Milburn gets 1 week / Close look needed at "Spear" tackles

[mightytiges]

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  .

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! 

[Infamy]

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

[WilliamPowell]

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

[one-eyed]

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

[mjs]

"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.

[one-eyed]

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 feedback 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 feedback 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

[Chuck17]

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.

[one-eyed]

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