This is the right decision, and is what Maynard should have gotten.

If your action turns into a bump regardless of your intent, it's a bump - Maynard may have tried to smother but his ultimate action was a bump. Likewise with Wright - he initially wanted to contest the mark but instinctually moved to protect himself by adopting a bumping posture midair.

 

2 hours ago, Chook said:

This is the right decision, and is what Maynard should have gotten.

If your action turns into a bump regardless of your intent, it's a bump - Maynard may have tried to smother but his ultimate action was a bump. Likewise with Wright - he initially wanted to contest the mark but instinctually moved to protect himself by adopting a bumping posture midair.

Spot on.

No one wants to see players suspended for simply contesting possession, but the message from the tribunal is now clear.

Anyone who leaves the ground at speed and then braces for shoulder-to-head contact is going to spend a few weeks on the sideline.

Apart from boxing, where the specific object is to knock your opponent unconscious, every contact sport around the world is now aware of the threat of legal action if the head is not protected.
 

What drives me nuts is how agreeable the media is with this decision and yet were nowhere to be seen with Maynard’s hit. Nobody was prepared to stick their neck out, which has to say something. 

 

30 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

They’re lucky he didn’t get 2 weeks. Ridiculous challenge. 

Any word on whether we will challenge the Rivers charge?  Rozee clearly threw himself backwards (even Kane Cornes called it out) and there is no way Rivers should cop a fine for it. 

35 minutes ago, Vipercrunch said:

Any word on whether we will challenge the Rivers charge?  Rozee clearly threw himself backwards (even Kane Cornes called it out) and there is no way Rivers should cop a fine for it. 

The AFL have introduced more stringent analysis and findings around tackles this year. From the tribunal guidelines:

"The application of a tackle may be considered Rough Conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the  application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence and whether  the offence is Careless or Intentional, without limitation, regard may be  had to the following factors, whether:

» The tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether  the Player being tackled is in possession of the ball;

» The tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle  or a tackle where a Player is lifted off the ground;

» The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (e.g. arm(s) pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself;

» An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force (for example, a run down tackle where the tackled player is driven into the ground with excessive force)."

Even if the club tried to argue that the tackle was not excessive, or the point of contact i.e. Careless -> Low Impact and Body contact rather than High contact (as graded for Trent), the outcome is still likely to be a fine. The club will take it out of the post season trip fund and move on.

Sort of related to us, I was watching the highlights of the Hawthorn/Geelong game and saw Tom Stewart laid out from a Mabior Chol knee to the back of the head. It got me thinking, after he cleaned up May as well, that he's got a bit of form. Can see the AFL making an example of him at some point for an excessive hit on an opponent. Would like to see this trained out of him a bit (leading with his knees).

I don’t know if it’s been raised here, or even if it’s worth raising, but shouldn’t Soldo’s (it was him, wasn’t it?) head-on with Max have been looked at by the panel (or was it?). No damage was done, but it was a late tackle and he did launch himself into the air before colliding with Max… so if they are serious about removing these kinds of tackles from the game, shouldn’t he at least have been fined for the action (like they did with Rivers)? It should not just be all about the outcome!!

Edited April 2, 20241 yr by hardtack

1 hour ago, In Harmes Way said:

The AFL have introduced more stringent analysis and findings around tackles this year. From the tribunal guidelines:

"The application of a tackle may be considered Rough Conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the  application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence and whether  the offence is Careless or Intentional, without limitation, regard may be  had to the following factors, whether:

» The tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether  the Player being tackled is in possession of the ball;

» The tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle  or a tackle where a Player is lifted off the ground;

» The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (e.g. arm(s) pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself;

» An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force (for example, a run down tackle where the tackled player is driven into the ground with excessive force)."

Even if the club tried to argue that the tackle was not excessive, or the point of contact i.e. Careless -> Low Impact and Body contact rather than High contact (as graded for Trent), the outcome is still likely to be a fine. The club will take it out of the post season trip fund and move on.

They have made this all so wordy that it takes a lawyer to even determine what it means. 
Plenty of wriggle room for 💩#4Magpie, or any of his teammates to take before an appeals board once again selectively  lead by someone very clearly with zero interest in a conviction 

55 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

Sort of related to us, I was watching the highlights of the Hawthorn/Geelong game and saw Tom Stewart laid out from a Mabior Chol knee to the back of the head. It got me thinking, after he cleaned up May as well, that he's got a bit of form. Can see the AFL making an example of him at some point for an excessive hit on an opponent. Would like to see this trained out of him a bit (leading with his knees).

They desperately need to clarify the use of the knee in a contest. Chol and 🕶️ are cheating exponents of this.  Should be at least a free very time, a 50 in case of a mark, and several week if head contact is bless clearly incidental. 

 

 

5 hours ago, In Harmes Way said:

The AFL have introduced more stringent analysis and findings around tackles this year. From the tribunal guidelines:

"The application of a tackle may be considered Rough Conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the  application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence and whether  the offence is Careless or Intentional, without limitation, regard may be  had to the following factors, whether:

» The tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether  the Player being tackled is in possession of the ball;

» The tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle  or a tackle where a Player is lifted off the ground;

» The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (e.g. arm(s) pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself;

» An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force (for example, a run down tackle where the tackled player is driven into the ground with excessive force)."

Even if the club tried to argue that the tackle was not excessive, or the point of contact i.e. Careless -> Low Impact and Body contact rather than High contact (as graded for Trent), the outcome is still likely to be a fine. The club will take it out of the post season trip fund and move on.

The "without limitation" here rankles a bit, given how many things they've mentioned explicitly. 

If Baker had his eyes on the ball as part of attempting a mark then Richmond would have a case for appeal.

So Butters gets off? Right call or not? I think it introduces more confusion. I swear someone got suspended for a similar action last year. Was it Rankine? 

Just now, Gawndy the Great said:

So Butters gets off? Right call or not? I think it introduces more confusion. I swear someone got suspended for a similar action last year. Was it Rankine? 

More AFL consistent inconsistencies 🫣

I noted with usual dismay Corney Man telling his audience that Butters had no case to answer. Sure...he just incidentally knocked a player's head. I bet if the Buttman was playing in a Demon jumper, the Corney man's  perspective might waver not in the Buttman's favor. 

Compare the pair

 

Joke corrupt system. Cornes sets the agenda with "no case to answer" immediately and thats how it plays out.

15 minutes ago, Six6Six said:

Compare the pair

 

Watched them both and couldn’t tell you the difference. If anything with today’s currency, Butters gets a week more than Hunter. 

2 minutes ago, SPC said:

Watched them both and couldn’t tell you the difference. If anything with today’s currency, Butters gets a week more than Hunter. 

I can’t seems to find the Butters’ one. 

7 hours ago, monoccular said:

I can’t seems to find the Butters’ one. 

It was on the AFL site. 

11 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

So Butters gets off? Right call or not? I think it introduces more confusion. I swear someone got suspended for a similar action last year. Was it Rankine? 

Lachie Hunter on Rozee

9 hours ago, SPC said:

Watched them both and couldn’t tell you the difference. If anything with today’s currency, Butters gets a week more than Hunter. 

Neither deserves a suspension imo but the inconsistency is stark again