WAFL Tribunal rewards thug

[Voice of Reason]

Michael Swan of East Perth - rot in hell.

I think that was the expression used when Mark Bickley broke Darryl Wakelin's cheekbone and ended his season last year, potentially damaging Port's Premiership chances in the process.

2 weeks ago, David Lucas (Subiaco) was found guilty of charging in that he ran through Mark Seaby (West Perth ruckman) at the opening bounce with no intent on the ball whatsoever - just to take out one of our key players. It worked - Seaby hardly played, we lost. Lucas was reprimanded by the tribunal. "That was very naughty - don't do it again".

On Sunday, I had the perfect view of the incident from the Members Stand at Arena Joondalup as Jason Salecic handpassed the ball forward to a teammate. Swan came in high, late, with a raised elbow and hit him after he had released the ball.

Salecic had an operation to mend his broken jaw. He now has a plate & two screws in there - prognosis unknown. The club suspect he may not play again this season, though the usual "he'll be back for the Finals, maybe" encouraging words are being trotted out.

Both West Perth and East Perth will reach the Finals - the order is uncertain - so could conceivably be in the Grand Final as it was last year (Subi come into that equation too).

The WAFL tribunal in its infinite wisdom gave Swan a huge 2 weeks, thus freeing him up to play in the entire Finals series.

SHOULD HAVE BEEN 5 GAMES YOU STUPID IRRESPONSIBLE MORONS!!!!!!!!!!!! Take his Finals series away too. Reward the ball players. Take the thugs out of the game.

[timelord]

This is a common problem.

When umpires make reports (and I am in no way criticising my own here) we need to know the difference between striking and assault. When it's reported as striking, the tribunal is unlikely to give a harsh sentence for it unless it's so far off the ball it isn't funny. But then that's a king hit and therefore assault anyway.

If this had been reported as an assault - and the guy had been found guilty, he would have got a least the 5 weeks you wanted, Voice. The umpires would have to be certain it was an assault. If it's a line ball (as it appears from your description) it makes things very difficult.

But you're right. I think that any injury that is long term should be taken into account in sentencing - even for a striking charge. A broken jaw should be worth six weeks at a minimum.

[naughty monkey]

Originally posted by timelord
But you're right. I think that any injury that is long term should be taken into account in sentencing - even for a striking charge. A broken jaw should be worth six weeks at a minimum.

I don't!

A strike is a strike is a strike

Why should an elbow to the head of a player with a glass jaw be any different to the same hit on a bloke with a head made out of granite?

if it's worth six weeks, it's worth six weeks, irrespective of whether the player that was decked ends up in hospital or gets up and plays on.

[timelord]

So you won't support the vulnerable, NM? That's the way I read your comment. That's like saying it's equally bad in junior football for a big kid to clean up a little kid as it is if it was the other way around!

You can't treat everyone the same! That's discriminatory!

[naughty monkey]

Originally posted by timelord
So you won't support the vulnerable, NM? That's the way I read your comment. That's like saying it's equally bad in junior football for a big kid to clean up a little kid as it is if it was the other way around!

You can't treat everyone the same! That's discriminatory!

If that's the way you want to interpret it, then fine.
And in your example above, yes I would consider them the same.

I just believe the sentencing should be independent of the outcome of the offense. Imo, it's the act that counts, not the result. (fwiw I believe i would be very much in the minority).

Another example might be Terry Wallace back in his playing days at Hawthorn. Got cleaned up in a similar fashion to D. Wakelin last year. Difference was Wallace played with his face wired up and only missed a week.

[Port01]

Originally posted by timelord
You can't treat everyone the same! That's discriminatory!

Applause.

[timelord]

Originally posted by naughty monkey
If that's the way you want to interpret it, then fine.
And in your example above, yes I would consider them the same.

I just believe the sentencing should be independent of the outcome of the offense. Imo, it's the act that counts, not the result. (fwiw I believe i would be very much in the minority).

Another example might be Terry Wallace back in his playing days at Hawthorn. Got cleaned up in a similar fashion to D. Wakelin last year. Difference was Wallace played with his face wired up and only missed a week.

I can't believe that first sentence! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The result is very much relevant! As it should be! I'm glad to see that you recognise that you are in the minority at least.

Comparing the current footy to "Terry Wallace's day" is hardly a fair comparison. We all know that players got away with a lot more back then than what they do now.

[dasler]

The tribunals across the board dont show enough consistency i their judgements