Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Moods wrote:Well can someone explain what else he should have done. The injury was caused by Cross's momentum. He was running fwds with the ball and was tackled from behind. It was Wilke's only option. The tackle wasn't designed to hurt him. He executed it perfectly from where I could see (the TV lounge ) He wrapped him up and the momentun brought them fwd. Wilkes made EVERY effort to turn him side on rather than face plant him.
It's got to a point that as soon as a player injures themsleves through some sort of contact, they have something to worry about. It's a full body contact sport FFS! Injuries have to occur when very fast, heavily muscled men in the prime of their lives collide into each other. It actually should have been a free to Wilkes if anything.
What was crude about the tackle other than the outcome? What did he do that was illegal, or even outside the spirit of the game?
I think he has a bit to worry about because he buried him. it is a tough one. I see it as a 50/50. Will understand if he goes and could completely understand if he is let off.
Wilkes grabbed Cross in a bear-hug tackle and, in the one motion, rolled him in an attempt to not give a way a free for in the back. According to the umpire, he failed...But I disagree with the umpires call on this. Cross actually lands on the point of his shoulder and his back. There is no way that Wilkes could have been in his back.
Don't believe me...make up your own mind...
Watch the video...http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx
Not a sling tackle or two actions and the ball was still in Cross' possession until the impact with the ground knocked it out.
It's a pity that his shoulder was hurt and that his season is over but these things happen in footy. Ask Gary Rohan and the countless players that have impact related injuries this season caused by just playing the game.
It was a crude tackle. You just dont think it is because it was a Saints player who did the tackle. He pinned the arms and drove him straight into the ground.
I love it when total strangers tell me what I am thinking! The action is the action. It has nothing to do with the jumpers they were wearing.
You are allowed to pin the arms in a tackle and drive a player into the ground. As long as you don't get in his back in the process.
Wilkes did everything you want a tackler to do. Cross did everything you don't want a player being tackled to do.
Wilkes pinned the arms and rolled the player to avoid giving away a free for a push in the back. Pinning the arms is critical because it means that the player is not able to get a handball away to a teammate as he is falling. It is tackling 101.
Cross failed to get his arms above the tackle which would have allowed him move the ball on and avoid his shoulder hitting the ground first.
If Wilkes had performed the action as you described it then Cross would have hit the ground nose first and not shoulder first.
Perfect tackle as he didn't get in his back and he didn't drive Cross' head into the ground. It was poorly umpired to give Cross the free for a push in the back.
Moods wrote:The injury was caused by Cross's momentum. He was running fwds with the ball and was tackled from behind. The tackle wasn't designed to hurt him. He wrapped him up and the momentun brought them fwd. Wilkes made EVERY effort to turn him side on rather than face plant him.
It's got to a point that as soon as a player injures themsleves through some sort of contact, they have something to worry about. It's a full body contact sport FFS! Injuries have to occur when very fast, heavily muscled men in the prime of their lives collide into each other.
This IMO is correct.
Disclaimer: I have been wrong before and will be wrong again.
Wilkes grabbed Cross in a bear-hug tackle and, in the one motion, rolled him in an attempt to not give a way a free for in the back. According to the umpire, he failed...But I disagree with the umpires call on this. Cross actually lands on the point of his shoulder and his back. There is no way that Wilkes could have been in his back.
Don't believe me...make up your own mind...
Watch the video...http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx
Not a sling tackle or two actions and the ball was still in Cross' possession until the impact with the ground knocked it out.
It's a pity that his shoulder was hurt and that his season is over but these things happen in footy. Ask Gary Rohan and the countless players that have impact related injuries this season caused by just playing the game.
It was a crude tackle. You just dont think it is because it was a Saints player who did the tackle. He pinned the arms and drove him straight into the ground.
I love it when total strangers tell me what I am thinking! The action is the action. It has nothing to do with the jumpers they were wearing.
You are allowed to pin the arms in a tackle and drive a player into the ground. As long as you don't get in his back in the process.
Wilkes did everything you want a tackler to do. Cross did everything you don't want a player being tackled to do.
Wilkes pinned the arms and rolled the player to avoid giving away a free for a push in the back. Pinning the arms is critical because it means that the player is not able to get a handball away to a teammate as he is falling. It is tackling 101.
Cross failed to get his arms above the tackle which would have allowed him move the ball on and avoid his shoulder hitting the ground first.
If Wilkes had performed the action as you described it then Cross would have hit the ground nose first and not shoulder first.
Perfect tackle as he didn't get in his back and he didn't drive Cross' head into the ground. It was poorly umpired to give Cross the free for a push in the back.
It was a free everyday of the week and as for your call about you can drive a player into the ground and it is perfect tackle well that isnt true anymore. It it is regarded as dangerous and an injury occurs you certainly can and most likely will be reported.
Life Long Saint wrote:You are allowed to pin the arms in a tackle and drive a player into the ground. As long as you don't get in his back in the process.
Wilkes did everything you want a tackler to do. Cross did everything you don't want a player being tackled to do.
Wilkes pinned the arms and rolled the player to avoid giving away a free for a push in the back. Pinning the arms is critical because it means that the player is not able to get a handball away to a teammate as he is falling. It is tackling 101.
Cross failed to get his arms above the tackle which would have allowed him move the ball on and avoid his shoulder hitting the ground first.
If Wilkes had performed the action as you described it then Cross would have hit the ground nose first and not shoulder first.
Perfect tackle as he didn't get in his back and he didn't drive Cross' head into the ground. It was poorly umpired to give Cross the free for a push in the back.
It was a free everyday of the week and as for your call about you can drive a player into the ground and it is perfect tackle well that isnt true anymore. It it is regarded as dangerous and an injury occurs you certainly can and most likely will be reported.
Post the reference to the rule that he broke.
I think you will find this particular one under the "that's footy" section!
He didn't get the head of the player and rolled the player so as not to get into his back.
I'd love to know what his alternative course of action was.
Life Long Saint wrote:You are allowed to pin the arms in a tackle and drive a player into the ground. As long as you don't get in his back in the process.
Wilkes did everything you want a tackler to do. Cross did everything you don't want a player being tackled to do.
Wilkes pinned the arms and rolled the player to avoid giving away a free for a push in the back. Pinning the arms is critical because it means that the player is not able to get a handball away to a teammate as he is falling. It is tackling 101.
Cross failed to get his arms above the tackle which would have allowed him move the ball on and avoid his shoulder hitting the ground first.
If Wilkes had performed the action as you described it then Cross would have hit the ground nose first and not shoulder first.
Perfect tackle as he didn't get in his back and he didn't drive Cross' head into the ground. It was poorly umpired to give Cross the free for a push in the back.
It was a free everyday of the week and as for your call about you can drive a player into the ground and it is perfect tackle well that isnt true anymore. It it is regarded as dangerous and an injury occurs you certainly can and most likely will be reported.
Post the reference to the rule that he broke.
I think you will find this particular one under the "that's footy" section!
He didn't get the head of the player and rolled the player so as not to get into his back.
I'd love to know what his alternative course of action was.
Unduly rough play it may be called. i have said it is 50/50 to whether he will be reported. A better tackle would have seen not face plant a player.
He didn't face plant him...Did you watch the video? Shoulder/Back hit the ground first. Ergo, he rolled the player and did not get into his back.
Cross got up holding his shoulder, not his head.
Still waiting on the rule that he broke.
Surely there is a section that you can quote for me. Being an umpire you must know the book inside out.
I really felt for him, seeing him on the bench so upset. They say the game is all about money.....not to some players!! This is a proud passionate player that gives his all for the jumper of his club. Some of the players trying to bleed their clubs dry should take a look at that footage....
Hope he goes around for another year. Would hate to see Cross go out on this note.
Life Long Saint wrote:He didn't face plant him...Did you watch the video? Shoulder/Back hit the ground first. Ergo, he rolled the player and did not get into his back.
Cross got up holding his shoulder, not his head.
Still waiting on the rule that he broke.
Surely there is a section that you can quote for me. Being an umpire you must know the book inside out.
most of the game isn't codified - it's interpretation. the tribunal especially has catch-all rules like "unduly rough play" which are entirely interpretation. which "rule" does it break to bend someone's arm back and dislocate his shoulder, as judd did?
I've got the utmost respect for any player who is so driven, so intense, so wanting to
be on the park helping his comrades in arms, no matter which side they're on.
If he sheds a tear, blimey, it's a sign of passion for his club and the game.
And I bet it stung like anything.
bergholt wrote:most of the game isn't codified - it's interpretation. the tribunal especially has catch-all rules like "unduly rough play" which are entirely interpretation. which "rule" does it break to bend someone's arm back and dislocate his shoulder, as judd did?
A rule book that spans 94 pages would show evidence contrary to your view point on codified rules.
Judd broke rule 19.2.2 (g) intentionally, recklessly or negligently:
(vii) engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable;
Judd's actions were clearly unreasonable in the circumstance. More so, they were intentional
I am guessing that is the "catch-all" to which you refer...If that is the case then you'd be advocating that the action used by Wilkes is unreasonable. I would maintain that it was not.
Contrast Wilkes to Walker. That kind of tackle has no place in today's game. Wilkes tackle was hard but fair. One action and an attempt to roll the body to avoid the free kick.
Oh...Don't just take my word on the Wilkes tackle...
This from Robbo in today's "The Tackle"
Wilkes does not deserve to be cited for his tackle on Daniel Cross which cracked Cross' shoulder. Wilkes tackled Cross perfectly, he pinned the arms, didn't sling and didn't push in the back. Why Cross was hurt was because of the momentum of the tackle. After all, you are allowed to tackle with force. It was unfortunate there was an injury. As for Cross being emotional on the bench, the initial reaction was about the pain, but then you wondered if it could mean it was Cross' last game of footy for the Bulldogs. You never wish that, but if it is, he's been a monument of commitment for a decade.
Life Long Saint wrote:I am guessing that is the "catch-all" to which you refer...
yep.
Life Long Saint wrote:If that is the case then you'd be advocating that the action used by Wilkes is unreasonable. I would maintain that it was not.
nope. i never "advocated" anything of the sort. but if he gets suspended, that'll be the rule it's covered under, and that will fit perfectly well with the letter of the law. the interpretation will be that in the circumstances wilkes's action was unreasonable.
you can argue that that interpretation would be wrong, but not that it's not covered by a rule.
MRP wrote:Contact between St Kilda’s Beau Wilkes and the Western Bulldogs’ Daniel Cross from the first quarter of Sunday’s match was assessed. Cross has the ball and is tackled by Wilkes. The forward momentum of the players sees both fall to ground in the tackle. It was the view of the panel the tackle was not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.
Sanity prevails!
Still maintain that it was not a free kick and that umpire guessed wrong that it might have been in the back.
Perfect tackle. Always was. Unlucky and a sad he got hurt, but it's a tough game. Can't believe people on here could have thought any different.
If I was coach I would want every tackle, every game, to be just the same.
Make a statement just like 1997 prelim.
_______________________________________________________________________
"Don't argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
saintspremiers wrote:Was it due to Wilkes sling tackle?
If so, it's severe impact and will be a one week suspension IMO.
I know your fishing but for others it is not a sling tackle it was one action he was pushed forward in the tackle but rolled him so did the right thing to make it legal. No case even in the slightest if you follow the law.
No-one knows what to expect when it comes to suspensions dished out...Lonergan got off, so common sense prevails...although, there's no common sense with the mrp...we're so confused, because they come up with different outcomes for similar offences. The AFL try and convince us that they're not trying to change the game, but I have a feeling that the next bloke to try a 'drive' tackle will not be so lucky.
) He wrapped him up and the momentun brought them fwd. Wilkes made EVERY effort to turn him side on rather than face plant him.
