Is there a point where AFL fans, and those within the game, itself, just say enough is enough when it comes to the Match Review sanctions and suspensions?
I kind of feel we might be at the tipping point.
Over the weekend, we saw several suspensions, with Michael Christian throwing the book at former good bloke, Charlie Cameron, slapping him with a three match ban for his tackle on Liam Duggan.
There was no sling.
There was no second action.
It wasn’t even like the other tackles we’ve seen this season.
It was just a tackle.
A tackle where one bloke took the other to ground, his head making impact with the turf at the same time as his body.
A good tackle?
Once upon a time, I would have nodded my head vigorously, but in the current climate, I’m now afraid I might give myself concussion and have grounds to sue myself at some stage down the track. I still think it’s a good tackle, but I understand how others don’t. I mean, he hit his head. On the ground!
Won’t someone think of the children!?!?
I’m obviously being a bit of a dick about this, but I am absolutely fed up with the crackdown on physicality in the game. You will come at me, spit theories about litigation and class actions to come in the future, and I understand that tackles intended to hurt are now something we cannot abide in the game. They will come back to bite the league, and the sport.
But was this one of them? For that matter, was Toby Bedford’s tackle on Tim Taranto?
For the sake of not branching too far out, I’ll stick with the former for this article – apologies, Toby…
Was Charlie Cameron’s intent here to punish Liam Duggan and give him a concussion? Or was he just executing one of the basic skills of the game – tackling a player and preventing him from getting a disposal away?
Let’s ave a closer look at it.
Michael Christian, who, it seems, struggles to differentiate between his arse and his elbow these days (which would explain how often he sits around on his elbow) has graded this tackle as “careless, severe impact, and high contact”.
And this is where the Match Review system falls over in a big heap of steaming shit.
There is no grading other than careless or intentional. There should be one more – accidental, or incidental. And if it is either of these, there should be no suspension. I would grade Cameron’s tackle as “incidental”. It was a tackle in which both players fell to the ground. Incidentally, Duggan’s head hit the ground.
Zero weeks.
Momentum has to be considered.
As the two bodies clashed, Duggan began backpedalling. It is what occurs when two opposing forces run into each other – one is stronger than the other. That is not to say Duggan is a 90lb weakling, but if he was slightly off-balance, then Cameron’s momentum would be greater. Charlie locks him up in a bearhug tackle, they stagger a couple of steps, with Duggan starting to turn side on.
As they fall, Duggan’s head hits the ground as the tackle is completed.
Is that worthy of three weeks on the sidelines?
And while we’re at it, what were Cameron’s other options, here?
Should he have let Duggan go? The whistle blows AFTER the players hit the deck. So, by the letter of the law, the tackle was completed and the players on the deck before the decision to call for a stoppage was made.
To simply “let him go” would have resulted in one of two things. Either Duggan continues to backpedal and fires off a handball as he falls – this flies in the face of the whole purpose of tackling, by the way – preventing an opponent from getting a disposal away. Or, Cameron lets go of him and falls on top of him, anyway, as they are both stumbling at that point. The result of that could be very similar to what we already have.
I really think Charlie Cameron is in a no-win situation, here. Because the AFL are not punishing him for this action – no, they are punishing him to protect themselves from future lawsuits by using it as an example.
“See? See the way we were discouraging all tackles that took a player to ground in that manner?”
There are a couple of very serious issues at play in regard to this call from the MRO, and the direction the AFL is taking.
One revolves around concussion, with plenty of people painfully aware of the impact this can, and very well will, have on the game in the long term. There are some who believe this has the potential to bankrupt the game, and maybe they’re correct.
But the other issue revolves around the game, itself.
I don’t know how you all see it, but the game of footy is a pretty simple one, at heart. It revolves around four basic areas – kicking, handballing, marking, and tackling. Everything else feeds off those four things. Do all of them well, and it allows you to play whatever game style you desire. Screw them up, and you could be coached by a genius, but you’ll never amount to anything.
What we have at the moment is one of those aspects being watered down, to the point players are now openly stating that they’re concerned about tackling.
“Personally, I go into tackles now worried about what the outcome’s going to be,” stated Josh Dunkley when addressing the media.
“So, you’re very hesitant in what you’re doing and I feel like that’s going to impact everyone across the competition because guys are going to potentially hold back a little bit, and I don’t know if that’s what we want.”
Thank God for Josh Dunkley!
Doing the Footy Gods’ work!
For the last couple of years, I have sat here, writing about footy – and I love footy – and what I’ve seen is a deliberate shift away from physical tackling. Initially, it was sling tackles that were in the gun. Then it was tackles with two actions. And now, as the AFL seems to do when given an inch to work with, they’ve taken a mile and are whacking players with big suspensions for any type of tackle where the opponent ends up hitting his head on the turf.
If you’re a bit of a conspiracy theorist, you’d know that people talk about freedom in those circles, and one of the quotes used most often is as follows.
“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”
Are we getting the football version of that when it comes to tackling?
“We’re just taking away the ability to sling… and two motions… and now, you are responsible for any damage incurred when you elect to tackle.”
They used that line with the bump, as well. If you elect to bump, you cop it. How long until they apply it to tackling every time someone is hurt?
Players like Charlie Cameron (who the tribunal and MRO have been very lenient with in the past) and Toby Bedford didn’t do much wrong, but they’re being treated like they’ve gone out of their way to take out their opponents.
That is not the case.
And three week suspensions for good tackles are not part of the sport I love.
Oh, and that quote I used has been incorrectly attributed to Hitler. It wasn’t from him – settle down.
As always, massive thanks to those who support this work. It is a labour of love for me, and having you guys as members of the site basically keeps me going. So sincerely… thank you – HB
Like this content? You could buy me a coffee – I do like coffee, but there is no guarantee I won’t use it to buy a doughnut… I like them more. And I am not brought to you by Sportsbet or Ladbrokes… or Bet365, or any of them.
