the tackle

barks4eva · Post: # 560834Post **barks4eva** » Sun 04 May 2008 9:44pm

and I thought this thread was about umpire's otherwise known as small dick, in need of a string and a brick, dumb hick, weasel wick's being undersized and not measuring up

8" plus or send them to Siberia

GRAMophone · Sun 04 May 2008 10:45pm

A fairly ordinary act in my opinion with the sole aim of injuring Roo. Even Mcguane doesn't look too proud of himself as he realises it worked.

Mr Magic · Post: # 561090Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 05 May 2008 9:15am

That tackle was more damaging than Barry Hall's 'hit' on Staker, although with Hall we can be pretty sure of the intent.

Michael Voss' comments were very interesting.

He made no bones about it - McGuane's action was very ordinary and the only benefit may be that he's 'taken the opposition's best player out of the game'.

St DAC · Post: # 561104Post **St DAC** » Mon 05 May 2008 10:06am

Voss is entitled to his opinion, as is plugger66. It was a tackle to a player without the ball, therefore a free kick, which we got. Move on.

Mr Magic · Post: # 561121Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 05 May 2008 10:56am

St DAC wrote:Voss is entitled to his opinion, as is plugger66. It was a tackle to a player without the ball, therefore a free kick, which we got. Move on.

It's not the tackle- it's the 'slinging' of the unprotected player into the ground that has raised the eyebrows of so many on here and apparently Michael Voss.

But St Dac, you obviously think that is just footy?
Fine, you can 'move on '

Others don't so why shoukd they have to?

Aren't they entitled to voice their opinion just like Michael Voss, Plugger and you?

your momma · Post: # 561183Post **your momma** » Mon 05 May 2008 1:21pm

Mr Magic wrote:
It's not the tackle- it's the 'slinging' of the unprotected player into the ground

yeh good call. dunno hu it was that tackled nick but hes flippin caused the champ to miss 2 months. Jeez

bergsone · Post: # 561197Post **bergsone** » Mon 05 May 2008 1:51pm

Would we all feel thesame way if it was Roo who laid the tackle.But Sh-- we have a bad run with injuries

joffaboy · Post: # 561198Post **joffaboy** » Mon 05 May 2008 1:52pm

St DAC wrote:Voss is entitled to his opinion, as is plugger66. It was a tackle to a player without the ball, therefore a free kick, which we got. Move on.

Ageed - mabye even a 50, but nothing more than that. it was just bad luck, thats all.

st.byron · Post: # 561201Post **st.byron** » Mon 05 May 2008 2:08pm

It was a fair tackle with no intent other than laying a fierce tackle on an opposition player. Hard and fair. If you watch the Richmond player's eyes after Roo hits the deck, he's all eyes for the footy.
Just bad luck that Roo happened to have his left leg fully extended and the momentum of the tackle combined with Roo having his leg extended combined to make it a high impact collision with the ground.
Nothing undue in it for us complain about.

terry smith rules · Mon 05 May 2008 2:46pm

can you tell me at what point roo actually has the ball

so can you tell me do we want this part of the game that players without the ball can get mown down

for all those saying it is simply a free kick , well yes obviously so was barry halls hit

there are other factors

st.byron · Post: # 561223Post **st.byron** » Mon 05 May 2008 2:57pm

terry smith rules wrote:can you tell me at what point roo actually has the ball

so can you tell me do we want this part of the game that players without the ball can get mown down

for all those saying it is simply a free kick , well yes obviously so was barry halls hit

there are other factors

you're trying to make it into something it wasn't. Whether or not Roo has the ball is irrelevant. If he didn't have the ball it should have been holding the man. Would have to watch it again to make a decision for myself. But laying a fierce tackle, regardless of whether it's holding the man or not, is fair in itself. If the tackled player isn't in possession, then it's a free for holding the man. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the tackle itself. It's exactly the kind of tackle Hamill used to lay and we used to love him for.

terry smith rules · Mon 05 May 2008 3:01pm

st.byron wrote:
terry smith rules wrote:can you tell me at what point roo actually has the ball

so can you tell me do we want this part of the game that players without the ball can get mown down

for all those saying it is simply a free kick , well yes obviously so was barry halls hit

there are other factors
you're trying to make it into something it wasn't. Whether or not Roo has the ball is irrelevant. If he didn't have the ball it should have been holding the man. Would have to watch it again to make a decision for myself. But laying a fierce tackle, regardless of whether it's holding the man or not, is fair in itself. If the tackled player isn't in possession, then it's a free for holding the man. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the tackle itself. It's exactly the kind of tackle Hamill used to lay and we used to love him for.

no that is not how it works anymore

the footy field is there workplace so it is about oh & s, and whether the actions of Mcguane were outside what is acceptable workplace behaviour

the answer is no

it is unduly rough play

Mr Magic · Post: # 561240Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 05 May 2008 3:12pm

terry smith rules wrote:
st.byron wrote:
terry smith rules wrote:can you tell me at what point roo actually has the ball

so can you tell me do we want this part of the game that players without the ball can get mown down

for all those saying it is simply a free kick , well yes obviously so was barry halls hit

there are other factors
you're trying to make it into something it wasn't. Whether or not Roo has the ball is irrelevant. If he didn't have the ball it should have been holding the man. Would have to watch it again to make a decision for myself. But laying a fierce tackle, regardless of whether it's holding the man or not, is fair in itself. If the tackled player isn't in possession, then it's a free for holding the man. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the tackle itself. It's exactly the kind of tackle Hamill used to lay and we used to love him for.
no that is not how it works anymore

the footy field is there workplace so it is about oh & s, and whether the actions of Mcguane were outside what is acceptable workplace behaviour

the answer is no

it is unduly rough play

Apparently as the DVD circulated to all players and coaches says.

Yes the tackle is a proper tackle and only warranted a free kick because the player tackled did not have posession of the ball.

It is what is done after the tackle has been laid that is the problem.

Incidentaly the AFL raised this issue for the very fact that players were 'forcefully' slamming their opponents into the turf and risking serious injury - exactly what has happened to Roo.

BAM! (shhhh) · Mon 05 May 2008 4:27pm

If you go through the game (don't know why you'd bother) you'll find plenty more examples of tackles at least as fierce as that one being thrown both ways.

Only 2 differences with the Reiwoldt tackle are:
1) Reiwoldt didn't have the ball at any stage.
2) Reiwoldt was hurt.

Had Reiwoldt had the ball, it would have been a fair tackle. As he did not have the ball, a free kick was awarded. The tackle was in play, the ball was right at his feet, and McGuane was probably not tackling in an effort to injure the player... it was just a stupid mistake.

It's a tough break for St. Kilda, but it's a tough game. It's happened before and it will happen again. To suspend McGuane would be ludicrous.

But surely we can find a way to give Baker 4 more weeks....

st.byron · Post: # 561300Post **st.byron** » Mon 05 May 2008 4:45pm

BAM! (shhhh) wrote:............The tackle was in play, the ball was right at his feet, and McGuane was probably not tackling in an effort to injure the player...
It's a tough break for St. Kilda, but it's a tough game. It's happened before and it will happen again. To suspend McGuane would be ludicrous.

exactly. The tackle was in play and if you have a look at McGuane's eye's he is completely intent on the footy. No malice intended. Just another unfortunate occurrence that happens every week across 8 games.

Mr Magic · Post: # 561332Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 05 May 2008 5:13pm

st.byron wrote:
BAM! (shhhh) wrote:............The tackle was in play, the ball was right at his feet, and McGuane was probably not tackling in an effort to injure the player...
It's a tough break for St. Kilda, but it's a tough game. It's happened before and it will happen again. To suspend McGuane would be ludicrous.

exactly. The tackle was in play and if you have a look at McGuane's eye's he is completely intent on the footy. No malice intended. Just another unfortunate occurrence that happens every week across 8 games.

When does the tackle finish and the 'sling' commence?

Or are you saying that the 'slinging' of Roo to the ground is part of the 'tackle'?
If that is the case then the AFL apparently doesn't agree with you because I believe they have made a point of it on the DVD they circulated to all players that the act of 'slinging' a player heavily into the ground is considered 'unduly rough play'.

st.byron · Post: # 561340Post **st.byron** » Mon 05 May 2008 5:21pm

Mr Magic wrote:[
When does the tackle finish and the 'sling' commence?

Or are you saying that the 'slinging' of Roo to the ground is part of the 'tackle'?
If that is the case then the AFL apparently doesn't agree with you because I believe they have made a point of it on the DVD they circulated to all players that the act of 'slinging' a player heavily into the ground is considered 'unduly rough play'.

It was all part of the same movement. McGuane grabbed Roo at the same time as pulling him sideways. The fact that Roo's left leg was fully extended an he was off balance pivoting on his right leg contributed largely to the momentum of the 'sling'. Just an unfortunate occurrence IMO. If he had of had his left leg bent or fallen backwards onto McGuane instead of pivoting around the injury wouldn't have happened.

Mr Magic · Post: # 561351Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 05 May 2008 5:32pm

st.byron wrote:
Mr Magic wrote:[
When does the tackle finish and the 'sling' commence?

Or are you saying that the 'slinging' of Roo to the ground is part of the 'tackle'?
If that is the case then the AFL apparently doesn't agree with you because I believe they have made a point of it on the DVD they circulated to all players that the act of 'slinging' a player heavily into the ground is considered 'unduly rough play'.
It was all part of the same movement. McGuane grabbed Roo at the same time as pulling him sideways. The fact that Roo's left leg was fully extended an he was off balance pivoting on his right leg contributed largely to the momentum of the 'sling'. Just an unfortunate occurrence IMO. If he had of had his left leg bent or fallen backwards onto McGuane instead of pivoting around the injury wouldn't have happened.

Sorry, I reckon you're wrong on this. I've just looked at it again in slo mo.
Here is the sequence of events:-
Roo picks up the ball.
McGuane tackles Roo from behind and to Roo'sd left - no problem.
The ball spills out of Roo's hands from the tackle.
The ball is on the ground to the leftof Roo who is being held by McGuane. Both players are looking down towards the ball.
McGuane picks Roo up in the tackle, and spins him in the air (Roo's right foot is 'planted' on the ground but his left is in the air acroos mcGuane's left knee)
McGuane hurls Roo into the ground with Roo's left leg crashing down onto the ground.
The 'slinging' was definitely uneccesary in the tackle.
McGuane looks up 'sheepishly' as Armitage 'remonstrates' a little with him.

bobmurray · Post: # 561362Post **bobmurray** » Mon 05 May 2008 5:42pm

If Roo didn't have the ball then why was he tackled,it reminded me of when Harvey did his knee,he was tackled by 2 Freo players,the ball spilled free but the Freo players kept working on Harvs until they'd slammed him into the ground,wrenching his knee in the process......

Not to mention Harvey getting slammed into the ground on another occassion
and doing his shoulder.....

Speaking of tackles did you see the one on McManus yesterday,the Melbourne player pinned his arms and slammed him into the ground face first and he slid along the ground,on his face and McManus got up with what looked like carpet burn.......

A very dangerous practice this desire to send tackled players into the sand below the playing surface......

Mr Magic · Post: # 561370Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 05 May 2008 5:46pm

bobmurray wrote:If Roo didn't have the ball then why was he tackled....

He had the ball and it was knocked out almost instantaneously by the tackle.

The tackler continued to hold him in the tackle - hence the free kick.

Where some of us are disagreeing is what transpired next.

Some believe that the 'slinging into teh ground' were part of the same tackle whereas others believe they were separate actions.

Even if they are deemed to be the same action, I believe it is against the rules to 'sling' a player into the ground.

st.byron · Post: # 561419Post **st.byron** » Mon 05 May 2008 6:57pm

Mr Magic wrote: Sorry, I reckon you're wrong on this. I've just looked at it again in slo mo.
Here is the sequence of events:-
Roo picks up the ball.
McGuane tackles Roo from behind and to Roo'sd left - no problem.
The ball spills out of Roo's hands from the tackle.
The ball is on the ground to the leftof Roo who is being held by McGuane. Both players are looking down towards the ball.
McGuane picks Roo up in the tackle, and spins him in the air (Roo's right foot is 'planted' on the ground but his left is in the air acroos mcGuane's left knee)
McGuane hurls Roo into the ground with Roo's left leg crashing down onto the ground.
The 'slinging' was definitely uneccesary in the tackle.
McGuane looks up 'sheepishly' as Armitage 'remonstrates' a little with him.

Have to agree to disagree then. If one of our guys had laid a hard crunching tackle like that I'd be slapping him on the back for playing like he meant it. I can't reasonably then condemn another player for doing it just because he's got a Tigers' guernsey on. If it were a West Coast guernsey on the other hand then he should get minimum 6 weeks!!!

Mr Magic · Post: # 561421Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 05 May 2008 7:01pm

st.byron wrote:
Mr Magic wrote: Sorry, I reckon you're wrong on this. I've just looked at it again in slo mo.
Here is the sequence of events:-
Roo picks up the ball.
McGuane tackles Roo from behind and to Roo'sd left - no problem.
The ball spills out of Roo's hands from the tackle.
The ball is on the ground to the leftof Roo who is being held by McGuane. Both players are looking down towards the ball.
McGuane picks Roo up in the tackle, and spins him in the air (Roo's right foot is 'planted' on the ground but his left is in the air acroos mcGuane's left knee)
McGuane hurls Roo into the ground with Roo's left leg crashing down onto the ground.
The 'slinging' was definitely uneccesary in the tackle.
McGuane looks up 'sheepishly' as Armitage 'remonstrates' a little with him.
Have to agree to disagree then. !

No problems!

SaintBot · Post: # 561433Post **SaintBot** » Mon 05 May 2008 7:24pm

Mr Magic wrote:He had the ball and it was knocked out almost instantaneously by the tackle.

This rule really needs to be looked at, too often a player is tackled and the ball simply is dropped due to the impact on the arms/hands of the player in possession. Was it a proper disposal? No.

Happens all the time now and in McGuane's defence it is very hard to know if the ball has in fact been "disposed" due to the lack of motion in the arms for a handball or in the legs for a kick. He may well have assumed that Nick still had possession of the ball.

Really should've been a free kick to Richmond.

chook23 · Post: # 561439Post **chook23** » Mon 05 May 2008 7:33pm

SaintBot wrote:
Mr Magic wrote:He had the ball and it was knocked out almost instantaneously by the tackle.
This rule really needs to be looked at, too often a player is tackled and the ball simply is dropped due to the impact on the arms/hands of the player in possession. Was it a proper disposal? No.

Happens all the time now and in McGuane's defence it is very hard to know if the ball has in fact been "disposed" due to the lack of motion in the arms for a handball or in the legs for a kick. He may well have assumed that Nick still had possession of the ball.

Really should've been a free kick to Richmond.

SaintBot · Post: # 561455Post **SaintBot** » Mon 05 May 2008 8:00pm

chook23 wrote:
SaintBot wrote:
Mr Magic wrote:He had the ball and it was knocked out almost instantaneously by the tackle.
This rule really needs to be looked at, too often a player is tackled and the ball simply is dropped due to the impact on the arms/hands of the player in possession. Was it a proper disposal? No.

Happens all the time now and in McGuane's defence it is very hard to know if the ball has in fact been "disposed" due to the lack of motion in the arms for a handball or in the legs for a kick. He may well have assumed that Nick still had possession of the ball.

Really should've been a free kick to Richmond.

Before the sling to ground ofcourse, clearly that was a free to Riewoldt. The dropping the ball a few seconds earlier shouldve warranted a blow of the whistle.