I can't believe this hasn't been discussed here. This decision to give Zeibell 4 weeks is a turning point in our game. Its pretty much saying that anything hard, tough or courageous is now illegal in our game. I can't believe he was even brought up on charges, two players going for a football, one arrives slightly late and connects with the other, but he was going for the footy the whole time.

What have they done to this once proud game??

All this shizen has occurred because of the so called 'what will the mums say group' who are these mums?? where r they??...just because 2-3 idiots call up a radio station and say i won't let me son play this sport because he could get hurt, all of a sudden we have to change our whole game.

I can understand and agree with being against the king hits and the sliding into heads rules, but if Jack Zeibell gets 4 weeks for what he did, then the game in my opinion has lost its most positive characteristic the thing that made it stand out amongst other sports.

PHYSICALITY.

Few folks been talking about this over in the Judd thread D2.

I think the issue for mind is that the game seems to be played twice now. Once on the field, and then once in the court of public opinion which also has the luxury of slow motion replays. From memory the umpire played no free kick in the incident (might be wrong about this?) but the incident has been scrutinized 1,000 times since and became something that it clearly wasn't when viewed in the context of the game. 4 weeks is a joke.

I can't believe this hasn't been discussed here. This decision to give Zeibell 4 weeks is a turning point in our game. Its pretty much saying that anything hard, tough or courageous is now illegal in our game. I can't believe he was even brought up on charges, two players going for a football, one arrives slightly late and connects with the other, but he was going for the footy the whole time.

What have they done to this once proud game??

All this shizen has occurred because of the so called 'what will the mums say group' who are these mums?? where r they??...just because 2-3 idiots call up a radio station and say i won't let me son play this sport because he could get hurt, all of a sudden we have to change our whole game.

I can understand and agree with being against the king hits and the sliding into heads rules, but if Jack Zeibell gets 4 weeks for what he did, then the game in my opinion has lost its most positive characteristic the thing that made it stand out amongst other sports.

PHYSICALITY.

Zeibell probably got 4 because he's got form and has done this type of thing before, one player going for the ball the other going for the man, I reckon he got his right wack. Since when has hitting a defencless man playing the ball been part of the game?

Judd vs Zeibell: One was a Football incident one was a non-football incident.

When a player oversteps the mark it should be addressed by the MRP system or tribunal...

But a indiscretion that happens within the parameters of the footballing activity, i.e. a football incident, must be less harshly viewed than a non-footballing incident.

I don't understand how someone who punches someone on the football field, an act totally out of context with the game, can usually get less than a guy who shirt-fronts someone.

Yes, a Pickett bump can deserve a severe reprimand...but actions which are outside the actual playing of football are just another level regardless of severity (primarily because there is no justification for the initial action) - i.e. Punches, throwing someone into a fence, "judd-like chicken wing" etc. etc.

Zeibell < Judd - One could at least pretend to be attempting to play a game of football, the other took an action which in the immediate time frame had no impact on the game - only sought to inflict pain

Zeibell probably got 4 because he's got form and has done this type of thing before, one player going for the ball the other going for the man, I reckon he got his right wack. Since when has hitting a defencless man playing the ball been part of the game?

hitting a defenceless man...they both jump at the ball...he was playing the ball not the man.

Looked like a legitimate attempt to mark the ball.

His only other option was to stand back & let the Carlton player take an uncontested mark.

To me it looked similar to the incident that injured Sylvia's back in the preseason. I can't understand why Ziebell gets 4 weeks and Butcher got none.

Looked like a legitimate attempt to mark the ball.

His only other option was to stand back & let the Carlton player take an uncontested mark.

It wasn't a mark it was a handball so I can't see why he would jump in to another player who had his head turned and would not have expected head high contact. Have another look at it, eyes on the player not on the ball, jumped in the air when he could have tackled him. Why did he jump in to him?

It appeared to me as a deliberate attempt to clean him up.

I think four is a little harsh, but keep in mind he actually got less it was his poor record and not accepting a guilty plea that lifted it to four.

Not sure why he had to jump at a player who was receiving a handball, should have just tackled him. Had he stayed on the ground, probably a non-event but he jumped and made head high contact.

The key point imo is that, while Zeibell was a fraction late, he had eyes only for the ball, and by the time he realised he would be second to the contest, it was impossible for him to pull out. Very rough justice to find him guilty, and an unreasonably harsh penalty imo ....... akin to the Trengove incident / penalty in the sense that it's the AFL trying to make a statement. Unfortunately, the cynic in me says that if Zeibell and Trengove were big name players at a Collingwood, Carlton etc, the outcomes may have been quite different.

The issue with this is the same issue that comes with just about every report nowadays. Injury report.

The bloke he collected was severely concussed, and that is all the evidence the MRP/tribunal need. His other problem was he had carry-over points and the 30% bad record weighted.

For me there are too many variables with this system, if the AFL can look me in the eye and tell me that the Wellingham hit isn't worse than the Zeibell then I'd call them liars. And yet they both were given the option of 3 weeks, of course the Pies were going to take that, but the Roos look at Jacks and say his intent was the ball and there was nothing malicious in it. If I was a north fan I'd want them to have a go at it. But he ends up getting worse than Wellingham because of the F-up system.

The other problem is the slow-motion replays making it seem like they have an eternity to make the call.

Edited July 18, 201213 yr by Pates

As I said the guy has form and her's another example of it. That's a dog act.

The issue with this is the same issue that comes with just about every report nowadays. Injury report.

The bloke he collected was severely concussed, and that is all the evidence the MRP/tribunal need. His other problem was he had carry-over points and the 30% bad record weighted.

For me there are too many variables with this system, if the AFL can look me in the eye and tell me that the Wellingham hit isn't worse than the Zeibell then I'd call them liars. And yet they both were given the option of 3 weeks, of course the Pies were going to take that, but the Roos look at Jacks and say his intent was the ball and there was nothing malicious in it. If I was a north fan I'd want them to have a go at it. But he ends up getting worse than Wellingham because of the F-up system.

The other problem is the slow-motion replays making it seem like they have an eternity to make the call.

How often do players leap in the air like that to intercept a handball? Methinks he had no intention of getting the ball only hurting the other player as he did with Roo.

If it happened to a Melbourne player I'd be calling for his Zeibell's, head on a plate and if a Melbourne player did it i'd expect him to get weeks.

If it was an attempted mark, I reckon he would have been okay, but because it was a handball, he should have been more cautious. The reason the penalty is so high is that he has a poor record.

Very clumsy attempt by Zeibell at intercepting.

Regardless of where his eyes were, it looks like he was trying to make maximum physical impact on his opponent while disguising it as an attempt to make the play. Resulted in severe concussion.

With 30% loading I think 4 matches was probably to be expected.

However, I agree that the MRP have been full of inconsistencies this year.

It wasn't a mark it was a handball so I can't see why he would jump in to another player who had his head turned and would not have expected head high contact. Have another look at it, eyes on the player not on the ball, jumped in the air when he could have tackled him. Why did he jump in to him?

[media=]

It appeared to me as a deliberate attempt to clean him up.

OK, I thought it was a marking attempt. Puts it in a whole different light.

Very clumsy attempt by Zeibell at intercepting.

Regardless of where his eyes were, it looks like he was trying to make maximum physical impact on his opponent while disguising it as an attempt to make the play. Resulted in severe concussion.

Sums it up perfectly.

Zeibell could have avoided doing what was a dog act and running through a player who had no protection.

These rule are in our game to stop snipers doing Byron Picket type acts out there. Zeibell is a prime candidate and we can see a trend happening here. The AFL have every right to protect the player with the ball.

What Zeibell did was not tough. he just lined up a player who had no chance to defend himself.

Don't know why North fans are outraged by this- no problems with it. If it was a marking attempt- in real time looks similar to the wellingham incident. How much did Wellingham recieve?

More intent in this one for mine, as there wasn't an attempt to punch the ball.

Yet Trengove gets 3 for a legal tackle. Will never let that one go, it's like our measuring stick

After seeing the incident a few times IMO I reckon he copped his right whack.

Both feet off the ground, no effort to punch the ball.

I'd have sympathy for him if he at least out an outstretched arm to fist the ball, but his intent was just to hurt Joseph.

Worse for him, he's got priors.

Edited July 18, 201213 yr by stinga81

We need to step back a bit and try and and understand what happens when going for the ball - the issue of timing is vital in this discussion.

When any sportsperson jumps - high jump, AFL, long jump, basketball - it is important to understand that it takes three steps to jump properly. If jumping off the left foot it is left, right left. Usually, the 1st step has is to set a strong foundation, the 2nd step is the one that gets underneath the jump and produces power, and the 3rd step is the launch.

The basic result of their launch is knowable by the 2nd step. It is from here there is no return. Players like Wellingham, Zeibel etc.. would have to know their challenge is going to be late by that 2nd step - biomechanics demands this. This is well prior to any impact and this is where the savagery of these incidents lies. Add to this that both these players also had time in mid-air to turn their body to protect themselves from impact but also produce the biggest impact. All this adds up to shows an intention that is way outside the spirit of our game.

No-one wants the grunt and the physical taken from our game - but I for one am sick of people taking cheap, unexpected shots and then claiming that it was incidental, not deliberate etc... Absolute rubbish. They know before they jump what is going to happen and they decide to go through with it. If that means they have to stop - then stop and just guard the mark or apply a tackle but don't take another player out with a cheap shot and then cry "I couldn't hep it".

Edited July 18, 201213 yr by Maldonboy38

It wasn't a mark it was a handball so I can't see why he would jump in to another player who had his head turned and would not have expected head high contact. Have another look at it, eyes on the player not on the ball, jumped in the air when he could have tackled him. Why did he jump in to him?

[media=]

It appeared to me as a deliberate attempt to clean him up.

Does Judd make contact (albeit light and accidental) with an umpire at about 0:16?

It wasn't a mark it was a handball so I can't see why he would jump in to another player who had his head turned and would not have expected head high contact. Have another look at it, eyes on the player not on the ball, jumped in the air when he could have tackled him. Why did he jump in to him?

[media=]

It appeared to me as a deliberate attempt to clean him up.

Completely agree with this. Ziebell could have pinned him with a great tackle knowing that he was going to be late to the contest. Instead he decided to jump with the intent of causing a collision which turned out to be pretty bloody forceful.

Not sure about the 4 weeks but given his form I suggest this was in an effort to influence his options in the future...

I think I'm seeing this slightly differently than some (and admittedly am disregarding his history and just judging the play as it happened).

I think he jumped as he thought he was getting a clearer run at the play than he did. I then think he turned his body when he realized contact was coming with Joseph. I don't think he intended not to hit him. I think he did. My issue is more that I guess I'd give him the benefit of the doubt in that context (being mid air) as it was a strange up and under hand pass that you rarely see for the reasons that Aaron Joseph's head clearly felt. I'd guess you could call it reckless, but 4 weeks seems insane when you look at the incident in isolation.

Interestingly the umpire who was 10 feet away clearly says to the players 'he was just going the footy' after the incident. My biggest concern with all this is that the game keeps being viewed out of context and I think it makes it very difficult on the players. I imagine it's quite disconcerting for the umpires as they are over ruled consistently.

I think I'm seeing this slightly differently than some (and admittedly am disregarding his history and just judging the play as it happened).

I think he jumped as he thought he was getting a clearer run at the play than he did. I then think he turned his body when he realized contact was coming with Joseph. I don't think he intended not to hit him. I think he did. My issue is more that I guess I'd give him the benefit of the doubt in that context (being mid air) as it was a strange up and under hand pass that you rarely see for the reasons that Aaron Joseph's head clearly felt. I'd guess you could call it reckless, but 4 weeks seems insane when you look at the incident in isolation.

Interestingly the umpire who was 10 feet away clearly says to the players 'he was just going the footy' after the incident. My biggest concern with all this is that the game keeps being viewed out of context and I think it makes it very difficult on the players. I imagine it's quite disconcerting for the umpires as they are over ruled consistently.

I understand what you're saying but the better option would have been a tackle to force a free or at least a spill and turnover.

Timing screwed JZ on this occasion.

And also I find this more time for going to the tribunal concept slightly odd. It implies guilt doesn't it? If you are found guilty at the tribunal you get more time because you went to the tribunal? It has nothing to do with the game. What, is the AFL short on administration funds?

Imagine if we had the same concept in the court system. Lindy Chamberlain would have been burnt at the stake 15 years before she was acquitted. (And yes I understand it's a different system. I'm simply make a point about the right to appeal, or in this case even have a trial).