
While Milburn and Surjan would argue they simply were laying heavy and legitimate tackles in play, the practice must be addressed.
It is the closest thing in Australian football to rugby league's notorious spear tackle.
Two players were knocked senseless when they couldn't protect themselves, when the tacklers wanted to hurt them.
Tacklers are entitled to be vigorous, as always, but they are so much stronger and more efficient in the art these days, and can cause serious damage.
We saw it earlier in the season in the first Showdown when Adelaide's Nathan Bassett was knocked out in a tackle in which he was slammed into the ground.
No action was taken that time, but the same practice now has claimed at least three victims.
In the interests of all players and the game itself, you can't forcibly bump a player front-on if he has his head over the ball.
Surely, none of us disagree with the rationale on that one.
It is the same with dumping players with their arms pinned.
Particularly when the player has disposed of the ball or been dispossessed, as happened in both the Edwards and Harvey cases.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,24122978-19742,00.html
-
Close look needed at "Spear" tackles
Mike Sheahan | August 04, 2008
Particularly when the player has disposed of the ball or been dispossessed, as happened in both the Edwards and Harvey cases.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,24122978-19742,00.html
To me that's the issue. Whether the ball has cleared the immediate area. In Edwards' case it had, so there was no need for it.
imo if the same tackle applied when the ball is in their hands= bad luck son, go have a panadol.
-
Milburn is very lucky that Harvey received a similar tackle - similar but not the same and nowhere near as bad. His case is now clouded by the assumption that it happens often and if he gets off it's a travesty.
Milburn tackled Edwards and dislodged the ball with his very first contact with one arm. The umpire blew the whistle for a free for incorrect disposal and Milburn continued with the tackle and then rammed his head into the turf. It was a completely seperate and crude action, well after the whistle.
Harvey was still in possession as he went to the ground - the ball was dislodged as he went down - marginally bad but not in the same league (no pun intended ;) ) as Milburn's, but everyone is talking about them as the same incident and they should go for Milburn but not the Port player.
-
Milburn is very lucky that Harvey received a similar tackle - similar but not the same and nowhere near as bad. His case is now clouded by the assumption that it happens often and if he gets off it's a travesty.
Milburn tackled Edwards and dislodged the ball with his very first contact with one arm. The umpire blew the whistle for a free for incorrect disposal and Milburn continued with the tackle and then rammed his head into the turf. It was a completely seperate and crude action, well after the whistle.
Harvey was still in possession as he went to the ground - the ball was dislodged as he went down - marginally bad but not in the same league (no pun intended ;) ) as Milburn's, but everyone is talking about them as the same incident and they should go for Milburn but not the Port player.
They got it absolutely right imho - Milburn two weeks Surjan no charge.
-
10 has reported 4 weeks.
-
2 weeks with the discount if he pleads guilty
4 weeks if he challenges and is still found guilty
-
Match review panel: round 18, 2008
Darren Milburn, Geelong, has been charged with a Level Four engaging in rough conduct offence against Shane Edwards, Richmond, during the third quarter of the Round 18 match between Geelong and Richmond, played at Telstra Dome on Saturday August 2, 2008.
In summary, his previous good record means that his sanction can be reduced from four games to two games, with an early plea.
The incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points).
This is a total of seven activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Four offence, drawing 425 demerit points and a four-match sanction.
He has an existing five-year good record, which reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 318.75 points and a three-match sanction.
An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 239.06 points and a two-match sanction.
Other Incidents Assessed:
Contact between Geelong's Matthew Scarlett and Richmond's Chris Newman from the fourth quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. On the vision from behind the goals, Newman was between Scarlett and the ball carrier until the very last moment when contact is made. Scarlett bumps Newman in the chest. No high contact was made. The contact was therefore not unreasonable in the circumstances and not reportable. No further action was taken.
http://www.afl.com.au/News/NEWSARTICLE/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=64786
-
Good !
-
If you want to re-live it :help
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wasFeA69V78
-
If you want to re-live it :help
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wasFeA69V78
He should be charged with assault - Edwards was looking at where the ball ended up - it was that late.
-
If you want to re-live it :help
First time I've seen it. Should have got 6, no if's but's, maybe's or early pleas. A dirty dog act is just that. >:(
-
Milburn falls foul of AFL over Tiger spear-tackle
Michael Gleeson | August 5, 2008
GEELONG enforcer Darren Milburn has become the first player to feel the pain of an AFL threat to crack down on tackles in which a helpless player is pinned and slammed into the ground.
Milburn has been banned for four matches with the chance to reduce that to two if he pleads guilty after being cited for rough conduct yesterday by the match review panel.
The incident occurred in the third quarter of the match against Richmond on Saturday night when Milburn had Shane Edwards pinned by the arms and, after the ball had spilled free, swung him to the ground.
Edwards' head slammed into the ground as he had no way of protecting himself.
The AFL moved to crack down on this form of straitjacket tackle along with spear tackles in recent years, fearing that players were trying to inflict serious harm under the guise of a legitimate tackle.
Sports medicine expert Peter Bruckner said before the panel made its finding on Milburn that the AFL had to act on this tactic before players were seriously injured.
"They changed the ruck rules because of the number of people doing posterior cruciates, are we saying the knee is more important than the head? Someone is going to be seriously injured from this, the player is completely vulnerable and the only reason to slam them into the ground is to hurt them," Bruckner said.
"I know whenever you raise these concerns people say the game is getting soft and certainly we don't want that, but this is not about the game getting soft, this is about a deliberate attempt to hurt someone."
Rough conduct is defined as conduct which in the circumstances is unreasonable, but the accompanying DVD of the rules offers little help to Milburn as an example shown of an illegal tackle looks very similar to Milburn's.
The incident was assessed as reckless, high impact and high contact meaning seven activation points and a level four offence of 425 demerit points — a four-match ban.
His good behaviour over five years cuts the penalty by 25% and an early plea would reduce it a further 25% to 239.06 points and a two-match ban.
Jacob Surjan escaped punishment for his tackle of Robert Harvey, which left the St Kilda veteran dazed and jelly-legged.
Surjan also hammered Harvey's head into the Telstra Dome turf in a tackle, but the difference in the incidents was that Harvey had the ball at the time and got a kick away in the tackle moments before being slammed into the ground.
Milburn's tackle was similar to when St Kilda's Aaron Hamill badly injured the shoulder of Richmond's Jay Schulz in 2006.
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/milburn-suspended/2008/08/04/1217701951152.html
-
Great - Milburn is defending the charge and hopefully now will get his fair whack of four weeks.
Watch the video and see how Edwards is watching the ball after it was dislodged and has no idea what's coming - he'd obviously heard the whistle.
-
I hope he gets off
He's in my dreamteam
-
Milburn challenged the high contact charge as he never touched Edwards' head and that Edwards head hit the ground. Tribunal agreed as there's no rule for the head hitting the ground due to a tackle. The charge was reduced to "body on body" contact which means Milburn gets just a week.
-
A week suspension isn't far off the mark as Milburn's double movement showed he knew the ball was free and he went for the cheap shot slinging Edwards late into the ground. I was more upset it wasn't a free to Shane :banghead.
However the argument used at the tribunal to reduce Milburn's sentence is ludicrous - blaming the ground for the head-high contact ???. Edwards wouldn't have hit his head if he wasn't slung late headfirst into the turf ::). What next - a player ripping a picket of the fence and whacking an opponent over the head then going to the tribunal and saying he technically didn't physically touch the head of his opponent. Some commonsense please! :stupid
-
Fair enough result I say, 1 week is enough. Stop trying to turn the game into netball.
Hammill got nothing in return for breaking Schulz' collarbone in a similar fashion if I recall correctly
-
Fair enough result I say, 1 week is enough. Stop trying to turn the game into netball.
Hammill got nothing in return for breaking Schulz' collarbone in a similar fashion if I recall correctly
That's true but the Hamill/Schulz one was highlighted on Monday night's "on The Couch" as being a reason why the AFL needs to get tough on these types of tackles.
IMV one week is too light, four would have been severe, two or three was about right.
Why?
Because Milburn knew the ball was free, knew he had a Titch's arms pinned with the kid having no ability to brace for any form of contact and he then proceeded to smash him into the ground.
Geelong and their bigger bodies tried to intimidate our lighweight bodied kids all night which is fair enough as long as it is fair, What Milburn did was not fair it was dangerous. I think he is very lucky indeed
-
AFL to review spear-tackles
Michael Gleeson, Andrew Stafford | August 7, 2008
THE AFL will heed tribunal chairman David Jones' request and revisit the rules of rough play and whether they sufficiently cover dangerous tackles.
"You can make your rules as long as you like to cover every contingency. In the end Darren Milburn pleaded guilty to rough conduct was given three weeks reduced to one because of his five-year good behaviour and guilty plea," AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said.
"Certainly we will look at it as suggested by the tribunal. Dangerous tackles is something we have already looked at and we will look at it again."
Geelong successfully argued that Milburn had tackled the body of Richmond player Shane Edwards and while the player's head might have hit the ground forcefully, the tackle was actually to the player's body.
Therefore the offence was down-grounded to "body contact", not the more serious "head-high contact".
Brisbane Lions coach Leigh Matthews has supported a change to the laws on tackling.
"I think you have to have a duty of care that you can't bury his head in the turf," Matthews said.
"Currently the rules say effectively that you can, but I'm not sure whether that's a good thing."
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/afl-to-review-speartackles/2008/08/06/1217702145823.html
Bomber says Milburn verdict will help improve game
Bruce Matthews | August 07, 2008
GEELONG coach Mark Thompson says Darren Milburn's rule-changing rough conduct reduction is a win for the game. Thompson said everyone should benefit from Cats defender Milburn, who was originally hit with a four-game penalty, escaping with a one-match suspension.
"We thought it was a good result. We knew that the law and the rule . . . and we accepted he probably did the wrong thing, but we probably couldn't accept that he was going to get four weeks," Thompson said yesterday.
"The way it has all worked out, I think it's probably a win for everybody. You know the AFL will have to change their little booklet with the tribunal rating and all that sort of stuff, which they probably need to do because, if it didn't present itself here, it would have done so in future."
Tribunal chairman David Jones will recommend that the AFL next season introduce a specific charge for the dangerous pinned-arms tackle.
Jones, a retired County Court judge, on Tuesday instructed the tribunal jury to classify Milburn's tackle on Richmond's Shane Edwards as body contact, rather than the high contact assessed by the match review panel.
That demerit points reduction meant Milburn, who risked a three-game suspension, will miss only tomorrow night's MCG game against Melbourne.
"We knew it wasn't great . . . we knew he was in a bit of trouble and he was probably guilty and we don't like seeing it and, if that happened to one of our players, we wouldn't like it," Thompson said.
"So it's fair enough that he probably needed some weeks."
Thompson said players had become so proficient at tackling, they would "look for any opportunity" to gain an edge on an opponent. "We just have to be careful that we protect players," he said.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,24139892-19742,00.html
-
"We knew it wasn't great . . . we knew he was in a bit of trouble and he was probably guilty and we don't like seeing it and, if that happened to one of our players, we wouldn't like it," Thompson said.
"So it's fair enough that he probably needed some weeks."
Good comments - I can't understand the commentators who thought the tackle was ok, part of the game. It was out of order and Thompson acknowledged that.
-
AFL tribunal review takes aim at slinging tackles
Mark Stevens | October 16, 2008
DANGEROUS slinging tackles are under close scrutiny in an AFL review of the tribunal system.
Match review panel chairman Andrew McKay has visited 12 of the 16 clubs seeking stuff and the tackle executed by Geelong's Darren Milburn is a key talking point.
Milburn was offered a three-match ban for a slinging tackle on Richmond's Shane Edwards in Round 18 only to have it downgraded to one match on a technicality.
McKay, who played a key role in determining the three-match penalty, indicated yesterday that one match may have been too light.
"Is one right? I don't know," McKay said.
Milburn escaped a significant penalty because his defence argued the tackle was body contact and not head-high. While Edwards' head slammed into the turf, Milburn did not touch the Tiger above the shoulders.
The AFL is now considering creating a separate category for dangerous tackles, taking it outside the domain of "rough conduct".
That means any player copying Milburn next year by slinging an opponent to the ground, knowing the ball has left the area, faces significant time on the sidelines.
The league is looking to define what a dangerous tackle is and gauge if the current penalties are sufficient.
McKay said yesterday the clubs he had visited saw Milburn's suspension as "fair enough" as there were two actions - one in a slinging style after the ball had left the contest.
In a memo sent to AFL clubs yesterday, league football operations manager Adrian Anderson made it clear that penalties for the offence were up for review.
"As part of the review, we will be revisiting the adequacy of sanctions for this offence," Anderson said.
AFL Tribunal chairman David Jones called for a specific category for dangerous tackles after the Milburn case in August.
"This case, to my mind, illustrates the need for the AFL to consider, when they do their review of the rules at the end of the year, introducing a specific offence for contact of this nature," Jones said.
Clubs have until November 6 to provide stuff on contentious tribunal issues.
The other major issue included in the memo to clubs was bumping a player off the ball, with the clash between Geelong's Trent West and St Kilda's Xavier Clarke something of a test case.
No action was taken against West because his contact was to the body of Clarke, who was not injured despite being taken off on a stretcher.
It was felt Clarke probably should have been aware of West approaching, giving him a chance to brace for contact.
But the AFL is questioning whether players in Clarke's position should reasonably be expecting contact and could yet take a tougher stance on such bumps.
The AFL is thrilled with a drop in head-high contact offences, from 13 in 2007 to four this year.
McKay said players at all levels had adjusted to the crackdown on front-on clashes.
"It's been good for the game," he said.
"Parents can now let their kids play in the juniors knowing they are not going to be wheeled out in a wheelchair."
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,24504115-19742,00.html
-
I am still spewing about that Geelong game. I am pretty sure it was the one that Edwards was having his best game of the year in when he got dumped.
-
AFL not so tackle happy
Bruce Matthews | February 12, 2009
GEELONG defender Darren Milburn's technically perfect tackle on Richmond's Shane Edwards last season is being used by the AFL to warn of the potential for injuries to the recipient.
Milburn's tackle which pinned Edwards' arms and resulted in the Tiger's head hitting the ground, was highlighted on a DVD of judiciary rule changes sent to clubs.
The AFL altered the definition of the contact category for the rough conduct charge after Milburn had a two-game ban halved at the tribunal following the Round 18 incident at Telstra Dome.
Under the dangerous tackle aspect of the rough conduct charge, it will be classified as high in situations where the victim's head makes contact with the ground or fence.
The match review panel assessed Milburn's tackle as reckless conduct, high impact and high contact. The demerit points were decreased when Milburn's defence argued that initial contact was to the body.
AFL clubs will use the DVD to instruct players on the rule changes before this week's NAB Cup matches.
"I think the players are pretty mindful of it . . . they know they've got to be much more careful," Geelong football operations manager Neil Balme said.
Players will now be culpable for injury caused when a player is pushed into another player. The AFL has also warned against bumping an unsuspecting player before a contest.
Demonstrative behaviour by a player or official towards an umpire will now be referred to the tribunal instead of incurring a fine.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,25041623-19742,00.html