Well it looks like it may have hit hard home……..
Suspect not, it's what you do when you've been howled down from all sides.
The real Jimmy is reflected in the social comments from his family.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 10
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Well it looks like it may have hit hard home……..
Fair enough Jimmy. Now let's all move on
100%I have no idea how this couldn't be deemed intentional
Guess the tribunal need to find some mechanism to work out how they apply intent of infringement.100%
But it ought not even be listed in the charge (terms like "careless", "intentional", "deliberate" etc.) as these are (a) mostly irrelevant and (b) conjecture on the part of the MRO in any case.
If a person is injured by another person by them performing an act that is outside of the rules then that's the charge. None of this utensil sucker namby-pamby bull-dust where charges include wording such as as "careless conduct". If it wasn't accidental then simply charge the offender with whatever they did (i.e. severe impact and high contact) and the tribunal can determine if they were negligent or if they acted with intent when determining the penalty.
In any case, I actually think that "careless" is worse than "deliberate" in the sense that a person who makes a deliberate decision to strike or bump can presumably make a different decision if they've learned their lesson. Somebody who is careless is possibly just as likely to be careless on future occasions.
Most likely not a lot of support for my opinion here but too bad - it's out there to provoke discussion.
Agree. Fair play to Jimmy. I respect someone who owns up when they f*** up and accepts the price.There's a bloke who knows he f***ed up badly, feels crap about it and accepts his whack.
The only bad taste remaining in my mouth is his shitmen siblings.
What the aints council forgets is the tribunal don't give a s**t what the action was graded to get him to there. They make their decision based on the action itself, there's no grading table involved.Webster's action was graded by match review officer Michael Christian as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact.
St Kilda's lawyer Adrian Anderson, the AFL's former football operations boss, noted any previous bans of four games or more had been classed as intentional rather than careless.
"What is proposed is a massive, sudden shift in sanction that is out of whack with the evolution over time," Anderson said.
"There is a very significant line between intentional and careless.
"(Gaff's hit on Brayshaw) is in a different category.
"It's not necessary to pick him (Webster) out and pick a sanction that is out of whack to get a message through."
the oxygen thief Christian did not make it easy for the prosecution with his grading of careless conduct, if i saw him in the street and cracked him in the head i wonder if he would deem my action to be careless?
Webster and St Kilda however didn't accept the price of his in my opinion deliberate dog act as they said they would before the hearing. They had even said there was no defence for what he had done, but then fought The AFL's decision of 8 weeks with a counter of 4 weeks. They even argued the incident was in some aspects a little bit worse but very very similar to the 4 week suspension Sam Powell-Pepper bump, which is clearly garbage because there were zero mitigating circumstances for what he did.Agree. Fair play to Jimmy. I respect someone who owns up when they f*** up and accepts the price.
But his siblings definitely leave a bad taste to my mouth.
So available round 8 vs us...1 question, who leads the "C_____ks_______r" chant whenever he's near the ball?Suspect not, it's what you do when you've been howled down from all sides.
The real Jimmy is reflected in the social comments from his family.
Although it feels like the right thing to do, it's hard to explain to my kids what this means when they ask.So available round 8 vs us...1 question, who leads the "C_____ks_______r" chant whenever he's near the ball?
I disagree completely. There is no football action in this incident at all. That's akin to saying that kicking someone in the head on the field is a footy action because kicking the ball is allowed.I think 7 is fair.
At the end of the day the action was still a “bump” …. Which is a footy action ( albeit horribly executed) . You could argue he had intent to do damage and maybe not knock him out? …. imo
8,10 weeks stuff should be for king-hits via behind the play punches , elbows etc ( eg plugger on Caven, Barry hall etc)
Spot on.I disagree completely. There is no football action in this incident at all. That's akin to saying that kicking someone in the head on the field is a footy action because kicking the ball is allowed.
Helmets aren't particularly good at preventing concussion. They mainly stop facial injuries and skull fractures. If they were more effective, then we would not have seen the issues in the NFL, where helmets have been worn forever.Spot on.
Years ago when Jack Ziebell made a bump that knocked his opponent into the next day there was rage amongst the AFL reporter community that his feet were off the ground and as a result, a severe penalty was mandated. Subsequently, whenever a lesser player or one from a smaller team has done similar, it's been, "feet off the ground = penalty!!!". I agree that there are genuine bumps that are football actions. I doubt there are many people playing these days (at AFL level) who have not had it drummed into them during tackling and spoiling sessions at training that they need to stay grounded, tuck the elbows in and make every possible effort to avoid head-high contact during a bump or spoil.
Launching at an opponent, raising the elbow, leading with the shoulder against an opponent who might be bending down for the ball etc. have to be considered non-football actions.
The days of Choppy swinging his hips like Shakira into a sitting duck opponent are well and truly gone.
I've scoffed at players wearing helmets in the past but I really would like to see genuine unbiased evidence about their effectiveness in reducing head injuries. Having said that, the deflection of Jy's head in that clash on Sunday would not be something a helmet could prevent. My gut feeling is that direct blows may be muffled a little (that has to be a good thing) but it is unlikely that the ones we currently see can prevent the majority of concussions or whiplash type injuries.
Of course, I could google and hey, at some point in time I might actually do that.
I'm inclined to agree in this instance, particularly given the Saints were so eager to use Clarkson's spray as a deflector by going to Morris with the story.Sorry, I'm just a lot more cynical about these apologies. There's no taking back the deliberate nature of what he did and the potential effects on Jy. That's what's important. Everyone makes mistakes sure but very few do that type of thing.
The apologies are stage-managed, media-trained, contrived events designed to limit the PR damage to the player and ST Kilda. There was no remorse from the player on the day.
The mistake was attempting to defend the indefensible.Ahh yes.
One of the lands finest legal minds.
Sniveling weasel that he is.
Ahh yes - Gerard is actually a graduate of the University of American Samoa's Correspondence Law School so it's all good man.Ahh yes.
One of the lands finest legal minds.
Sniveling weasel that he is.
After publicly stating that there would be no defence.The mistake was attempting to defend the indefensible.