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

[one-eyed]

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

[DCrane]

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.

[mjs]

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.

[mjs]

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.

[Beren]

10 has reported 4 weeks.

[Infamy]

2 weeks with the discount if he pleads guilty
4 weeks if he challenges and is still found guilty

[one-eyed]

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

[torch]

Good !

[tigersalive]

If you want to re-live it 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wasFeA69V78

[mjs]

If you want to re-live it 

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.

[Smokey]

If you want to re-live it 

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.   

[one-eyed]

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

[mjs]

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.

[Infamy]

I hope he gets off
He's in my dreamteam

[one-eyed]

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.