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

 

[BLA60]

They where never going to win anyway. The AFL has changed the rules every year. I do not agree with it but it is what it is. No point complaining about the fight or the Lawyers. The AFL has stacked the deck. He was never getting any less than 4. To start balming the club is just rubbish.

At least have a bloody crack. If the decks so stacked against you what you got to lose.

Instead we got on all *ing 4 and begged for forgiveness

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[EnolaGay]

They where never going to win anyway. The AFL has changed the rules every year. I do not agree with it but it is what it is. No point complaining about the fight or the Lawyers. The AFL has stacked the deck. He was never getting any less than 4. To start balming the club is just rubbish.

Oh, I'll be balming the club alright!!!

 

[ant555]

At least have a bloody crack. If the decks so stacked against you what you got to lose.

Instead we got on all *ing 4 and begged for forgiveness

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

I could not give a * about having a crack. They have manipulated the rules every year. It was high impact. Move on and stop wasting any oxygen on it. I think he deserved maybe a week for being a fraction careless but I could not give a toss about the fact we have just accepted what the rules are and moved on as there was no wriggle room.

 

[Nate7]

There is no way that "hit" is worth the penalty it was given and there aren't many times I'll defend the so called accused, but this is one.

He should not have been suspended, UNLESS, the rules have been drastically changed. Also, this was a genuine marking contest, not a pretend attempt.

 

[MightyDon]

I could not give a * about having a crack. They have manipulated the rules every year. It was high impact. Move on and stop wasting any oxygen on it. I think he deserved maybe a week for being a fraction careless but I could not give a toss about the fact we have just accepted what the rules are and moved on as there was no wriggle room.

The only thing careless is the player running back with the flight

 

[DERO]

I think the trouble here might be that maybe we went in thinking that the result wasn’t already predetermined.

 

[Learntopray]

Why is it that Wright has full responsibility and Cunningham has zero?
Surely it makes more sense to outlaw somebody going back with zero regard for their own safety, rather then forcing other people to look after somebody else' ill advised decision?

We don't penalise drivers for head on collisions with somebody driving the wrong direction down a road...

 

[Beerfish]

I'm more interested in what constitutes the different grades of impact. Is that written down anywhere or is that where the AFL leaves themselves the out to just make it up as they go along based on outrage/the vibe?

 

[andleanback]

Why is it that Wright has full responsibility and Cunningham has zero?
Surely it makes more sense to outlaw somebody going back with zero regard for their own safety, rather then forcing other people to look after somebody else' ill advised decision?

We don't penalise drivers for head on collisions with somebody driving the wrong direction down a road...

That’s the most illogical part, they are throwing around who has duty of care for a simultaneous collision, if wright marks the ball and then Cunningham is .001 late suddenly he had duty of care to wright. How can you expect players to be running these calculations through their head as they’re trying to play football. For a tackle bump etc it’s different you’re pre determining to do the act to enforcing physical pressure on the opposing player.

 

[andleanback]

I'm more interested in what constitutes the different grades of impact. Is that written down anywhere or is that where the AFL leaves themselves the out to just make it up as they go along based on outrage/the vibe?

Severe is any incident that ends in concussion according to the afl

 

[Beerfish]

Severe is any incident that ends in concussion according to the afl

So what's high then?

 

[Duckworth]

So what's high then?

The AFL tribunal? or Pane?

"This is one of those examples where it was possible for Wright to avoid forceful high contact and prevent injury," Pane said.

 

[andleanback]

So what's high then?

Id say it’s a forceful bump to the head , player may get knocked down. But no concussion

 

[Call Me Cake]

Why is it that Wright has full responsibility and Cunningham has zero?
Surely it makes more sense to outlaw somebody going back with zero regard for their own safety, rather then forcing other people to look after somebody else' ill advised decision?

We don't penalise drivers for head on collisions with somebody driving the wrong direction down a road...

The point is they both should have the right to contest the ball and judge their surroundings/brace accordingly in manners where it is in relation to trying to win a ball in that moment with no ill intent to cause injury.

That's why it's called a contested mark. When things are contested there is bound to be situations where collisions are out of a player's total control. This isn't a matter of right of way like it is on the roads. Cars are meant to avoid each other at all times, not collide like players are expected to in a contact sport.

To employ the same expectations of players in such a high speed 360 degree sport without grading it on malice/intent/off the ball and just focusing on a percieved image is both an unrealistic idealisation of the sport and sacrificial to the well-meaning players who play it. Certain progress has been made to protect players and such but there's a point where it begins to overstep it's mark to appease a percieved agenda and this is one of those cases.

 

[Duckworth]

4 weeks is a ******* *ed outcome. He would have got the same number of weeks if he intentionally lined up someone off the ball.

 

[Mootsy]

Club has bent over and taken it two weeks in a row.

 

[Bramax]

I’ll declare up front I hate the Bombers as I’m sure it’s mutual - mortal enemies. But I also come in peace.
I wanted to vent how this was a terrible decision to give Peter Wright a 4 week suspension.
I know some, even some Bombers supporters, felt it was worthy of a suspension whereas many others felt it wasn’t. I’m on the latter side of that opinion.
Peter Wright is not known for his aggression. If anything, rightly or wrongly, many have felt he lacked aggression and could throw his giant frame around much more than he does.
He has always been a ball player, very fair and I’m certain he always will be.
Until the last millisecond, he only had eyes for the ball and the impact between players and the ball was simultaneous.
Even if the AFL just wanted to make a statement, then give him a week, not four. I understand the AFL want to protect our players from head knocks but we mustn’t change the physical fabric of our game.
A bit more of the game we all love was killed today imo.
Happy to take the criticism if some disagree.

 

[MightyDon]

If 2MP marks this ball and knocks out the swans player which I think would have been even worse if he hit him with his left shoulder rather than turning what is the tribunal result? And why would it be any different to both players getting to the ball at the exact same time as it happened.

 

[jmoo wan]

it’s also a bit s**t that the Swans were talking s**t about peter Wright having a holiday and the bombers being “too rough” when most other times teams would play a straight bat and not try to influence the tribunal

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Precedent set by the AFL..this is the benchmark for rest of the season. Let’s see if they call for 4 weeks for a Swans or Giants star just before the finals. Pleads guilty and still gets 4 ..the same as SPP who was far more deliberate. Piss off

 

[Vindicater]

Weak as piss by the club not to fight it on principle.

 

[BLA60]

I could not give a * about having a crack. They have manipulated the rules every year. It was high impact. Move on and stop wasting any oxygen on it. I think he deserved maybe a week for being a fraction careless but I could not give a toss about the fact we have just accepted what the rules are and moved on as there was no wriggle room.

So that's it. No point bothering appealing anything in the future then?

While we watch other clubs do the exact opposite, and can sometimes get a different outcome to your supposed no wiggle room take it on the chin result.

Either these other clubs are wrong, or you are...

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[MiguelM]

If the AFL were serious Gary Rohan

23

Gary Rohan

Age

32

Ht

189cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.6

2star

K

6.6

3star

HB

3.0

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

2.5

4star

G

1.0

4star

D

8.8

2star

K

6.0

2star

HB

2.8

2star

M

3.4

3star

T

2.3

3star

G

1.0

4star

D

9.8

3star

K

6.8

3star

HB

3.0

3star

M

2.2

3star

T

4.2

5star

G

1.2

4star

should have got weeks for the Jeremy Cameron

5

Jeremy Cameron

Age

31

Ht

196cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.5

3star

K

9.0

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

5.4

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

2.6

5star

D

10.0

3star

K

7.1

3star

HB

2.9

2star

M

4.6

4star

T

2.0

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

3.2

3star

M

4.6

5star

T

2.4

4star

G

2.0

5star

incident

It is still a non intentional head knock.

 

[Call Me Cake]

Anyway as pathetic as the approach and outcome is, at least he isn't out because of a long term injury this time and it presents an opportunity for some young players to prove themselves.

 

[jmoo wan]

* it - get him in a moon boot and pretend he is injured for the next four weeks