SA Footy

Don't you love it when the MRP decides to make an example of someone? Darren Milburn was given a two week holiday for his tackle on Richmond's Shane Edwards on Saturday night. For those of you who didn't see it, the tackle was the same as the one applied by Matt Thomas on Nathan Bassett in the first showdown.

When the tackle happened, Channel seven started jumping up and down straight away about how Milburn might be in trouble and then when Harvey was tackled in a similar way against Port the MRP decided to be 'proactive' and cite Milburn even though Thomas got off scott free for the EXACT same thing.

There is little doubt that the tackle is a dangerous one but IMO this is another instance of changing the rules in the middle of the season based on a knee jerk reaction. Channel Seven got their man. Are they worried about the ratings for Friday night football this week (Melbourne vs. Geelong)?

I just hope the Cats don't challenge this as Milburn will then be given the original four weeks (one week off for recent good behaviour and another week off for an early plea). The worst thing about the cititation is that the contact was deemed high when the tackle was nowhere near the head.

regards,

REB

Milburn's tackle was worse.
Milburn span Edwards and then rode him into the ground during the tackle, therefore deemed negligent. The Thomas tackle on Basset was similar in the fact that the arms were pinned, but Thomas slid off of Basset to the side during the tackle, which means that the tackle and actions were not negligent.

I don't think that the MRP is making an example of Milburn either - didn't they first do that back in 06 (? possibly 07) when Byron Pickett tackled Kane Cornes at the MCG with his arms pinned, riding him into the ground and knocking him out?

However REB, I agree with you in that I don't think the tackle was worth the original four weeks. It is worth one or two games only, which would have meant Milburn would have escaped with only carry over points and free to play this week. It does seem stiff for getting suspended for what would have 5 years ago, been deemed a good tackle.

One thing for sure,Milburn knew that the ball had been dislodged in the tackle and chose to pulverise the guy anyway.Could Thomas have been as certain? Probably.
Could Surjan have been certain Harvey had got rid of the ball? Probably not.

For mine the MRP got it right on the Milburn and Surjan ones and probably got the Thomas one wrong earlier in the year.

I have just looked at the incident, given the ball was well away and Milburn continued on with the tackle a report was justified, I've heard he now has one game suspension which I think is fair.

Booney wrote:One thing for sure,Milburn knew that the ball had been dislodged in the tackle and chose to pulverise the guy anyway.Could Thomas have been as certain? Probably.
Could Surjan have been certain Harvey had got rid of the ball? Probably not.

For mine the MRP got it right on the Milburn and Surjan ones and probably got the Thomas one wrong earlier in the year.

Fair call. If Thomas got rubbed out I could understand the same thing happening to Milburn. He got one week after the Cats challenged the ruling as Milburn got points for 'high contact' when there was none. Expect this sort of tackle to draw regular suspensions from now on. I have no problem with Surjan not being cited.

regards,

REB