Collingwood to play Dublin!!!!!

[his holiness nb]

The AFL footballers are not dirty savages who are out to do damage to their opponents each and every week.
They would not dare execute any of the indiscretions they committed in IR in their own game. The reason being that they would get the sort of sanctions that are now being proposed for future IR games.

the only reason they behaved like they did in the IR, was because they could.

To be honest, if it takes the threat of sanctions or loss of salary for them to partake in a game without resorting to the sort of violence we saw last year, then yes, they are dirty savages.

[Hardy]

Western exile, I'm afraid you must have completely misread the central point of my post. To repeat, it is a fundamental worry about the dangers of pitting amateurs who don't know the first thing about how to tackle and be tackled against professionals who are experts at it. My point is that it's dangerous per se, even when tackles are executed within the rules. Geraghty's near-broken neck was a watershed for me. I don't think it was a dirty tackle, at least within the AR context (though no doubt the lad hit as hard as he could, as they had promised Geraghty). The point is that Geraghty wasn't braced for a hit like that as he would naturally be if he was used to and trained for the tackle.

I applaud your reasoned defence of AR - obviously you're passionate about the game and you're right about my ignorance of it. I do think it's unlikely that the clubs will expose their top players to the risk of suspension from their own competitions and so are unlikely to allow them to declare for the international team. But I could be wrong - what do you think?

My 'savages' remark was a throwaway and I'd withdraw it if it wasn't for your own confirmation, as pointed out by His Holiness, that the reason the Aussie players behaved like a thuggish rabble was because they knew they could get away with it. That seems to me to define savage behaviour.

[western exile]

it is a fundamental worry about the dangers of pitting amateurs who don't know the first thing about how to tackle and be tackled against professionals who are experts at it.

I take your point there. 
However, if the tackles are executed within the rules by these professionals there is extra danger to what would be expected from any contact sport.  And yes, the tackle on Geraghty would have been illegal in Australian Rules too. And the offender would have been put on report and would have had to face a tribunal on the following monday night, from which he could have received a suspension. Of course, amending / improving the rules and sanctions of International Rules is only half the battle. The referrees must enforce them strongly and fairly, and not like the weak effort of the last test series.

Re savages?  Is every Irishman, that participated in any of the 'free for all' that happened at club championship games up and down this island over the last few years, civilised?  Remove efficient and fair refereeing from any Gaelic Football game and then count the savages!

I do enjoy Australian Rules.  When you see enough of it you can see its origins in Gaelic Football. But I enjoy Gaelic Football much more.
And I have also followed footballers to World cups and enjoyed supporting a green jersey.  And the only opportunity for me, and many other Irishmen like me, to see and shout for the footballers we really admire wearing a national jersey is through the IR series.  And the game is good. Much more competitive and exciting than soccer or rugby (if they stick to the rules  ). And the players do want it. Not one of them had a gun to their heads to play. And many more went to trails in the hope that they could represent their country.  I won't go on and on about all the pros of giving the IR another chance........
The only reason that I would put forward for not doing having it, is the bleeding of young football talent down under that has started.

Re the clubs not releasing their players?  I don't think that will be too much of an issue (though no doubt they will complain).  Already the players leave their clubs  mid-season to play for their State of Origin in a representative competition e.g. Victoria v. South Australia  v. West Australia etc.    Not wanting your player to get injured representing your country is one thing,  but not wanting a suspension would not be much of an excuse if the same rules of suspension are applied to every game they play

[Tiger Craig]

[ And yes, the tackle on Geraghty would have been illegal in Australian Rules too. And the offender would have been put on report and would have had to face a tribunal on the following monday night, from which he could have received a suspension. ...

Re the clubs not releasing their players?  I don't think that will be too much of an issue (though no doubt they will complain).  Already the players leave their clubs  mid-season to play for their State of Origin in a representative competition e.g. Victoria v. South Australia  v. West Australia etc.    Not wanting your player to get injured representing your country is one thing,  but not wanting a suspension would not be much of an excuse if the same rules of suspension are applied to every game they play

Actually the tackle on Gerathy would have been legal in Aussie Rules - depending on the individual umpire, possibly a free kick, but nothing more.

Also, State of Origin no longer exists - it died about 10 years ago. Guess why? The clubs wouldn't release their players.

There is no way known that clubs will release players who may be sent off for something legal in AFL (eg a solid hip & shoulder) which will see them suspended from AFL games.

Especially when the GAA players are effectively exempt from any punishment.

It is also within the AFL clubs interest to see the links die so they have no regulation on recruiting.

[Gnevin]

[ And yes, the tackle on Geraghty would have been illegal in Australian Rules too. And the offender would have been put on report and would have had to face a tribunal on the following monday night, from which he could have received a suspension. ...

Re the clubs not releasing their players?  I don't think that will be too much of an issue (though no doubt they will complain).  Already the players leave their clubs  mid-season to play for their State of Origin in a representative competition e.g. Victoria v. South Australia  v. West Australia etc.    Not wanting your player to get injured representing your country is one thing,  but not wanting a suspension would not be much of an excuse if the same rules of suspension are applied to every game they play

Actually the tackle on Gerathy would have been legal in Aussie Rules - depending on the individual umpire, possibly a free kick, but nothing more.

Also, State of Origin no longer exists - it died about 10 years ago. Guess why? The clubs wouldn't release their players.

There is no way known that clubs will release players who may be sent off for something legal in AFL (eg a solid hip & shoulder) which will see them suspended from AFL games.

Especially when the GAA players are effectively exempt from any punishment.

It is also within the AFL clubs interest to see the links die so they have no regulation on recruiting.

Every "tackle" no matter how outrageous seems to be acceptable in the Aussie game when its occurs in IR, its strange then what any games i've watched i've never seen the like of it and far less is given as a free ,some of these tackle wouldn't be acceptable on a Rugby Pitch ! The Clotheslining in the 06 series was defended by this argument too.

[Tiger Craig]

FFS - no one argues that the clothesline was illegal. Those sort of things should be penalised in both games.

BUT, if you really care about what is allowed in AFL, read Law 15.4 (some of which is below)

The only way the Gerathy tackle could be penalised would be under 15.4.5 (k) - however in AFL terms Gerathy had not "disposed" of the ball, as he simply dropped it.

The bump on Coulter would have been legal, as under Law 15.4.5 (n) a front on bump is only illegal if the players head is down over the ball.

Some of the AFL clubs have already come out and said that while they are not against suspensions for players who are guilty of grave misconduct, they don't support suspensions for players who have not breached AFL standards.

15.4.3 Permitted Contact
Other than the Prohibited Contact identified under Law 15.4.5, a
Player may make contact with another Player:
(a) by using his or her hip, shoulder, chest, arms or open hands
provided that the football is no more than 5 metres away from
the Player;
(b) by pushing the other Player with an open hand in the chest or
side of the body provided that the football is no more than 5
metres away from the Player;
(c) by executing a Correct Tackle;
(d) by executing a Shepherd provided that the football is no more
than 5 metres away from the Player; or
(e) if such contact is incidental to a marking contest and the Player
is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark the football.

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where he or
she is satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an
opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he
or she:
(a) makes contact with any part of his or her body with an
opposition Player;
(i) above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders
or bump to the head); or
(ii) below the knees.

(b) pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact
is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately
Marking or attempting to Mark the football;
(c) holds an opposition Player who is not in possession of the
football;
(d) pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or
deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player,
who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;
(e) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player when
the football is further than 5 metres away from the opposition
Player or is out of play;
(f) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player who is
contesting a bounce or throw by a field Umpire or boundary
throw in;
(g) charges an opposition Player;
(h) trips or attempts to trip an opposition Player, whether by the
use of hand, arm, foot or leg;
(i) kicks or attempts to kick an opposition Player, unless contact
is accidentally made whilst the Player is Kicking the football;
(j) strikes or attempts to strike an opposition Player, whether by
hand, fist, arm, knee or head;
(k) holds or throws an opposition Player after that Player has
disposed of the ball;
(l) engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in the
circumstances is unreasonable; or
(m) kicking or attempting to Kick the ball in a manner likely to
cause injury.
(n) bumps or makes forceful contact to an opponent from front-on
when that player has his head down over the ball.
Note:
- a player can bump an opponent's body from side-on but any
contact forward of side-on will be deemed to be front-on;
- a player with his head down in anticipation of winning
possession of the ball or after contesting the ball will be
deemed to have his head down over the ball for the purposes
of this law.

[Gnevin]

FFS - no one argues that the clothesline was illegal. Those sort of things should be penalised in both games.

I think you'll find that bigfootie.com where loving it at the time and all claimed it was a legal move and we've got the blind refs the aussie sent over every year .

[optimus euhregab]

rumour has it the aussies are lookin after some cub Thomas MC keever from Coleraine in derry. hes a horse of a lad and has a good eye for the score. shud be interesting to see wat comes of this.