Skip to main content
Topic: Prespakis charged for tackle on Sarah Hosking - Appeal fails - 1 week suspension (Read 472 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Prespakis charged for tackle on Sarah Hosking.

Reply #15
Wasnt the charge medium impact, high contact..? the player went off too?
I'm not saying MaddieP was guilty but its all about the look of the game especially in a new brand you are trying to sell.....

Maddie laid a textbook tackle on Sarah.  Sarah’s momentum caused her to somersault and land on her shoulder.  Sarah was taken off for a concussion test after a second tackle by Maddie.  She passed the test and returned to play and even spoke to the boundary rider about how she was good to go.

One camera angle does suggest that there’s intent in Maddie’s tackle but the other angle shows that there was nothing to it.

I doubt whether Maddie would have been reported if Underwood had recanted after viewing the second lot of vision.

If the AFLW was concerned about the look of the game, Marinoff would never have had her suspension overturned after fracturing Brid Stack’s neck.

“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: Prespakis charged for tackle on Sarah Hosking.

Reply #16
But it has to be a high tackle, you can't just label an event that for political or personal purposes!

Prespakis tackle was nothing of the sort, she actually ended up underneath Sarah Hosking for the initial impact!

For the purposes of sling tackles or double movement tackles (Maddie did have a slight second movement to ramp up the force) the contact in question includes contact made by the ground.

The logic behind that is you could essentially spear tackle/pile drive people without a penalty because all the force and damage was made by the ground.

....and the duty of care is on the tackler

Re: Prespakis charged for tackle on Sarah Hosking.

Reply #17
I'm glad the club is challenging the suspension.

Momentum played a big part in this. It was not careless as Maddie cannot be expected to factor in momentum... medium impact is again not Maddie's responsibility as momentum again played a major role, most tackles result in medium impact and the high contact was not from Maddie but from her opponent's momentum in the tackle. For mine the tackle was made 'dangerous' by the angle of tackle and momentum of the opponent, not from any carelessness, dangerousness or malice. Mind you, I am not a lawyer and am heavily biased!
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Prespakis charged for tackle on Sarah Hosking.

Reply #18
Nothing wrong with that tackle.

I thought it was a beauty.
I spent most of my money on Women and grog.
The rest I just wasted.

Re: Prespakis charged for tackle on Sarah Hosking.

Reply #19
Maddie laid a textbook tackle on Sarah.  Sarah’s momentum caused her to somersault and land on her shoulder.  Sarah was taken off for a concussion test after a second tackle by Maddie.  She passed the test and returned to play and even spoke to the boundary rider about how she was good to go.

One camera angle does suggest that there’s intent in Maddie’s tackle but the other angle shows that there was nothing to it.

I doubt whether Maddie would have been reported if Underwood had recanted after viewing the second lot of vision.

If the AFLW was concerned about the look of the game, Marinoff would never have had her suspension overturned after fracturing Brid Stack’s neck.


Fair point on the Brid Stack tackle, my issue is more how the AFL see the look of the game and a series of high contact/tackles what ever you want to call it each week with high profile players reported isnt a good look. You wouldnt have many parents pushing their kids into playing AFLW when they can choose basketball/netball or Cricket for example if that stuff is appearing on the sports reports on TV on a regular basis.

Re: Prespakis charged for tackle on Sarah Hosking.

Reply #20
Maddie laid a textbook tackle on Sarah.  Sarah’s momentum caused her to somersault and land on her shoulder.  Sarah was taken off for a concussion test after a second tackle by Maddie.  She passed the test and returned to play and even spoke to the boundary rider about how she was good to go.

One camera angle does suggest that there’s intent in Maddie’s tackle but the other angle shows that there was nothing to it.

I doubt whether Maddie would have been reported if Underwood had recanted after viewing the second lot of vision.
Further the second angle actually looks like Sarah pushed off trying to launch over Prespakis to release the footy. To me it looked the same in the second tackle, like Sarah's reflex is to jump into the tackler to free her arms, but it leaves her vulnerable to tipping, and nobody says anything about contacting the tackler high.

To me they can't let this happen, if they reward that technique they'll set a precedent that increases risk as players will milk the penalty, it is very similar to ducking the head and disturbingly there was an incident in which that was rewarded in the game as well.
The Force Awakens!

Re: Prespakis charged for tackle on Sarah Hosking.

Reply #21
Further the second angle actually looks like Sarah pushed off trying to launch over Prespakis to release the footy. To me it looked the same in the second tackle, like Sarah's reflex is to jump into the tackler to free her arms, but it leaves her vulnerable to tipping, and nobody says anything about contacting the tackler high.

To me they can't let this happen, if they reward that technique they'll set a precedent that increases risk as players will milk the penalty, it is very similar to ducking the head and disturbingly there was an incident in which that was rewarded in the game as well.

There was one where Stahle got a free kick after she headbutted Mua Laloifi.  There was another where the Tigers player "slipped" as she was trying to avoid a Breann Moody tackle and Breann's arm made contact with her neck.  Mua certainly felt the effect of the headbutt and, if anything, she should have been awarded the free.  The Moody free should have been play on.

Rewarding players for disregarding their own safety is not the answer.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: Prespakis charged for tackle on Sarah Hosking.

Reply #22
A travesty if she doesn't get off.
2017 - 16th
2018 - Wooden Spoon
2019 - 16th
2020 - dare to dream?
2021 - Pi$$ or get off the pot

Re: Prespakis charged for tackle on Sarah Hosking.

Reply #23
The Tribunal hearing will take place at 5.15pm AEDT on Wednesday.

Re: Prespakis charged for tackle on Sarah Hosking.

Reply #24
I just had a look at the replay and noted the following:

Kelli Underwood, after watching a replay of Maddie's tackle says, "That is dangerous ... almost a spear tackle Dicko."
Ben Dixon responds, "It was, it was ... the momentum ... it looks worse than it was."

Later in the quarter, Underwood is trying to blame Sarah's absence for the Blues getting back into the game and says "Quite dangerous spear tackle." to which Dixon responds, "... nothing untoward."

A spear tackle involves lifting one's opponent in the air, upending them and throwing them into the ground.  Maddie was actually half sitting when she tackled Sarah and Sarah's feet did not leave the ground until she somersaulted over Maddie's body, her momentum and Maddie's tackle both contributing to the somersault.

Commentators should have a responsibility to call the game accurately, and making up a "dangerous spear tackle" does not do justice to the game or the player involved.  Returning to EB's point about the look of the game, the AFLW should have a quiet word in Underwood's ear and let her know that sensationalising minor incidents is not on.

The other thing I noticed is that nearly four minutes went by before Sarah came off.  That suggests to me that Richmond's doctor wasn't concerned initially but only decided that Sarah should have a concussion test after watching a couple of replays of the incident - with or without Underwood's commentary?
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: Prespakis charged for tackle on Sarah Hosking.

Reply #25
I just had a look at the replay and noted the following:

Kelli Underwood, after watching a replay of Maddie's tackle says, "That is dangerous ... almost a spear tackle Dicko."
Ben Dixon responds, "It was, it was ... the momentum ... it looks worse than it was."

Later in the quarter, Underwood is trying to blame Sarah's absence for the Blues getting back into the game and says "Quite dangerous spear tackle." to which Dixon responds, "... nothing untoward."

A spear tackle involves lifting one's opponent in the air, upending them and throwing them into the ground.  Maddie was actually half sitting when she tackled Sarah and Sarah's feet did not leave the ground until she somersaulted over Maddie's body, her momentum and Maddie's tackle both contributing to the somersault.

Commentators should have a responsibility to call the game accurately, and making up a "dangerous spear tackle" does not do justice to the game or the player involved.  Returning to EB's point about the look of the game, the AFLW should have a quiet word in Underwood's ear and let her know that sensationalising minor incidents is not on.

The other thing I noticed is that nearly four minutes went by before Sarah came off.  That suggests to me that Richmond's doctor wasn't concerned initially but only decided that Sarah should have a concussion test after watching a couple of replays of the incident - with or without Underwood's commentary?

Well said. 👍 👌🏾
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Prespakis charged for tackle on Sarah Hosking.

Reply #26
I just had a look at the replay and noted the following:

Kelli Underwood, after watching a replay of Maddie's tackle says, "That is dangerous ... almost a spear tackle Dicko."
Ben Dixon responds, "It was, it was ... the momentum ... it looks worse than it was."

Later in the quarter, Underwood is trying to blame Sarah's absence for the Blues getting back into the game and says "Quite dangerous spear tackle." to which Dixon responds, "... nothing untoward."

A spear tackle involves lifting one's opponent in the air, upending them and throwing them into the ground.  Maddie was actually half sitting when she tackled Sarah and Sarah's feet did not leave the ground until she somersaulted over Maddie's body, her momentum and Maddie's tackle both contributing to the somersault.

Commentators should have a responsibility to call the game accurately, and making up a "dangerous spear tackle" does not do justice to the game or the player involved.  Returning to EB's point about the look of the game, the AFLW should have a quiet word in Underwood's ear and let her know that sensationalising minor incidents is not on.

The other thing I noticed is that nearly four minutes went by before Sarah came off.  That suggests to me that Richmond's doctor wasn't concerned initially but only decided that Sarah should have a concussion test after watching a couple of replays of the incident - with or without Underwood's commentary?

I did point out that it was just Kelli Underwood that called for Prespakis head. She was the first female commentator and IMO is by far the worst one. She calls the wrong players. Gets the rules wrong. Barracks. ....and she is just plain annoying to listen too IMO. Other female commentators or special comments girls are good. But i can't stand her.
/end rant.

When you rewatched...did you see the second hard tackle by prespakis on Hosking? She went off soon after that from memory.

Re: Prespakis charged for tackle on Sarah Hosking.

Reply #27
When you rewatched...did you see the second hard tackle by prespakis on Hosking? She went off soon after that from memory.

It was a solid tackle but probably not as hard as a couple that Maddie copped.  Sarah wasn’t inconvenienced in the slightest but was called off by the runner shortly after that tackle.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: Prespakis charged for tackle on Sarah Hosking.

Reply #28
It was a solid tackle but probably not as hard as a couple that Maddie copped.  Sarah wasn’t inconvenienced in the slightest but was called off by the runner shortly after that tackle.
Exactly.
She was called off AFTER the 2nd tackle.

Use that as evidence. She was fine until the 2nd tackle.
They can't charge her for the 2nd tackle now.....they've missed that window.

Re: Prespakis charged for tackle on Sarah Hosking.

Reply #29
....and yes Maddie copped a tackle just before the Hosking one from a sling that went unnoticed, despite her appealing to the umpire.