does anyone know where i can get video of the incident.. i saw the end of it, but i want to see it again and bloody channel 7 wont show it!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1mg7l5e2A4

It's funny reading the rationalisations over at Nick's BB. Here's a few.

* Johnson couldn't pull out until late because Bell kept fumbling.

* For the same reason (Bell kept fumbling), it was "accidental".

* Since Bell was walking around after the game it wasn't "severe".

* Bell was "milking it".

* Getting hit like that is a tactic clubs to teach players to milk frees.

* The hit was not on the head but on the shoulder.

* Johnson's intent was for a legal hip and shoulder.

* Bell never lost consciousness (as if that makes it lesser).

* If he did lose consciousness, it was because he hit Carroll's leg, therefore the initial contact wasn't too bad.

* He only needed the stretcher because he twisted his knee.

One poster even thinks Johnson has no case to answer!

To be fair, the majority of Pies supporters thought it was very bad and that Johnson is gone until 2008, but why do some idiots always try to rationalise a hit like that?

You can read the Tribunal Handbook on the AFL web site. There is a specific offense (19.2.2 (xi)) of "Bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that player has his head down over the ball". Even if it isn't "intentional", a reckless, head-high severe contact on that specific charge is Level 5, and the penalty is 750 points. Add in his outstanding 70 from last week, Johnson is up for 820. Maybe reduced to 6 weeks with an early guilty plea.

You can read the Tribunal Handbook on the AFL web site. There is a specific offense (19.2.2 (xi)) of "Bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that player has his head down over the ball". Even if it isn't "intentional", a reckless, head-high severe contact on that specific charge is Level 5, and the penalty is 750 points. Add in his outstanding 70 from last week, Johnson is up for 820. Maybe reduced to 6 weeks with an early guilty plea.

That's exactly what he's been offered.

750 + 70 = 820 minus 25% for an early plea = 615 points = 6 weeks.

That's exactly what he's been offered.

750 + 70 = 820 minus 25% for an early plea = 615 points = 6 weeks.

What's the money on him contesting the "severe" aspect? Tribunal will be sitting this week for sure.

He contests the charge. Loses and he gets 8 weeks!

I am not sure the Pies would have as a precedent to overcome the tribunal's interpretation of ""severe". There is a bigger risk that the AFL will want to make a statement about this sort of incident.

If they had any sense then they would zip it and take the early plea of six weeks.

See you in 2008 Ben!

He contests the charge. Loses and he gets 8 weeks!

I am not sure the Pies would have as a precedent to overcome the tribunal's interpretation of ""severe". There is a bigger risk that the AFL will want to make a statement about this sort of incident.

If they had any sense then they would zip it and take the early plea of six weeks.

See you in 2008 Ben!

6 weeks with a early plea. U made a mistake and u will serve your time. Just cop ur medicine.

He contests the charge. Loses and he gets 8 weeks!

Wins and he gets 4. I think Collingwood rate themselves and would want him for latter finals.

I hope the filth get smashed out of the finals in the first week, meaning he will miss the first 3 matches of next year too.

That will give him 7 months to realise what a dog he is. :angry:

Wins and he gets 4. I think Collingwood rate themselves and would want him for latter finals.

On what precedent do they get the "severe" dropped?

On what precedent do they get the "severe" dropped?

Being from Collingwood ?!!!

Just on SEN, Wowser, will they appeal?

Just on SEN, Wowser, will they appeal?

given 8 weeks, if they accept with an early appeal will be reduce to 6 weeks.

he's a dog and deserved his season to be over. he could have broken bells neck. we do not want this kind of act in the afl and he in puncihsed accordingly

Will they - yes

Should they - no

Take the bias out from any side and it is still worth 6 weeks. Terrible incident.

Exact verdict from the AFL:

Ben Johnson, Collingwood, has been charged with making forceful contact from front-on against Daniel Bell, Melbourne, during the third quarter of the Round 20 match between Collingwood and Melbourne, played at the MCG on Friday August 17, 2007.

In summary, due to existing carry-over points from an earlier offence, his penalty can only be reduced to a six-match sanction with an early plea.

The incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), severe impact (four points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of eight activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Five offence, drawing 750 demerit points and a seven-match sanction. He has 70.31 demerit points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 820.31 points and an eight-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 615.23 points and a six-match sanction.

Jason Roe from the Lions offered one week and 87.5 points carried over.

On what precedent do they get the "severe" dropped?

The tribunal doesn't use precedent, at least not when it doesn't want to. This is the tribunal that rated Barry Hall's punch on Matt Maguire as low impact despite leaving him winded on the ground for more than a minute. What cases have gone up and been rated as "severe" impact rather than "high"?

Playing devil's advocate, they may say there was no lasting damage, contact with Carroll's leg exacerbated the injury, and that Bell is not likely to miss more than one game and possibly not even that.

I think the impact was severe because he was unconscious before he hit Carroll or the ground. I think it was intentional rather than reckless because he had sufficient time to pull out but continued with a forward motion.

Doesn't mean that there isn't an argument there.

Playing devil's advocate, they may say there was no lasting damage, contact with Carroll's leg exacerbated the injury, and that Bell is not likely to miss more than one game and possibly not even that.

I think the impact was severe because he was unconscious before he hit Carroll or the ground. I think it was intentional rather than reckless because he had sufficient time to pull out but continued with a forward motion.

No lasting damage. If Maggies run with that argument, they will be thrown out faster then u can say Ben.

U can't wait for someone to get severely injured b4 throwing the book at him.

As for the Carroll's leg doing the damage (some maggies really do believe that) - It's like being hit by the bus and then being run over by a toy car. - Hughesy.

Should have been intentional. U r lucky bEn and if ur smart, u should just cop ur medicine.

Glad to see the match review get it right, see you next year you [censored]!

should be at least 6 also bringing in that in the play bell got injured and hurt so 8 definitely with the carry over points ect...

Although I don't disagree with the punishment metered out, compared to similar incidents during the season it does seem slightly over-the-top.

I agree it seems harsh but byrnes got 5 weeks pre season, only served 4 due to early plea or good record, the thing that really went against johnson was he had time to stop or to tackle but chose to continue to bump him.

I wonder how many of the 1300 views are the filth spying.

I wonder how many of the 1300 views are the filth spying.

Not many, doubt many of them can read.

they think youtube is a bicycle repair place

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=60090

And Bucks isn't too happy about it all..

He should be thankful that they offered him 6 weeks at the AFL tribunal instead of 6 years at the Magistrates.