The argument will be accidental football act ‘trying to swipe the ball’. With the Mash precedent they don’t have a leg to stand on.

The only thing that can potentially influence the outcome here is the sports betting lobby and the AA factor.

They are arguing that Salem contributed to it.

Ummm also, does anyone want to look at the incident at ~9:35 to go in the last quarter? Ruck contest, in Melbournes forward 50, ball is knocked forward to Jefferson who takes control of the ball. Xerri comes running in with a high arm/hand to try and affect the play - cops Jeffo high - no free of course.

Xerri now has form with this movement, its clearly a tactic he uses, in both incidents he copped the Dee's player high (and one might say that if the first one had been called, maybe he wouldn't have attempted the second one). With Sparrow, its not a full coat hanger, but he has started the movement and when he realises he's not going to get to the ball first, he just kinda left his arm there to make contact.

Not sure how you can advise its anything less then Careless.

3 minutes ago, SPC said:

They are arguing that Salem contributed to it.

I can't see how that could possibly change the charge but strangers things have happened I guess.

lets hope cerra gets ruled out tonight but im sure the carlton lawyers have some tricks and brown paper bags up their sleeve

Xerri's ban will be upheld. He didn't mean it but when you swing an arm out like that at incoming traffic you're done.

1 hour ago, Jaded No More said:

According to the AFL's guide, there is nothing else

Not sure what their argument will be, because as you say there is no arguing the severe impact or the high contact.
No doubt there are some dodgy loopholes for Carlton players they'll try and use.

If North can argue that Xerri was reasonabpy contesting the ball then it is not a classifiable offence. Given the action was to run past the ball while swinging an outstretched arm I cannot see how they could argue such an action is reasonable.

Xerri getting three weeks for an incident that was graded as careless, yet Robertson gets two weeks which will go down to one with an early plea.

Absolutely broken system with zero credibility.

Deven Robertson Report

Maynard was not suspended for ending Gus’ career. The system is [censored] rotten.

2 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Maynard was not suspended for ending Gus’ career. The system is [censored] rotten.

But he would be today. They changed the rules after so that a player would be suspended if they do something like that again.

9 minutes ago, godees said:

But he would be today. They changed the rules after so that a player would be suspended if they do something like that again.

Sure… unless it’s on the eve of finals or a big name player and then they’ll find a loophole.

Under the previous guidelines he still should have been suspended.

Xerri is stuffed. Arguing he is an enforcer and tried to hit Sparrow in the chest. Would have been better saying he was unco and trying to punch the ball

4 minutes ago, SPC said:

Xerri is stuffed. Arguing he is an enforcer and tried to hit Sparrow in the chest. Would have been better saying he was unco and trying to punch the ball

Let’s hope so. Arguing that you were aiming for the chest but the relative player positions changed due to Salem and as such you got Sparrow in the head by accident should not carry any weight surely, after the ruling on Kossie last year. The tribunal ruled that Kossie should have foreseen that Moore would/could drop at the knees so his plea of unforeseeable accidental high contact was thrown out. Let’s see what happens, it is the tribunal after all and if Jeff Gleeson is involved anything could happen.

Upheld

3 weeks is fair

let's move on

Bit of a waste of time and money from North going with that defence.

What a [censored] defence, and rightfully rejected. Correct decision.

Enjoy your holiday, Xerri.

"I didn't mean to knock him out. I was trying to fracture his sternum".

Those weren't Xerri's exact words but they more or less sum up his bizarre defence.

Perhaps he isn't the brightest star in the AFL firmament.

If Xerri’s argument was that he meant to hit Sparrow but not in the head, how is it not reckless at the very least and therefore worthy of an upgrade to 4 weeks?

Anyway, whatever. At least they didn’t come up with some excuse that got him out of it. Enjoy the holiday big guy.

Should we be satisfied with just three weeks? Should our maggot Media be satisfied with such a light sentence for such an attack to a Premiership Player?

Is this type of sly follow up chop to be regarded henceforth as a blow of intent, albeit furtive.

Still can't figure out why Harley Reid isn't doing time. That was fricking disgraceful

2 minutes ago, Go the Biff said:

Still can't figure out why Harley Reid isn't doing time. That was fricking disgraceful

Yeah Ed just went on a rant. It was a kick not a trip. Which is what I thought. When did the kick get taken out?

6 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

Bit of a waste of time and money from North going with that defence.

You would think if they were going to contest it they would come armed with more than, "I didn't mean it, promise!"

I don't think he meant to cop Sparrow high but he acted recklessly in the situation, this ban will hopefully mean he adjusts his style of play going forward to avoid knocking players out.

5 hours ago, Pates said:

You would think if they were going to contest it they would come armed with more than, "I didn't mean it, promise!"

I don't think he meant to cop Sparrow high but he acted recklessly in the situation, this ban will hopefully mean he adjusts his style of play going forward to avoid knocking players out.

I thought in the commentary Mooney suggested he was going for a spoil but got him late. That would have been a stronger defence than admitting to the charge in his opening statement.

I really don't know why they bothered.