Tex Walker's vicious act

[JTR 2,844]

Oh yay, another weekend speculating about what the MRP may or may not too.

Would we even be talking about this and the perceived "viciousness" if we weren't playing them next week?

[daisycutter 29,429]

24 minutes ago, JTR said:

Oh yay, another weekend speculating about what the MRP may or may not too.

Would we even be talking about this and the perceived "viciousness" if we weren't playing them next week?

probably not

[McQueen 17,864]

42 minutes ago, JTR said:

Oh yay, another weekend speculating about what the MRP may or may not too.

Would we even be talking about this and the perceived "viciousness" if we weren't playing them next week?

Imagine if JJ had been knocked out?

This thread would've started last night.

[DemonOX 8,733]

If it were an MFC player who did this they would get 4 weeks but cause it's not will either be 2 down to one or a fine. 

[Pates 9,626]

To me Tex's was more about shielding the goal through and JJ went into the post because of a combination of Tex's bump and him being off balance. Tex also showed remorse, compared to Hodge who claims innocence when he lined Wingard up. Should've been at least 3 weeks that one, it was such a dangerous act. 

I think Tex will get away with nothing answer, but I'll be happy for him to get a week! 

[praha 11,217]

He'll get off. clearly trying to shield the ball through and was trying to nudge him off the ball. If it was anywhere else on the field it wouldn't be an issue..not his fault the post was there.

[DaveyJones'sLocker 647]

I think he probably has no case to answer. Do I remember the AFL saying they want harsher penalties for players who get pushed into the boundary fence etc.? 

Being a high profile player it will be left alone for now no doubt, but somthing like this from a a fringe player in the future will most likely get 1-2 weeks. 

[monoccular 17,345]

5 hours ago, daisycutter said:

except it wasn't a legitimate shepherd. it was a definite push in the back. plus it was after the ball had passed the goal post. then you have to factor in the duty of care. he obviously knew where the goal post was as he was directly facing it. no doubt the mrp will look at it. i think he is in trouble but i have little faith in the mrp's objectivity 

 

1 hour ago, DaveyJones'sLocker said:

I think he probably has no case to answer. Do I remember the AFL saying they want harsher penalties for players who get pushed into the boundary fence etc.? 

Being a high profile player it will be left alone for now no doubt, but somthing like this from a a fringe player in the future will most likely get 1-2 weeks. 

"Duty of care" seems to vary week to week, player to player and club to club.

MRP is as someone said above, a chook lottery 

 

[spirit of norm smith 15,487]

Unduly rough play. 3weeks. Intentional. High impact. Reduce to 2 weeks if pleads guilty. 

Walker is guilty

[Rob Mac...... 635]

44 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Unduly rough play. 3weeks. Intentional. High impact. Reduce to 2 weeks if pleads guilty. 

Walker is guilty

I agree with you Norm and Daisycutter  

Praha posted above that anywhere else on the field Tex's bump wouldn't have been anything and it's not Tex's fault the goal post was there. 

 

But Tex is a skilled professional and the goal post WAS there, Tex knew it and failed his responsibility, failed his duty of care and engaged in unduly rough play.  

Should get a week or two, but who knows what they'll do.   

[Guest]

I reckon he will get somewhere between a commendation for sportsmanship for the apology and a life ban.

[deanox 9,770]

The outcome was not his intention. But:

a) it wasn't needed as the ball had already gone passed and such contact was unexpected;

b) he DID do it;

c) the act had significant potential to do harm.

 

As far as I'm concerned it is worth 2 weeks on that basis. 

[Adzman 2,154]

If Bugg pushed someone into the post he would get 3 weeks.......Tex will likely walk away with no suspension.

[deelete my account 1,194]

6 hours ago, Pates said:

To me Tex's was more about shielding the goal through and JJ went into the post because of a combination of Tex's bump and him being off balance. Tex also showed remorse, compared to Hodge who claims innocence when he lined Wingard up. Should've been at least 3 weeks that one, it was such a dangerous act. 

I think Tex will get away with nothing answer, but I'll be happy for him to get a week! 

One factor also was JJ having the body of a pre-pubescent teenager. He was rag-dolled from barely a shove.

BTW Are we only discussing this in a new thread because we play Adelaide next week?

Edited July 8, 2017 by DominatrixTyson

[Red and Bluebeard 2,080]

1 hour ago, DominatrixTyson said:

One factor also was JJ having the body of a pre-pubescent teenager. He was rag-dolled from barely a shove.

BTW Are we only discussing this in a new thread because we play Adelaide next week?

You think there is some doubt? As we are playing them next week, my considered opinion is that he chose to bump late rather than shepherd, and ended up causing potentially great harm. Three weeks down to two. If he had done this to one of our blokes, then he is a scum-sucking !$#@$hole who deserves a season ban and probable delisting, if he survives the lynch mob after the game. Otherwise it is at worst a fine, and with a good bloke's discount, it comes down to "nothing to see here". Makes as much sense as anything else to do with the MRP ...

[BenJamin on Deesy St 805]

Walker has form with this type of cheap (some would say nasty) shot, having pushed Cat, Lonergan, into teammate Henderson last year. In that game, Lonergan went off with concussion and played no further part. Tex got off then, so will probably get off again.

[sue 9,058]

A bit off topic, but I note that JJ wasn't concussed because his head hit a padded goal post and not something hard.  I think that shows that the right sort of helmet will prevent concussion.  As I posted elsewhere the physics says this is possible, the problem to date has been finding a helmet material which doesn't have to be as thick as a goalpost pad!  

But there are reports that such a material does exist - sorry, I've lost the reference right now. I think someone posted something about such a helmet in the thread about concussion.

[monoccular 17,345]

Does Nathan Schmuk have some official role in the AFL?

If so seems that there is some sort of conflict of interest when he can on an official AFL site decree that Cotchin and Walker will get fines, Membrey 3 down to 2, and Greenwood one with an early plea.

I haven't followed closely, but do his predictions weigh up with those of the MRP - Much Random Panel?

 

[Demonland 70,469]

When you consider that Brent Maloney got weeks for an incident involving Jimmy Bartel when he didn't even hit him, it beggars belief that Walker would get off lightly here. If the AFL/MRP want to avoid sickening injuries from players hitting goal posts and/or fences, Walker requires some sort of sanction. 

[bush demon 2,013]

should be categorise as sneaky, medium impact. definitely doesn't deserve a Leigh Mathews statue outside the G as no post broken and the act was not behind the play.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

On 08/07/2017 at 0:56 PM, DemonAndrew said:

could get a week, could get two, could get off, might not even be cited

mrp chook lotto at it's finest! 

Or could get the worst outcome of the lot...a fine. The reason I say that it would be the worst outcome would be because a fine means he must be guilty of something. All he could be guilty of is deliberately or recklessly pushing him into a behind post. And if he's guilty of that, he should get 2 weeks.

Personally, I think he shouldn't get anything. I lean towards it being a not unreasonable bump in the course of play with an accidental and uncomfortable ending.

[Elwood 3184 1,298]

36 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Personally, I think he shouldn't get anything. I lean towards it being a not unreasonable bump in the course of play with an accidental and uncomfortable ending.

Except that if you look a the play you'll notice that the ball was already through the goals when he hit JJ which turns it into something more sinister than a mere accidental bump.

[DubDee 24,701]

A fine only!

at least membry got 2 weeks, that should hurt the saints

[Biffen 12,920]

Hodgey fined because he's a legend.

Teflon Luke.

[DaveyJones'sLocker 647]

19 minutes ago, DubDee said:

A fine only!

at least membry got 2 weeks, that should hurt the saints

I thought that was atleast 4 weeks down to 3 contact was severe! As one poster on BF wrote lucky it was grimes and not mills as he would be in the morgue!