AFL Player #20: Peter "Litre" Wright 🏅 - Pleads guilty at tribunal, 4 week suspension - 26/3

[Lore]

Contract Status: Free Agent (?) 2027
My Boy Draft 2024: Pick 21, TheGrizz

 

[HirdsTheWord]

he was going for a chest mark, that is why his last second brace looks so bad.

perhaps the long term solution is to ban the sort of action that the Sydney player made.

1.Wright was leading and a team mate passed to him.
2. Wright needs to move at speed to beat his opponent to the ball.
3. Sydney player see ball and thinks he can get to it before Wright.
4. Sydney player bravely runs towards Wright and causes impact.
5.Both players moving at speed without having looked at each other and car crash occurs.
6. Wright looks worse because he was shaped to take a make between chest and waist.

I understand why they want to suspend Wright.

1.It feels unfair that Sydney are down a player.
2. There are countless serious lawsuits based on head injuries.
3.Brayshaw was retired by a late hit that was actually intentional by Maynard ladt year.
4. It looks terrible.

So as a law maker what do you do that will sustainability change players behaviour? I note a contest between Gresham and Sydney defender where both went low and turned to avoid contact, where 20 years ago it was an opportunity to end a guy.

You cant stop forwards leading for the ball, or team mates kicking in front of the lead.

You can stop a forward running into someone who is in your way when you start leading ... but how do you stop someone who has run into your space while youre watching the ball?

This is unfortunately the world we are in with CTE especially after Maynard got off.

Cunningham should probably be expecting contact there. He literally walked into the path of a key forward running full tilt at the ball. Prior to jumping to take a chest mark wrights eyes are square on the ball.

You can't ban a guy for getting KO'd but The AFL needs to steer away from what Cunningham did as being courageous, to just being stupid.

I can see why the AFL would want wright banned for what he did but what was he supposed to do? Just stop mid air? What is the actual alternate action he could do?

 

[eth-dog]

This is unfortunately the world we are in with CTE especially after Maynard got off.

Cunningham should probably be expecting contact there. He literally walked into the path of a key forward running full tilt at the ball. Prior to jumping to take a chest mark wrights eyes are square on the ball.

You can't ban a guy for getting KO'd but The AFL needs to steer away from what Cunningham did as being courageous, to just being stupid.

I can see why the AFL would want wright banned for what he did but what was he supposed to do? Just stop mid air? What is the actual alternate action he could do?

Not brace for contact in a split second where he saw something out of his peripheral vision apparently.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Not brace for contact in a split second where he saw something out of his peripheral vision apparently.

so not be human.

Cunningham would be a bug on the windscreen regardless if he braces or not.

When Pete jumped all he was looking at was the ball.

 

[Charlie Payne]

so not be human.

Cunningham would be a bug on the windscreen regardless if he braces or not.

When Pete jumped all he was looking at was the ball.

This.
Plus.... if it was so "dastardly", why did the Maggot 5m away NOT pay a Free Kick?

Regarding the game. Essendon plays in 30*c heat and one day less recovery. Sth. Melb play on a cool night a day before. Those who wonder why we didn't have legs to go with them 100% and only 90%.... need looking at facts and human capacity to recover. Additionally, Redman, Ridley, Reid (the WHOLE HB Line?), Parish, Shiel, Hobbs etc would have been handy.

 

[Pweter]

This is nothing like the Maynard bump last year. Wright was contesting a mark, plain and simple. It simply shouldn't be used as a comparison despite the fact almost any head knock will be.

Regardless I think Wright will get 4 weeks. I don't think he deserves to miss a single game as there was no intent but there was an unfortunate outcome.

The only way to prevent this kind of thing happening is a rule change to either ban running back with the flight or give the guy running with the flight right of way. Both are shithouse solutions, so my preference is players need to accept that when they go back into the unknown they need to take ownership of their action and the outcome (make it part of their employment conditions to sign off on).

One final thing, any and all Sydney and opposition supporters that are beating their chest over this had better hope they don't choke on their halo as it's only a matter of time before this happens again. As Bunk Moreland said, we don't accept people not going when it's their turn, and we don't accept people pulling out of a contest.

 

[Squeaky]

Not brace for contact in a split second where he saw something out of his peripheral vision apparently.

This is the point and I hope it doesn't get lost in what will be a s**t show prior to the hearing.
Cunningham ran head long into a truck and because the 'truck driver' reacted at the last minute, he is going to be hauled over the coals. Spare me. Load of s**t for mine...

I reckon this call for 4 (or more) weeks is at least two too many!

Don't change Peter - in fact if he'd gone harder at the mark, Cunningham would be much worse off (a la Steven May and a shirt full of broken ribs) & Peter would be better off without this circus!

 

[MiguelM]

Most punchable face in AFL.

Taken over from Ballantyne!

 

[Blind Turn]

This is nothing like the Maynard bump last year. Wright was contesting a mark, plain and simple. It simply shouldn't be used as a comparison despite the fact almost any head knock will be.

Regardless I think Wright will get 4 weeks. I don't think he deserves to miss a single game as there was no intent but there was an unfortunate outcome.

The only way to prevent this kind of thing happening is a rule change to either ban running back with the flight or give the guy running with the flight right of way. Both are shithouse solutions, so my preference is players need to accept that when they go back into the unknown they need to take ownership of their action and the outcome (make it part of their employment conditions to sign off on).

One final thing, any and all Sydney and opposition supporters that are beating their chest over this had better hope they don't choke on their halo as it's only a matter of time before this happens again. As Bunk Moreland said, we don't accept people not going when it's their turn, and we don't accept people pulling out of a contest.

I think that a rule where all front-on contact is a free against might help change habitual fight-of-the-ball kamizaze s**t. If they have it in the back of their mind that they’ll give away a free kick and disadvantage the team they will become conditioned not to do it. I love the bravery of going back into packs but for where the game is at they need to deter players for their own good.

 

[IHurley]

For every one AFL listed player there's 1000 footy players who will never get a cent from kicking the footy around - but they still run the risk of concussions (and any real or imagined link with CTE).

I guess "duty of care" and "science" only matter when there are deep pockets involved.

 

[owen87]

Unlucky situation really IMO.

Wright often takes those on his chest, his eyes were on the ball right up until the last moment when he turned to protect himself. Nothing malicious in it and you could tell he felt bad about hurting Cunningham from the moment it happened. He went up to him immediately after the game to apologise.

BUT

He turned his body to protect himself, leading with the shoulder, and knocked a player out. It's the exact thing Maynard did, and the exact rule change they made because Maynard should have been suspended for it. Whether it's malicious or not.

 

[DERO]

Taken over from Ballantyne!

Who took over from Stephen Milne

 

[DERO]

For every one AFL listed player there's 1000 footy players who will never get a cent from kicking the footy around - but they still run the risk of concussions (and any real or imagined link with CTE).

I guess "duty of care" and "science" only matter when there are deep pockets involved.

Yes.

 

[Old Campaigner]

For every one AFL listed player there's 1000 footy players who will never get a cent from kicking the footy around - but they still run the risk of concussions (and any real or imagined link with CTE).

I guess "duty of care" and "science" only matter when there are deep pockets involved.

The rules are changing for local footy as well: https://www.afl.com.au/news/1082721...ocols-for-community-football-competitions/amp

 

[yodellinhank]

I think that a rule where all front-on contact is a free against might help change habitual fight-of-the-ball kamizaze s**t. If they have it in the back of their mind that they’ll give away a free kick and disadvantage the team they will become conditioned not to do it. I love the bravery of going back into packs but for where the game is at they need to deter players for their own good.

If a knock on the melon isn't enough deterrent?

 

[Dave]

Maybe we might start seeing players pulling out entirely.

They already do not bump in situations where they always have in years gone by, this is the “logical” next step based on the AFL’s rulings

 

[Dave]

Not brace for contact in a split second where he saw something out of his peripheral vision apparently.

will be interesting when someone in this situation says they didn’t consciously decide to bump.

 

[BomberFan355]

4+ weeks while another bloke walks around with a Brownlow.

 

[Beerfish]

So what's the difference between high and severe? Or is this the grey area the AFL get to insert their feels into now? I always thought severe was you left in an ambulance/were not seen again. If you're on the sidelines watching the rest of the game it'd be high.

 

[Blind Turn]

If a knock on the melon isn't enough deterrent?

Doesn’t seem to be. Those that do it are generally fanatically team-first players and would do it every time. If they are fanatical about team results they might be deterred from giving away free kicks, especially in front of goals where the big forwards are charging out from.

 

[owen87]

So what's the difference between high and severe? Or is this the grey area the AFL get to insert their feels into now? I always thought severe was you left in an ambulance/were not seen again. If you're on the sidelines watching the rest of the game it'd be high.

I assume that's something EFC might be able to raise, that given he was able to walk off the ground and watch the game it was high impact, not severe.

Careless, Severe, High = 3+ matches

Careless, High, High = 2 matches

 

[yodellinhank]

Doesn’t seem to be. Those that do it are generally fanatically team-first players and would do it every time. If they are fanatical about team results they might be deterred from giving away free kicks, especially in front of goals where the big forwards are charging out from.

James Hird ruined football, and not with the drugs. It has all spiralled since players stopped protecting themselves and recklessly threw themselves in with protection from the rules.

Bubble wrap society. I used to love the cricket ball banging into the fence. Satisfying sensory information. Now it limply bobbles over a rope. Tedious slow mo replays of whether it touched before the rope got shifted anyways. All because some peanut somewhere can't avoid running into a fence.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

James Hird ruined football, and not with the drugs. It has all spiralled since players stopped protecting themselves and recklessly threw themselves in with protection from the rules.

Bubble wrap society. I used to love the cricket ball banging into the fence. Satisfying sensory information. Now it limply bobbles over a rope. Tedious slow mo replays of whether it touched before the rope got shifted anyways. All because some peanut somewhere can't avoid running into a fence.

Blame Mark Harvey...that's Mick Martyn coming at him..

 

[Blind Turn]

James Hird ruined football, and not with the drugs. It has all spiralled since players stopped protecting themselves and recklessly threw themselves in with protection from the rules.

Bubble wrap society. I used to love the cricket ball banging into the fence. Satisfying sensory information. Now it limply bobbles over a rope. Tedious slow mo replays of whether it touched before the rope got shifted anyways. All because some peanut somewhere can't avoid running into a fence.

Yeah but the spectacular catch from the tip-toed throw-back into play so a teammate can take it has improved the spectacle no end

 

[Lore]

Logical conclusion. Pardon the pun but we are definitely on a collision course between CTE and 100 years of coach’s orders to fill space and put your body on the line

The weird thing with the Wright one was the way he instinctively turned towards contact rather than away. Maybe the result would have been the same.

Still feel like he could have and should have just tried to tuck up and chest mark

Is it still weird if we consider which shoulder he busted last year?

 

[Blind Turn]

Blame Mark Harvey...that's Mick Martyn coming at him..

Love it! But it’s where we’re at unfortunately. There would be some leniency from interpretation of what’s deemed front-on interference though. Would this example qualify? I think he’d be alright but I hate leaving it to the interpretation of umps as it will be hard for the traditionalists to see that stuff outlawed. It’s a lesser of two evils. I’d rather see the charging out forward going for marks with intent rather than the idiot putting his life in danger if I were to choose. As much as I love it…

And yes, Harvs, you’re an idiot!