Nic Nat's Tackle

[Scraggers]

LINK (https://youtu.be/8ysEeMnhF9A)

I'm not sure if this tackle is receiving as much media coverage in Victoria, but it's been getting heaps in WA; and for good reason too.

My 5 cents worth. I think it is an utter disgrace that he was suspended and believe it will spell the end of the tackle as we know it. He didn't sling, he didn't pin both arms. It was a strong tackle, and it was definitely in the back, but that is all. This decision is disgraceful; to have to take this to the tribunal and for them to uphold the original decision?

I'm dumbfounded.

[jeemak]

Yeah it’s how the game is going, not sure how I feel about it.

As an aside, in all of the examples they have shown of him tackling like that his targets have been smaller blokes and he’s clearly trying to hurt them....

[Flamethrower]

The AFL are so paranoid about litigation when it comes to any head knock that they are finding ways to suspend players almost every time there is a concussive event.

Makes one wonder how the Hawthorn guy who knocked Higgins out got off scott free, and Nic Nat gets a week for a tackle.

[Twodogs]

The AFL are so paranoid about litigation when it comes to any head knock that they are finding ways to suspend players almost every time there is a concussive event.

Makes one wonder how the Hawthorn guy who knocked Higgins out got off scott free, and Nic Nat gets a week for a tackle.

Whilst I think Nic Nat was worth a week, he's going to cripple someone if he keeps tackling like that and like Jeemak I have noted it's only ever the smaller guys he does it to so I'm happy to see him suspended just on that basis alone, the Hawthorn player (was it Cicily?) should have got weeks for what he did to Higgins (and I'm not on the habit of feeling bad for Shaun Higgin-he annoyed me even when he played for us.).

[SonofScray]

Whilst I think Nic Nat was worth a week, he's going to cripple someone if he keeps tackling like that and like Jeemak I have noted it's only ever the smaller guys he does it to so I'm happy to see him suspended just on that basis alone, the Hawthorn player (was it Cicily?) should have got weeks for what he did to Higgins (and I'm not on the habit of feeling bad for Shaun Higgin-he annoyed me even when he played for us.). How many blokes out on the field, in opposition colours sold be bigger than NicNat? �� A bit rough to highlight that he is tackling smaller blokes!

[Twodogs]

How many blokes out on the field, in opposition colours sold be bigger than NicNat? �� A bit rough to highlight that he is tackling smaller blokes!

Yeah fair point. I guess it's all relative.

[AndrewP6]

How many blokes out on the field, in opposition colours sold be bigger than NicNat? �� A bit rough to highlight that he is tackling smaller blokes!

Exactly.

[AndrewP6]

Complete and utter garbage that he should get rubbed out for that. In the back, free kick, sure. The arms weren’t pinned, despite what that cretin Christian says. Christian also decreed that James Sicily merely ‘placed’ his knee in the back of Selwoods head -an act far worse. He is an embarrassment.

If that’s a week, be prepared for suspensions every single game.

[1eyedog]

LINK (https://youtu.be/8ysEeMnhF9A)

I'm not sure if this tackle is receiving as much media coverage in Victoria, but it's been getting heaps in WA; and for good reason too.

My 5 cents worth. I think it is an utter disgrace that he was suspended and believe it will spell the end of the tackle as we know it. He didn't sling, he didn't pin both arms. It was a strong tackle, and it was definitely in the back, but that is all. This decision is disgraceful; to have to take this to the tribunal and for them to uphold the original decision?

I'm dumbfounded.

Great tackle. Strong and fair. EJ would've rolled over after hearing that decision.

[jeemak]

How many blokes out on the field, in opposition colours sold be bigger than NicNat? �� A bit rough to highlight that he is tackling smaller blokes!

By smaller blokes I meant smaller for the AFL, not him.

[bornadog]

Agree with the OP

[NoseBleed]

You guys must be farking kidding.

He hits a player who's taking (not taken, taking) possession of the ball. The player is at right angles to him and his momentum.

http://sideways-technologies.co.uk/forums/uploads/monthly_2018_05/407729353_ScreenShot2018-05-09at10_37_31pm.png.72bdc72d9ab0346da2ebc40a8a5bf85d.png

He turns the player 90 degrees and begins using his weight and momentum to drivie him to the ground. Note both there is no weight on either of the tacklers feet.

http://sideways-technologies.co.uk/forums/uploads/monthly_2018_05/1106106691_ScreenShot2018-05-09at10_31_35pm.png.2c71631ed142f43ff9b350aa88571422.png

Driving forward, his foot touches down ands he adds to the momentum

http://sideways-technologies.co.uk/forums/uploads/monthly_2018_05/349898421_ScreenShot2018-05-09at10_34_58pm.png.d781e019f0ae19d9d25687074919a4a1.png

The entire weight of his torso is dropped onto the tackled player

http://sideways-technologies.co.uk/forums/uploads/monthly_2018_05/697258093_ScreenShot2018-05-09at10_32_22pm.png.764811ca11e6836d95c96836af08d8e1.png

In an attempt to protect himself, the tackled player attempts to get his ams down as the ball spills free. The tackler noe has both feet off the ground, utilising all his weight and momentum. There is no attempt to turn the player away from dangerous contact with the surface.

http://sideways-technologies.co.uk/forums/uploads/monthly_2018_05/1234616704_ScreenShot2018-05-09at10_35_33pm.png.004cfbba48ddcaf9ac96f4ea37be2a21.png

The tackler continues to turn his own body, making no attempt to turn the body of the tackled player. Instead, the tackled players body is driven directly into the turf at right angles to how he was standing, resulting in his head whipping into the surface.

http://sideways-technologies.co.uk/forums/uploads/monthly_2018_05/1233521987_ScreenShot2018-05-09at10_36_21pm.png.1592d7637d3d594d8347436714967d03.png

The tackler continues to use his weight and momentum to force the tackled player in the direction of the momentum, resulting in seriously dangerous pressure on the players neck.

http://sideways-technologies.co.uk/forums/uploads/monthly_2018_05/1922947959_ScreenShot2018-05-09at10_30_38pm.png.c5a383b8ac0ed159f8d0a987745d0991.png


Naitanui chose to tackle in an unduly rough and dangerous way, and was suspended for rough play.

How on earth could that be wrong.

[AndrewP6]

You guys must be farking kidding.

He hits a player who's taking (not taken, taking) possession of the ball. The player is at right angles to him and his momentum.

http://sideways-technologies.co.uk/forums/uploads/monthly_2018_05/407729353_ScreenShot2018-05-09at10_37_31pm.png.72bdc72d9ab0346da2ebc40a8a5bf85d.png

He turns the player 90 degrees and begins using his weight and momentum to drivie him to the ground. Note both there is no weight on either of the tacklers feet.

http://sideways-technologies.co.uk/forums/uploads/monthly_2018_05/1106106691_ScreenShot2018-05-09at10_31_35pm.png.2c71631ed142f43ff9b350aa88571422.png

Driving forward, his foot touches down ands he adds to the momentum

http://sideways-technologies.co.uk/forums/uploads/monthly_2018_05/349898421_ScreenShot2018-05-09at10_34_58pm.png.d781e019f0ae19d9d25687074919a4a1.png

The entire weight of his torso is dropped onto the tackled player

http://sideways-technologies.co.uk/forums/uploads/monthly_2018_05/697258093_ScreenShot2018-05-09at10_32_22pm.png.764811ca11e6836d95c96836af08d8e1.png

In an attempt to protect himself, the tackled player attempts to get his ams down as the ball spills free. The tackler noe has both feet off the ground, utilising all his weight and momentum. There is no attempt to turn the player away from dangerous contact with the surface.

http://sideways-technologies.co.uk/forums/uploads/monthly_2018_05/1234616704_ScreenShot2018-05-09at10_35_33pm.png.004cfbba48ddcaf9ac96f4ea37be2a21.png

The tackler continues to turn his own body, making no attempt to turn the body of the tackled player. Instead, the tackled players body is driven directly into the turf at right angles to how he was standing, resulting in his head whipping into the surface.

http://sideways-technologies.co.uk/forums/uploads/monthly_2018_05/1233521987_ScreenShot2018-05-09at10_36_21pm.png.1592d7637d3d594d8347436714967d03.png

The tackler continues to use his weight and momentum to force the tackled player in the direction of the momentum, resulting in seriously dangerous pressure on the players neck.

http://sideways-technologies.co.uk/forums/uploads/monthly_2018_05/1922947959_ScreenShot2018-05-09at10_30_38pm.png.c5a383b8ac0ed159f8d0a987745d0991.png


Naitanui chose to tackle in an unduly rough and dangerous way, and was suspended for rough play.

How on earth could that be wrong.

Christian claimed, on television, that the arms were pinned. That clearly wasn't the case, as both the video and these stills show. That is a key aspect of the guilty finding, and it wasn't there.

[NoseBleed]

The official statement for the charge was

"Nic Naitanui, West Coast, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Karl Amon, Port Adelaide, during the fourth quarter of the Round Seven match between West Coast and Port Adelaide, played at Optus Stadium on Saturday May 5, 2018.
In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.
Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Port Adelaide Football Club, the incident was assessed as careless conduct with medium impact to the head. The incident was assessed as a one-match sanction. The player can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea."


Nothing there about arms being pinned.

Look at the photos. Both are are pinned at one stage or another until it's too late.

[AndrewP6]

The official statement for the charge was

"Nic Naitanui, West Coast, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Karl Amon, Port Adelaide, during the fourth quarter of the Round Seven match between West Coast and Port Adelaide, played at Optus Stadium on Saturday May 5, 2018.
In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.
Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Port Adelaide Football Club, the incident was assessed as careless conduct with medium impact to the head. The incident was assessed as a one-match sanction. The player can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea."


Nothing there about arms being pinned.

Look at the photos. Both are are pinned at one stage or another until it's too late.

It’s easy to see things in still images. The video footage, with players moving at the speed it actually occurred, clearly shows Amon’s arms not pinned, which the sole person who levied the sanction in the first place, used as justification for his ridiculous finding. One of Nic’s arms is around Amon’s waist, that’s very clear. Watch the footage.

[NoseBleed]

It’s easy to see things in still images.


Exactly.


A picture is worth a thousand words. Look at the seven pictures, they show you what's actually happening in the footage.

I look forward to your seven thousand word rebuttal. Not "But at real speed, I can't see what's wrong..."

;-)

[The Adelaide Connection]

Most seem to agree that it is an “in the back free”. So, essentially he was concussed by an “illegal” tackle.

Whether we like it or not, the black and white of it is that an illegal tackle (whether it is slinging, spear tackling a bloke in the back, bumping and catching the head, etc) that leads to concussion has got to attract weeks.

On one hand people are all “back in the day that’s not reportable” and on the other we have players from “back in the day” joining class action suits against the AFL for the concussions they sustained.

What I think we can all agree on, is that the MRO still battles (and baffles) with a lack of consistency/logic. Burton had to go for his hit on Higgins and Mitchell (who made a bee line for Goldstein off the ball and had to jump in the air to elbow him in the face) should also have attracted weeks (especially if Cordy did).

[LostDoggy]

Most seem to agree that it is an “in the back free”. So, essentially he was concussed by an “illegal” tackle.

Whether we like it or not, the black and white of it is that an illegal tackle (whether it is slinging, spear tackling a bloke in the back, bumping and catching the head, etc) that leads to concussion has got to attract weeks.

On one hand people are all “back in the day that’s not reportable” and on the other we have players from “back in the day” joining class action suits against the AFL for the concussions they sustained.

What I think we can all agree on, is that the MRO still battles (and baffles) with a lack of consistency/logic. Burton had to go for his hit on Higgins and Mitchell (who made a bee line for Goldstein off the ball and had to jump in the air to elbow him in the face) should also have attracted weeks (especially if Cordy did).

I agree with you TAC. I think the main problem is that the points/weightings don't differentiate between intentional (off the play) incidents and negligent/careless incidents that occur in the run of play. The football public consistenly feel that careless acts that occur in play (usually sloppy/poor technique bumps or tackles) that result in injury/concussions are viewed too harshly relative to snipes off the play. If the snipes were getting multiple weeks (as they should), the 1 week penalties for the in play incidents wouldn't seem so harsh.

[bornadog]

I have seen footage of Nic Nat executing this same tackle in many games. I think he needs to reassess the way he tackles. He doesn't just try to tackle his opponent he tries to bring them down to the ground and with his weight and size, it doesn't end up pretty. He should just try and concentrate on a good tackle without trying to go to ground. Of course his momentum may take the two players to the ground, but I don't believe that, I think it is intentional.

[westdog54]

I have seen footage of Nic Nat executing this same tackle in many games. I think he needs to reassess the way he tackles. He doesn't just try to tackle his opponent he tries to bring them down to the ground and with his weight and size, it doesn't end up pretty. He should just try and concentrate on a good tackle without trying to go to ground. Of course his momentum may take the two players to the ground, but I don't believe that, I think it is intentional.

In theory, Shane Mumford should have had a similar problem to Naitinui, however his tackling technique was quite good, and when he 'got' someone, he did so cleanly.

You've touched on something that doesn't just affect NicNat, there are far too many players in the AFL whose tackling techniques are either dangerous, lazy, or a combination of both. Franklin had the issue with his bumps, it now appears NicNat has it with his tackling.

I've got no issue with this being a suspension.

[bornadog]

In theory, Shane Mumford should have had a similar problem to Naitinui, however his tackling technique was quite good, and when he 'got' someone, he did so cleanly.

Libba would say otherwise ;)

[Twodogs]

I have seen footage of Nic Nat executing this same tackle in many games. I think he needs to reassess the way he tackles. He doesn't just try to tackle his opponent he tries to bring them down to the ground and with his weight and size, it doesn't end up pretty. He should just try and concentrate on a good tackle without trying to go to ground. Of course his momentum may take the two players to the ground, but I don't believe that, I think it is intentional.


I've been at a match where a bloke ended up in a wheelchair. I don't want that to ever see that happen again.

[merantau]

I look at it like this: if he had punched someone and broke his jaw he'd get 8 weeks minimum. His tackle had the potential to cause a much more serious injury. I saw Anthony Rocca end Bob Murphy's season with a similiar tackle where he landed with his full weight on his opponent. Comments by Christian should not have been made. We have seen a lot more scruntiny being applied to tackles. I'm ok with this because players are stronger and move faster now. The potential for serious injury is greater. A one week suspension sends a message - if you don’t make some attempt not to land with your full weight on top of an opponent you will be suspended.
.

[Topdog]

Exactly.


A picture is worth a thousand words. Look at the seven pictures, they show you what's actually happening in the footage.

I look forward to your seven thousand word rebuttal. Not "But at real speed, I can't see what's wrong..."

;-)

Look at those 7 pictures taken in 1 second of real time and you are stating what Nic Nat was doing and how he was controlling his and the other players momentum. Do you need an advanced degree in physics to play AFL now? There is simply no way that he was thinking as much you claim in that little amount of time.

It is a decision made purely because the player was concussed. It is a ridiculous way to make a ruling and the main reason he was found guilty according to the person who made the decision is that both arms were pinned. Your photos never show the right arm being pinned.

[Topdog]

I look at it like this: if he had punched someone and broke his jaw he'd get 8 weeks minimum. His tackle had the potential to cause a much more serious injury. I saw Anthony Rocca end Bob Murphy's season with a similiar tackle where he landed with his full weight on his opponent. Comments by Christian should not have been made. We have seen a lot more scruntiny being applied to tackles. I'm ok with this because players are stronger and move faster now. The potential for serious injury is greater. A one week suspension sends a message - if you don’t make some attempt not to land with your full weight on top of an opponent you will be suspended.
.

I really dont think he would get more than 3 weeks for breaking someones jaw based off other decisions made this year.

And how can this be a suspension but the bloke that knocked out Higgins was deemed AOK????

[Twodogs]

I really dont think he would get more than 3 weeks for breaking someones jaw based off other decisions made this year.

And how can this be a suspension but the bloke that knocked out Higgins was deemed AOK????


That's where it goes into really silly territory. That they keep defending Higgins being knocked out is untenable. The Hawthorn player should have gotten weeks.
This is the problem when the afl are so keen to see some clubs players suspended and others let off. It just proves the AFL is run by Cowboys.

[westdog54]

I really dont think he would get more than 3 weeks for breaking someones jaw based off other decisions made this year.

And how can this be a suspension but the bloke that knocked out Higgins was deemed AOK????

Because the Higgins decision was wrong. Christian dropped the ball on this one, pure and simple.

[AndrewP6]

Exactly.


A picture is worth a thousand words. Look at the seven pictures, they show you what's actually happening in the footage.

I look forward to your seven thousand word rebuttal. Not "But at real speed, I can't see what's wrong..."

;-)

I don't need that many words, it is not that complicated. The pictures provided show that at no point were both arms pinned. The official charge refers to rough conduct, which Christian explains as involving having the arms (plural) pinned. That didn't happen.

[SonofScray]

They've butchered this whole aspect of the League. Too lenient on off the ball, unsportsmanlike play and too harsh on skills of the game executed poorly. I keep harping on about it, but Rough Conduct is a shit charge. It is applied arbitrarily, floating on the tide of PR and marketing.

[bornadog]

In the past tackles were tackles, there was no such thing as a sling tackle or driving guys into the turf. When you were tackled you got rid of the ball quickly so you wouldn't be pinged. Now what happens is players don't want to let go of the ball, and they know they won't be pinged for holding the ball due to no prior opportunity.

[Twodogs]

In the past tackles were tackles, there was no such thing as a sling tackle or driving guys into the turf. When you were tackled you got rid of the ball quickly so you wouldn't be pinged. Now what happens is players don't want to let go of the ball, and they know they won't be pinged for holding the ball due to no prior opportunity.


Hang on. What's prior opportunity and holding the ball in got to do with sling tackles and rag dolling blokes? Are you saying they are tackling harder or longer because the tackler knows the player with the ball will just hold it?

[jeemak]

NicNat could have held the tackle and dropped to his knees, not given away a free kick and not be in his current predicament. Instead he lifted and leapt and gave away a free and is suspended.

[bornadog]

Hang on. What's prior opportunity and holding the ball in got to do with sling tackles and rag dolling blokes? Are you saying they are tackling harder or longer because the tackler knows the player with the ball will just hold it?

The players are not letting go of the ball (not all the time, occasionally) and the tackler keeps tackling harder and slinging players to the ground. Just watch a few games and keep this in mind. Players are instructed to create a stoppage because some teams (we are one) are good at stoppages.

[bornadog]

NicNat could have held the tackle and dropped to his knees, not given away a free kick and not be in his current predicament. Instead he lifted and leapt and gave away a free and is suspended.

Agree, but he doesn't do that. Watch the video below of the same tackling method on another 3 occasions this year where he does the same thing he did to the Freo player. Not sure why he wants to go to ground and slam the player into the turf.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7GerR424v8

[Topdog]

See for me I reckon the Sydney one is actually worthy of a suspension. The Port one is pure momentum and whilst a push in the back, isnt close to a suspension. Geelong one is just a great tackle.

[Twodogs]

The players are not letting go of the ball (not all the time, occasionally) and the tackler keeps tackling harder and slinging players to the ground. Just watch a few games and keep this in mind. Players are instructed to create a stoppage because some teams (we are one) are good at stoppages.

Cheers mate. I thought so.

[bornadog]

See for me I reckon the Sydney one is actually worthy of a suspension. The Port one is pure momentum and whilst a push in the back, isnt close to a suspension. Geelong one is just a great tackle.

I think a week's suspension is harsh, but you have to admit his tackling is fierce and will result in some serious injury. He should have been tapped on the shoulder and told that he doesn't need to slam players into the ground. What is wrong with just grabbing a player and holding them.

[westdog54]

I think a week's suspension is harsh, but you have to admit his tackling is fierce and will result in some serious injury. He should have been tapped on the shoulder and told that he doesn't need to slam players into the ground. What is wrong with just grabbing a player and holding them.

Better yet, if he hits the tackle lower initially, as he did with the Geelong tackle, he's got no issues.

West Coast could do worse than pair him up with the Western Force for a tackling workshop.

[Scraggers]

NicNat could have held the tackle and dropped to his knees, not given away a free kick and not be in his current predicament. Instead he lifted and leapt and gave away a free and is suspended.

I disagree ... The full vision shows Nic Nat in a ruck contest then follow through (from a tap to the oppostion) to tackling him. It is a fluid motion and not a pre-determined action. Therefore his momentum would have prevented him from dropping to his knees.

[Greystache]

Hang on. What's prior opportunity and holding the ball in got to do with sling tackles and rag dolling blokes? Are you saying they are tackling harder or longer because the tackler knows the player with the ball will just hold it?

Nothing. Players tackle longer now because the tackler is trained to pin the arms so the player can't release the ball. The old method of grabbing a player around the waist, or by the jumper, as they used to do is totally ineffective in the modern era and you may as well just try to corral the ball carrier. As you're suggesting, prior opportunity has nothing to do with it.

[SonofScray]

See for me I reckon the Sydney one is actually worthy of a suspension. The Port one is pure momentum and whilst a push in the back, isnt close to a suspension. Geelong one is just a great tackle.

Cats tackle was great. Other two are in the back. I think there could be room to pay a 50m penalty if it was deemed to be excessive, but not necessarily late, or high contact.

In any case, too much emphasis on these types of actions in play and not enough on what we call Roughing / unsportsmanlike conduct in ice hockey. It isn't unreasonable to think someone might get hurt in the application of the skills of the game. There is no excuse for making contact with an umpire, shoving, elbowing, punching blokes off the ball, or when play is called dead etc.

[Axe Man]

Reading the thread title I thought this was going to be a whole different discussion.;)

[Testekill]

Now if only this ruling had happened while fatarse Mumford was playing.

[GVGjr]

I'm not outraged by the decision but I think it was the wrong outcome. Had he not made the effort he did I think he would have been singled out by the coaching team.

[Twodogs]

Cats tackle was great. Other two are in the back. I think there could be room to pay a 50m penalty if it was deemed to be excessive, but not necessarily late, or high contact.

In any case, too much emphasis on these types of actions in play and not enough on what we call Roughing / unsportsmanlike conduct in ice hockey. It isn't unreasonable to think someone might get hurt in the application of the skills of the game. There is no excuse for making contact with an umpire, shoving, elbowing, punching blokes off the ball, or when play is called dead etc.


Yep I agree SoS. The coathanger, the sly elbow, the ankletap, the shirtfront, the rough snipe and the rest of the euphemisms we have for violence all have to relics of the past. Because of the pace the game is played at (and knowing more and more about brain trauma) those sort of impact injuries are much more dangerous.

[bornadog]

Reading the thread title I thought this was going to be a whole different discussion.;)

Isn't that what the ex GC player's complaint was about, that his team mates were talking about :D

[bornadog]

Nothing. Players tackle longer now because the tackler is trained to pin the arms so the player can't release the ball. The old method of grabbing a player around the waist, or by the jumper, as they used to do is totally ineffective in the modern era and you may as well just try to corral the ball carrier. As you're suggesting, prior opportunity has nothing to do with it.

When players get hold of the ball and know they are going to get tackled, they don't bother trying to get rid of it because a) They want to create a stoppage and not just give up the ball, and b)they know they will get away with it due to no prior. The player tackling may have their arms pinned, but for some reason decides to bring the player with the ball to ground and sometimes slams the player dangerously into the ground. That is what I am talking about. IF the no prior was taken away, then the player may make a choice to not grab the ball and hold it onto their chest, they would tap it along or get rid of the ball quicker.

[jeemak]

When players get hold of the ball and know they are going to get tackled, they don't bother trying to get rid of it because a) They want to create a stoppage and not just give up the ball, and b)they know they will get away with it due to no prior. The player tackling may have their arms pinned, but for some reason decides to bring the player with the ball to ground and sometimes slams the player dangerously into the ground. That is what I am talking about. IF the no prior was taken away, then the player may make a choice to not grab the ball and hold it onto their chest, they would tap it along or get rid of the ball quicker.

You don’t think arms being pinned is as significantly influenced by technique and strength in the tackle, as it is by players holding onto the ball closely to their chest to create a stoppage?

[bornadog]

You don’t think arms being pinned is as significantly influenced by technique and strength in the tackle, as it is by players holding onto the ball closely to their chest to create a stoppage?

Sure, all goes hand in hand so to speak