It's like the bump, if you elect to bump and you hit the head you're in trouble, regardless of how well you execute the bump.

If you pin the arms when tackling, and they were pinned, and your opponent gets knocked out after his head hits the ground you're in trouble. If Gray wasn't concussed it'd be no problem. But he was concussed and Gibbs' tackle was the cause of that injury. It doesn't matter that his technique of restricting Gray's arms was very good, it matters that Gray got knocked out and ultimately subbed from the game because of Gibbs' actions.

Some might believe it to be "soft", or that the game is "bowing to media pressure", but unless you've been in hibernation for the last few years you can't have missed the fact that the AFL is serious about protecting players from head injuries. You don't have to like it, but that's the way the game is being treated now.

I do think a 3 week suspension (down to 2 with the early plea) is harsh in comparison with other offences, but as I've said, if the price of our players tackling hard for four quarters is an isolated case here and there where a player gets suspended then so be it. I'd rather have that problem and a reputation that we're tough to play against than watching our players be weak at the contest and letting their opponents run free.

Gibbs being out for 2 weeks will have no material effect on our season. Let's embrace the fact that Gibbs showed some balls and hope he does it again and again and again.

In isolation I have no issue with the suspension. If you elect to pin the arms and sling your opponent then you're responsible for the outcome....in this case, concussion.

The issue as always with anything the AFL and tribunal do, will be consistency.

If Fyfe or Rioli perform the same tackle, with the same outcome between now and the end of the season, will they receive the same penalty?

]
So in the nba if u dunk on someone and fall on them you should be suspended? It is bs, this idea that you can do something, but if you hurt the other player you are suspended. It is bs. Dont agree with it. It is the crapest thought process ever invented. Where does this stop? The game is soft enough without this.

you cannot tackle anyone to the ground anymore. Maybe we play touch football.

Wow, as far as sports "journalism" goes that's actually a pretty good piece from RoCo.

I liked this part:



He ran, he ran so far away,
Opponents couldn't get away!

This is a stupid analogy. Gibbs didn't accidentally fall on Gray. Gibbs tackled and that tackle drove Gray's head (and with the weight of Gibbs behind it) into the turf and knocked him out.

And the game is not soft.

But the brain can be damaged, tragically so, irreversibly so, and it is damaged with constant collisions and these men will allow that to occur because we teach them that getting your head driven into the turf is tough when it isn't. Toughness is about overcoming fear and given these footballers overcome their fear numerous times we need to try and protect their future selves, especially their fragile brains,

so

either rule out contact altogether

or headgear for all and diminish contact a lot more

or

when that contact then leads to a head high collision the person initiating the contact needs to be penalized to try and eradicate (as much as possible in this sport) such occurrences.

seriously get over it - or better yet, go run your head into a brick wall a few times to feel tough.

Just reading some of the comments about Gibbs' suspension on the Carlton instagram feed.

If I ever feel bad that the level of disucssion and average TC poster is not up to scratch a quick visit to social media soon gives me a bit of perspective.

Oh boy wowee!

Bell does the same tackle all the time. He should be suspended too.

What about when Levi flies for one of those pack busting grabs; his knee hits an opponent in the head and knocks him out.
If the head is sacrosanct shouldn't he be suspended?

Could someone please answer this?

someone called into to Kb today and asked this, the marking contest is pure accident and unavoidable where the gibbs tackle was deemed as 2 actions with the sling

But doesn't Levi have the same duty of care as Gibbs?
If he chooses to fly for a mark with his knee up, he'd be aware of the potential outcome, and contact is not unavoidable in that situation.
Gibbs didn't intend to knock Gray out; it was an accidental outcome off the tackle.... Was it not?
I still don't see the difference. Either the head is sacrosanct or it's not.
Gibbs had him around the waist!

can we try a bit of sense.

Gibbs tackled him, then he made sure of it (Sling, swing who cares, Gray was a goner with that second action of Gibbs. I'm happy that given he knocked Gray out he's gone for 2 weeks. We know there are repercussions to brain hits, so we have to try and add some protection. Is it perfect no, but stop trying to argue it should be because then you'd get no contact at all. None us want that so all we can do is try and lessen the number of incidents. Is there a a grey area (sorry couldn't help myself)? Of course there is...All Law should have grey areas otherwise there is no justice, only punishment. I am happy though for the AFL to try and protect the head as much as possible. If it was Gibbs (or better yet Cripps) who was knocked out in such a tackle I am sure we'd see it differently.