TOPIC:

Senior Seagull wrote:

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.

Cheers SS, glad to hear that Hoskins wasn't badly injured. The Umpires should probably be held to account for their actions ( or lack of action more like it) as well.

mikeh wrote:

Senior Seagull wrote:

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.

Cheers SS, glad to hear that Hoskins wasn't badly injured. The Umpires should probably be held to account for their actions ( or lack of action more like it) as well.

I am thoroughly sick and tired of the result of the INABILITY/INCOMPETENCE/INEPTITUDE of the umpires who refuse to blow the whistle earlier. By refusing to do this there is very little choice for the player tackling to go further with more physical force and try to get the player to the ground.

swan42 wrote:

mikeh wrote:

Senior Seagull wrote:

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.

Cheers SS, glad to hear that Hoskins wasn't badly injured. The Umpires should probably be held to account for their actions ( or lack of action more like it) as well.

I am thoroughly sick and tired of the result of the INABILITY/INCOMPETENCE/INEPTITUDE of the umpires who refuse to blow the whistle earlier. By refusing to do this there is very little choice for the player tackling to go further with more physical force and try to get the player to the ground.

I hear what your saying Swan but the players also need to take responsibility for their actions, they are not dumbarse robots (well not all of them), they know about cause and effect, even in the heat of the moment so there is fault on both sides, but, the umpires are deemed to be experts in the area of umpiring as it would be seen by law and the players as experts in the area of playing football, so the initial responsibility lays at the umpires feet to ensure that decisions are made that protect the player particularly the player first to the footy.