This is awesome, but why isn’t the afl providing this? Surely the league would want to get on the front foot with this instead of leaving it to the media
People who have a go at him really don’t have any idea. He’s just following the processes instructed to him by the AFL. Same with the umpires, they are merely enforcing the rules made by the AFL. It’s the AFL who really should be the ones fronting the media, not the messenger
@Jaydoggie1 exactly, the biggest problem I think there is with all of it. He's so tightly bound by the table. If it's careless, high and severe it has to be 3 weeks, there's no other options for him.
Laura Kane, BT and now Michael Christian have all referenced the fact that only 7 of 18,000 tackles this season have resulted in suspension, as some sort of defence for the persistent punishment of 'dangerous' tackles. Surely this statement supports the majority sentiment that (1) we're tackling safer than ever, and (2) Bedford/Cameron's tackles are rare examples of sporting accidents that occur at a rate of 1 in almost 10,000. Punishing these tackles serves no purpose since they won't change how players tackle and therefore won't prevent future incidents, which is very much distinct from previous crackdowns on spear/sling/dumping tackles.
@@protoindoeuropeanThat he was. I will always remember that great Round 4 draw between Essendon and Carlton in 2011 where he says "Can he out run Fletcher. No siree"
Continually talks about 'The Action', but show me an example of a 'careless tackle' that didn't involve a conclusion or injury. Its clearly based on the result of injury. Dont pi$$ down our back and try tell us its raining.
Great to hear Michael’s view. I would prefer to have suspensions based on the act and not the outcome as the Bedford incident seems to purely based on the concussion.
Yes thought the same immediately, one is 100% controlled by the player, the other involves many variables and far less control - he undid a lot of good work right there.
The difference between chrisso's examples of bumping in the 90s and the Robbie Gray bryce gibbs tackles are that the offenders have chosen to perform an action that is intended to hurt someone. The Bedford and Cameron tackles were simply not intended to hurt and they were not careless at all. There are litterally hundreds of other tackles comparable to those that havent had head hits. they tried to hold their bodies safely and legally and the players fell in a way that accidentally meant they hit their heads. The simple fact is that this is a co tact sport, and players will accidentally hit their heads all of the time. You can't just suspend a player for tackling legally when they accidentally hit their head. The only 3 people in the country who think the Bedford and Cameron tackles as dangerous are Andrew Dillon, Laura Kane and Michael Christian. Hire people who actually understand the complexity of the game and the risk involved in playing that those who are drafted willing involve themselves in.
Why does the person being tackled not have a duty of care? Cameron’s tackle became dangerous because of the attempt to break the tackle. The bigger player lifted him and then Charlie had no control.
Christian talks about "Strong leadership" from the AFL. How is that possible when you have a Yes man like Dillon who listens to every lawyer and every adviser and cannot make a single decision himself? Christian just explained how he himself is ruining the game. So when the product is unwatchable just remember their are plenty of other sports where litigation hasn't ruined the game. These players get paid 10 times what the average person gets paid. You get paid for your health issues and now a bunch of greedy players want more and more. NRL is way more watchable and we are verging on being a version of soccer. What a complete joke.....basing rules on potential future lawsuits.
Vulnerable position and use of force….these terms are not in the public vernacular in regards to tackling. Interesting insight into the mechanics of how they are graded.
You’ve got a lawyer running the AFL. This is all about litigation, liability and keeping money in the AFLs pockets from retiring players suing them for not making the game for bed wetting sooks. It’s over, fucked, finished and will never be returned. As long as everyone is safe!
How many of the 18501 tackles were laid in the same way as Charlie Cameron's- but deemed satisfactory because the tackled player wasn't concussed. Making decisions on the outcome of the tackle is ridiculous.
another load of crock from the afl. Comparisons to the sling tackle and the bump are ridiculous, they can be seen as malicious acts with potential to cause injury, whilst tackling is a non-negotiable aspect of the game that does not carry the inherent danger, tackles are entirely outcome based and luck of the draw on whether or not the head hits the ground. The technique that viney showed is very similar to the hip drop tackle and could very easily lead to an increase in serious lower leg injures
Im seeing a lot of players faking by throwing their head into the turf during a tackle. Stephen May from Melbourne did a really obvious one a couple of weeks ago, but I have seen several more that were much more discreet.
19000 tackles this year; 6 have resulted in suspension. To any non-triggered, non-hysterical, rational person, all the carryon and handwringing largely by Ex-players was so patently irrational and the worst type of specious, slippery slope reasoning
What a load of crap. I remember that Gibbs on Gray tackle. It was a joke back then that he got suspended, and it is just as bad today. Some out there might not be aware that this crap has crept into our game in the last 10 years, but I have noticed it.
He makes an interesting point about 1 in every 2600 tackles is reportable and then from there not all of them end up with a sanction. Sometimes we need to zoom out to see what's really happening. I worked in an industry where once a month someone received a dog bite which seemed excessive but when zooming out it was one in every 40 000 interactions. The size of the sample and what you measure it against can have a profound effect on the way we view it. I am not saying things are right or wrong here, but it has given me some perspective - great interview.
@@aussieintexas61 For everyone they get wrong the real numbers increase - remove 2 from the 7 he mentioned, and it becomes closer to 3600 - But I think the thing people miss here is being cited by the MRO doesn't mean you are guilty - it means there is something there to test, of course MC thinks that he got it right, just like a lawyer making their case thinks they have it right. But the test showed they got it wrong, all that tells me is the system is working. MC determines (by a set criteria) if something needs to be tested. It gets tested and a determination is made. I don't think the system is perfect, but I am also not convinced we can get a perfect system.
This interview was far too soft and Christian needed to be taken to task here. The game belongs to the people and its fans, not a handful of bureaucrats making decisions for the football public based on their own judgements and which will forever change the game. Firstly, his judgement this week was seriously brought in to question by being found out to be flawed in reasoning. That's an embarrassment and we, the football public, deserve to question those who are making these judgements. Secondly, Christian has a long history of highly questionable calls and which lack reason or logic. Many things in this interview should concern the football public, none more so than Christian stating that if the same 2 tackles happened this coming weekend, that he would hold strong on his view that both players should be suspended for 3 weeks. Clearly he has no ability to understand why his decisions were incorrect or why his reasoning was flawed. Christian has long overstayed in his position, and most employees with his workplace performance would not have survived.
He’s the wrong person to be asking mate, he’s only enforcing the rules made by the AFL. Laura Kane and Andrew Dillon are the ones who should be fronting the media about this. Also he wasn’t the reason that the two players got off, it was the tribunal who screwed that up
@@Jaydoggie1 You are defending the indefensible. His eyes were on it first, he decided that both players should be suspended for 3 weeks, and nobody understands what vision he was looking at to arrive at those conclusions. He also said he would make the same decision again if identical situations arose this week, despite the findings of the appeal. He doesnt get it and he has a long history of terrible and illogical MRO calls. This interview would give nobody confidence that the game is in good hands, the most hilarious part is where he suggests Jujitsu moves are now required for the players to implement on the tackled player and in order to avoid suspension......Completely detached from any logic and these perceptions and judgements are being made by people who are sitting in their warm offices, so far removed from whats actually happening on the field and so far removed from the fans and supporters. He has to go, along with a few others and we need a Kerry Packer to step in soon because it's obvious to anyone paying attention that they are deliberately directing us towards a non-contact game, emotionless and lifeless.
There are 4 field umpires on the field now, if one of them can't see any offence then there should be not action taken by the MRO - if its not reported, it didnt happen. If player safety is paramount and number 1 priority, why hasn't the AFL mandated helmets for all players ? If the player doesnt want to wear a helmet, he signs a waiver which then exonerates the AFL and / club of any accountability if concussion related injury occurs.
This Michael Christian needs to go, he is like a stale old victorian piece of meat, has been in the job too long, and that can lead to a corrupted situation, this guy will let players from victorian clubs off, (Maynard) other clubs with be punished, investigate him and it will come out in the wash. $$$$$$$$
@@samantha-jane4424so your saying that players do need to decade years of their life to perfecting perfect jui jitsu technique in order to avoid suspension? Quite literally this is what Michael has just stated on the public record. Max Viney is a black belt and has dedicated 15+ years to the craft. To execute that tackle as max did in the heat of the moment you would need to practise jui jitsu everyday for hours for at least 5 years. How is that a reasonable expectation for players when professional MMA fighters don’t even have these requirements?
Get rid of umpires, get the players to sign a waiver, and friggin STOP MESSING WITH THE BLOODY GAME, anyway that ain’t gonna occur so watching AFL is a past hobby as it’s unwatchable for many reasons
Even if the players (teenagers) did sign a waiver, it would never stand up in court. The idea that players would be able to sign waivers that would be meaningful in court comes from a point of ignorance. The AFL has to get used to the fact that they are going to lose some of their profits to players who have been injured playing the game that makes them profitable. The AFL are scared of the amounts that could be paid out in the future, they may be enormous, say in fifteen, twenty, fifty years time. The AFL is preparing for the future. At the moment they are just playing with the boundaries of the game and seeing how the fans etc. will take it.
And the game you played was not the game people played 30 years before you played the game and so on. The game would be unrecognizable to fans from the 1920s, just saying. The players today are not the "men" of the 60s, 70s, 80s, and the 90s, they are better physical specimens, but they are in the main not as mentally tough or thuggish as men were back in the day. I doubt you would see a Gary Ablett Sr, better player than his son by a long way, being able to play the way he used to, he was a monster, he caused physical fear in other players, he was a truly awesome sight in action. Plus, Dermot Brereton would not be able to do his stuff today either, and players like him shouldn't be allowed to play, Dermie was a sicko, I like the guy, but on the field. The AFL are banking on dinosaurs like us will die soon, and the younger generations will like their version of tickle ball.
What a clown. Mentioning 80000 tackles occurring is irrelevant. Maybe mention the instances when someone gets hurt versus when the suspensions have occurred. I can't think of one where they have accepted it as an accident. They are only interested when someone gets hurt and to have someone punished for it. As for the bump, it isn't a football act, you don't get a stat for it and it's not a necessary defensive action in the game. Its not comparable. And That Max Viney video is ridiculous. I thought we weren't sliding in with the legs. Lastly, pinning the arms. Isn't that the purpose of a tackle so your opponent can't handball the ball out? How hard is it really?Just go back to sanctioning the technique : 2 actions/slings/spears and not the result
clueless. He wants the sport to be tag. Bedford was a standard tackle. And as it goes on shows he is nothing but a VFLer that went after non vics, while protecting players like Dangerfield.
