TOPIC:

swan42 wrote:

KCEF wrote: Heard that Riggio got 2 weeks

On that basis I trust the umpires got 8 weeks.

I thought the umpiring was quite fair and even, they paid what was there and this was reflected in the fairly even free kick count.

according to the WAFL website Riggio got 3 weeks and Declan Jackson got 1.

wow 3 weeks. That seems a little over the top to me for a tackle. I will be interested to read the ruling as it is the toughest penalty handed out for quite a while apart from the Blair Bell king hit. They must have thought that Matt's tackle was deliberate and dangerous. I can't really comment because I was too far from the incident so would be interested in a view from anyone who saw it clearly.
The WAFL tribunal have now set themselves a precedent and they need to be consistent with this ruling on tackles whereas in the past they have been known to be very soft, particularly on AFL based players.

mikeh wrote: wow 3 weeks. That seems a little over the top to me for a tackle. I will be interested to read the ruling as it is the toughest penalty handed out for quite a while apart from the Blair Bell king hit. They must have thought that Matt's tackle was deliberate and dangerous. I can't really comment because I was too far from the incident so would be interested in a view from anyone who saw it clearly.
The WAFL tribunal have now set themselves a precedent and they need to be consistent with this ruling on tackles whereas in the past they have been known to be very soft, particularly on AFL based players.

Mikeh how many games do we have left?

3 weeks for a tackle that Riggs actually received a free kick for.... unfarkenbelievable!
Once the royal commission on the umpiring has finished maybe they can also have one on the tribunal!

I guess it's more of an indictment of the umpires than the tribunal considering Hoskins got carted off on a stretcher as a result of the tackle.

I just read in the West that Swans were able to argue it down to 2 weeks instead of the 3 initially imposed.

Jackson lucky Banfield has a hard head, very ordinary high shot after he disposed of the footy.
Had to leave the field but came back.
Pretty weak effort

I am not doubting that Riggio deserved a suspension for his tackle however I think that there are a lot of worse acts that have either been dismissed or attracted a much lesser penalty than this one from the WAFL tribunal. I have actually been staggered by some of the decisions that they have made to either reprimand or fine a player for striking, particularly an AFL listed one. I think the tribunal has to some extent been swept along by the Dangerfield scenario and subsequent tackling suspensions and decided to make an example of Matt. I understand that the head is sacrosanct but it does raise the issue as to whether the skill of tackling is now a problematic area. As I said I didn't see the Riggio one and I accept the view of others that it was a sling tackle but looking at the Dangerfield and Brody Grundy ones in the AFL, I couldn't see a lot wrong with the tackles apart from the impact on the player. Both coaches in that case have been quoted as saying that the player was using the skill the way it was coached so do we need to change the coaching of the tackle?. Maybe we need to start a new topic on this.

mikeh wrote: I am not doubting that Riggio deserved a suspension for his tackle however I think that there are a lot of worse acts that have either been dismissed or attracted a much lesser penalty than this one from the WAFL tribunal. I have actually been staggered by some of the decisions that they have made to either reprimand or fine a player for striking, particularly an AFL listed one. I think the tribunal has to some extent been swept along by the Dangerfield scenario and subsequent tackling suspensions and decided to make an example of Matt. I understand that the head is sacrosanct but it does raise the issue as to whether the skill of tackling is now a problematic area. As I said I didn't see the Riggio one and I accept the view of others that it was a sling tackle but looking at the Dangerfield and Brody Grundy ones in the AFL, I couldn't see a lot wrong with the tackles apart from the impact on the player. Both coaches in that case have been quoted as saying that the player was using the skill the way it was coached so do we need to change the coaching of the tackle?. Maybe we need to start a new topic on this.

Mikeh, It was pretty much in front of where I was sitting and there was a lot of concern for the lad initially thinking it was neck damage, "thankfully" its a bad concussion. The Subi supporters/players/coaching staff were dumbfounded that the free was not paid to us and that the umpire didn't book him straight away. It was a sling tackle and Riggio landed on top of him driving the head into the ground. These days that's always going to get looked at but heavy tackling is part of the game and I don't want to see it removed like they pretty much have done with the bump. Speaking with others after the game we thought if Riggs was charged he'd get a week, 3 seems a bit OTT, good to see he ended up with it being reduced. I guess it gets back to the coaching staff to teach the players to modify their tackling, eliminate any slinging and make sure the head doesn't hit the ground. We've seen what happened to the EP lad after a sling tackle so the officials are pretty gun shy.