Hit on Clarry

[Gorgoroth 13,019]

If the AFL were serious about this then one of two things need to happen.

One. (And prob the more likely) is someone presses charges or worksafe steps in and forces the AFL to act.

Two. And what they should do, simply state. Any striking action is a 1 week suspension minimum, we then look at force (1 week for low, 2 for medium, 3 for forceful, 4 for severe) and where the strike occurred to the opponent (1 for body area, 2 for head) and wether in play or behind play (1 for in play, 2 for off the ball, 3 for behind play.) 

So the minimum for hitting someone is 4 weeks. Watch it disappear out of the game. Real quick.

[BDA 22,882]

There's nothing tough or manly about blind siding someone with a cheap shot. It's quite cowardly actually. I can't for the life of me understand why it is tolerated. 

[dino rover 714]

Really? Dangerous or debilitating? Come on toughen up!

Clarry don’t give em anything

[BoBo 2,941]

I of course could be wrong here… but I have a sneaking suspicion that if Pendlebury hadn’t done this exact same thing a few weeks ago in which he only got a fine, Marlion would be getting a week. And then the footy media would be on their high horse about this being ‘poor example to kids’. Pendles though? Nah no worries. 
 

May as well mention this here but watch for this action in the granny this year. Why wouldn’t you do it? Target a couple players and get 10 different players to do this exact thing over a game. 
 

[Jaded No More 68,974]

The fact that the AFL lets this type of stuff go, and commentators laugh off this type of behaviour, is not lost on me as I watch yet another woman be killed at the hands of a man. 

We do not do enough to eradicate this type of [censored] “boys will be boys” behavior in footy, and it’s very much reflected in our society too. 
Punching someone in the guts off the ball should never be allowed. It does nothing for our game and it’s the easiest non football action to judge and punish players for. 
 

The Pendelbury defense of “I was provoked” is up there with the “she was asking for it” defense. Putrid. 

[Ethan Tremblay 30,966]

24 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

The Pendelbury defense of “I was provoked” is up there with the “she was asking for it” defense. Putrid. 

Not to get all legally.. but, provocation is a defence to common assault.

Edited April 26 by Ethan Tremblay

[DeelightfulPlay 2,559]

2 hours ago, gs77 said:

No mitigation for me - if he's not in a head space to take the field without assaulting people off the ball, he shouldn't be playing. 

It mitigated my temper, not the fact that assaulting people on the field should be penalised.  I reckon Marlion as a person has been let down by many people in his life (although apparently the RFC has been great in supporting him properly), long before the AFL's failure to determine whether he's in the right headspace or not to take to the field (or any other player looking for violence... eg Maynard)

[BoBo 2,941]

6 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Not to get all legally.. but, provocation is a defence to common assault.

Not in Victoria. It can only come into consideration upon sentencing.

[Wodjathefirst 2,653]

4 hours ago, monoccular said:

Houdini escaped more times than Charlie Cameron and Patrick Cripps have at the tribunal.  And he died of a ruptured appendix which was not all that uncommon in the 1920s.

Googled this. Apologies about font size.

Someone stepped into Harry Houdini's dressing room and sucker-punched the legendary magician and illusionist. Nine days later, Houdini was dead, victim of a ruptured appendix

[BDA 22,882]

49 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

The fact that the AFL lets this type of stuff go, and commentators laugh off this type of behaviour, is not lost on me as I watch yet another woman be killed at the hands of a man. 

What does gut punching in a game of AFL have to do with a man murdering a woman.

Should we be worried for Scott Pendlebury's wife?

[jumbo returns 6,741]

4 hours ago, monoccular said:

Houdini escaped more times than Charlie Cameron and Patrick Cripps have at the tribunal.  And he died of a ruptured appendix which was not all that uncommon in the 1920s.

After a punch….

[Ethan Tremblay 30,966]

34 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Not in Victoria. It can only come into consideration upon sentencing.

Got damn Victorian’s and your weird laws. 

[BoBo 2,941]

11 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Got damn Victorian’s and your weird laws. 

I know right? Collingwood supporters provoke me all the time by just existing. 
 

It’s unjust. 

[dazzledavey36 55,350]

1 hour ago, Jaded No More said:

The fact that the AFL lets this type of stuff go, and commentators laugh off this type of behaviour, is not lost on me as I watch yet another woman be killed at the hands of a man.  

Wait, what?

What exactly is the comparison between an off the ball incident on a football field to the recent domestic violence matters, especially as these latest incidents have been from perpetrators who have breached numerous apprehended violence orders in place?

I've missed something here...

[Jaded No More 68,974]

25 minutes ago, BDA said:

What does gut punching in a game of AFL have to do with a man murdering a woman.

Should we be worried for Scott Pendlebury's wife?

It’s about our society accepting these types of clearly violent behaviors. The reality is that footy players are looked up to and idolized by many people, especially young men. 
When we laugh off and not punish pure thuggery and are accepting of it, we are signaling that this type of behavior is also acceptable off the field. 

Our society is not nearly hard enough on violence, especially towards women. This notion that boys will be boys, is so wildly accepted in the AFL, and unfortunately in the wider society too. 
 

We [censored] on about the illicit drug problems in the AFL, but are totally fine to let players gut punch each other off the ball… because that’s not at all sending the wrong message!

[monoccular 17,573]

2 hours ago, Gorgoroth said:

If the AFL were serious about this then one of two things need to happen.

One. (And prob the more likely) is someone presses charges or worksafe steps in and forces the AFL to act.

Two. And what they should do, simply state. Any striking action is a 1 week suspension minimum, we then look at force (1 week for low, 2 for medium, 3 for forceful, 4 for severe) and where the strike occurred to the opponent (1 for body area, 2 for head) and wether in play or behind play (1 for in play, 2 for off the ball, 3 for behind play.) 

So the minimum for hitting someone is 4 weeks. Watch it disappear out of the game. Real quick.

First word sums it up.  IF the AFL were serious about violence and assault, which this was.  IF they could do it in a way that gave them enough wriggle room for their anointed darlings to get off when needed they may consider it, but if they can't, they won't.

Point one - pretty unlikely in my view especially for the types of incidents discussed here

Point two - the best summation yet, but again, what if Pendelberry or Cripps did this on finals eve?  

[Gorgoroth 13,019]

2 minutes ago, monoccular said:

First word sums it up.  IF the AFL were serious about violence and assault, which this was.  IF they could do it in a way that gave them enough wriggle room for their anointed darlings to get off when needed they may consider it, but if they can't, they won't.

Point one - pretty unlikely in my view especially for the types of incidents discussed here

Point two - the best summation yet, but again, what if Pendelberry or Cripps did this on finals eve?  

Tbh they need to implement it the day after the GF so all clubs and players are without doubt, but I highly doubt anything will change because the don’t want players suspended, unless we get to the litigation point like we have with concussions. 
 

I would be stunned if they did anything remotely sane, but it’s interesting to me is if a Worksafe rep see a game and see someone being punched do they have the grounds to step in, or would a complaint have to be filed. The players call it a work place. I’d love it if some one at worksafe just stepped in and caused all sorts of chaos.

[deanox 9,989]

49 minutes ago, Gorgoroth said:

Tbh they need to implement it the day after the GF so all clubs and players are without doubt, but I highly doubt anything will change because the don’t want players suspended, unless we get to the litigation point like we have with concussions. 
 

I would be stunned if they did anything remotely sane, but it’s interesting to me is if a Worksafe rep see a game and see someone being punched do they have the grounds to step in, or would a complaint have to be filed. The players call it a work place. I’d love it if some one at worksafe just stepped in and caused all sorts of chaos.

I mean we've already seen that just anyone can make a worksafe complaint and they investigate it...

[Ethan Tremblay 30,966]

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Wait, what?

What exactly is the comparison between an off the ball incident on a football field to the recent domestic violence matters, especially as these latest incidents have been from perpetrators who have breached numerous apprehended violence orders in place?

I've missed something here...

[Undeeterred 3,124]

2 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

The fact that the AFL lets this type of stuff go, and commentators laugh off this type of behaviour, is not lost on me as I watch yet another woman be killed at the hands of a man. 

We do not do enough to eradicate this type of [censored] “boys will be boys” behavior in footy, and it’s very much reflected in our society too. 
Punching someone in the guts off the ball should never be allowed. It does nothing for our game and it’s the easiest non football action to judge and punish players for. 
 

The Pendelbury defense of “I was provoked” is up there with the “she was asking for it” defense. Putrid. 

Interesting that a comment on how a high profile activity in our society not just lets men get away with unprovoked, random violence but actually laughs it off is met with a barrage of ‘WTFs’. Even on a reasonably civilised forum.

Maybe your comment is just too profound and big picture for a lot of people to understand. 

[KingDingAling 3,758]

Should’ve got a minimum 2 weeks. Intended to hurt and do damage. A fine is a lack of understanding about the pain a punch like this does. 

[Travy14 1,951]

God, there was nothing in it.  A fine is what it's worth!

The AFL should have a system now that if he was to do it again, it's a week!  But if one of our players was rubbed out for that id be furious.

[Undeeterred 3,124]

6 minutes ago, Travy14 said:

God, there was nothing in it.  A fine is what it's worth!

The AFL should have a system now that if he was to do it again, it's a week!  But if one of our players was rubbed out for that id be furious.

So if you were standing around in your workplace and someone just walked up behind you and punched you in the guts, that’s ok?

it’s completely unnecessary 

 

[Gorgoroth 13,019]

@Undeeterred completely agree, it’s not the force or the potential for damage, but it’s not a football action. I think most of us have moved past the punching thuggery of the “good ol’ days” but unless there is real ramifications then it will continue. 

[Dee Zephyr 19,268]

32 minutes ago, Travy14 said:

God, there was nothing in it.  A fine is what it's worth!

The AFL should have a system now that if he was to do it again, it's a week!  But if one of our players was rubbed out for that id be furious.

This was his second offence.