Luke Shuey Tunelling

Remove this Banner Ad

TassieSaint

TassieSaint

Norm Smith Medallist
Veteran
Oct 5, 2007
6,833
3,677
Hobart
AFL Club
Tasmania
Other Teams
Tassie Tigers
Absolute howler of a decision to let him off. Even the sock puppets at AFL.com.au were baffled by this one. I suspected they might go easy but to dismiss the charges sends a terrible message.

Official line is: "it was the view of the panel that Shuey was seeking to spoil and his actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances."

What a joke, seeking to spoil? Spoil what, Riewoldt's lower back? He didn't even leave the ground, he knew he couldn't contest the ball so he tunnelled him. When players go for high bumps they always trot out the old line 'he had other options' well Shuey had plenty of other options, like attempting a genuine spoil or just staying out of the contest.

It's a clear cut case of going for the man when you can't get the ball and a seriously dangerous action. Riewoldt pulled up very sore from it and was seen chundering afterwards. Has the potential to cause serious injury and/or concussion. I can't believe in the days of the tiggy touchwood AFL they'd let someone get away with that.

Footage here:

Thoughts?
 
There's no actual rule against "tunneling" is there? Surely a push in the back isn't a reportable offence.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

ep2006 said:
I may be one eyed at times but it looked accidental to me. Shuey didn't do it on purpose; he looked careless in his approach and probably should have got a week for that.
Click to expand...
That usually isn't a defence though. I think the reason he's gotten off may be due to the Saint's medical report. If he was injured in it, he would be responsible for his actions.

The MRP has been consistent this year in only punishing injuries regardless of what you do.
 
Interesting case.

Not a good look as Shuey did not look as if he was making an honest effort to contest the ball. What do you call it ?, a push in the back ?.

The numpies at AFL House have made the head "protected", maybe this is a case of the back / legs being protected.

Under the present rules, maybe this area has been overlooked and thus no prosecution case can be made. Is there a precedent case of "tunneling" going to the tribunal ?.
 
First time I've seen a replay of it. Would love to know what happened to leave Shuey one-out against a key forward.

Think it's a case of Shuey having bugger-all experience of being in that situation and not playing it particularly well. Riewoldt set himself and jumped to take the mark, Shuey didn't check his forward momentum and cannoned into the back of him. He did his best to get a hand in to spoil, it was nowhere near the ball but from his position behind a much taller player he wouldn't have been able to see the ball coming in.
 
From the Laws of the Game (not overly related to the reportable offense but still an infringement)
15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where
they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact
with an opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player
if the Player:
(d) pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or
deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition
Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to
Mark the football;
Click to expand...

From the Tribunal Handbook:
2. Rough Conduct (Bumps to the Body)
It should be noted that even if the rule relating to high bumps does not
apply (for example in the case of a bump to the body), a player may
still be guilty of rough conduct if his conduct was unreasonable in the
circumstances. In determining whether any bump was unreasonable
in the circumstances, without limitation, regard may be had to:
  • Whether the degree of force applied by the person bumping was excessive for the situation;
  • Whether the player being bumped was in a vulnerable position;
  • Whether the player could reasonably expect the contact having regard to his involvement in play or ability to influence the contest.
Click to expand...
I thought there used to be a specific charge or infringement called "Tunnelling" but it may have been swept under the general banner of Rough Conduct.
 
Maddo11 said:
There's no actual rule against "tunneling" is there? Surely a push in the back isn't a reportable offence.
Click to expand...
I'm not expert on the rules, but I would think this would fall into rough conduct charge fairly easily. Alternatively whatever they charged Bakes with for hitting Steve Johnson in the hand, misconduct or something? edit: Seems like it could come under rough conduct based on post above.

And yeah Riewoldt played out the game and had no lasting injury but he was clearly in bad shape afterwards. But regardless I mean you look at Gia's 2 weeks for a high bump on Polec, Polec was fine (or at least as 'fine' as Roo was) but he still gets charged.
 
It was sloppy play indeed, would not have been surprised if he got weeks for it. Can't really fault the assessment.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Should have copped two and an immediate report and 50. Unfortunately anyone who has watched the disgraceful treatment Riewoldt receives from the umpires they would know he was barely lucky to get a free.
 
Hinkstuff said:
From the Laws of the Game (not overly related to the reportable offense but still an infringement)


From the Tribunal Handbook:

I thought there used to be a specific charge or infringement called "Tunnelling" but it may have been swept under the general banner of Rough Conduct.
Click to expand...
Then they take it to the tribunal, argue that it wasn't a bump (it wasn't, it was body to body contact) and get off. The MRP will try and make a case they can win. It wasn't pretty, but all Shuey has to argue is that he was in the marking contest and mistimed it and went under his man.
 
Looks worse than it did yesterday on TV!....I suppose you could say that he was out of position and didnt mean it....But come on!...If that is not tunnelling, whether accidental or not, then I dont know what is!
IF it had of resulted in a broken veterbrae or two, would he still have being let off??? if the answer is NO, then he should have being charged as it is a dangerous act!!
 
FiveStrings said:
Think it's a case of Shuey having bugger-all experience of being in that situation and not playing it particularly well. Riewoldt set himself and jumped to take the mark, Shuey didn't check his forward momentum and cannoned into the back of him. He did his best to get a hand in to spoil, it was nowhere near the ball but from his position behind a much taller player he wouldn't have been able to see the ball coming in.
Click to expand...

Come on. It was clearly a spur of the moment decision to tunnel, and one he would have immediately regretted.
 
Thewlis Dish said:
Come on. It was clearly a spur of the moment decision to tunnel, and one he would have immediately regretted.
Click to expand...

Well I explained in detail how I saw the footage and what I thought the explanation was. But your response of "come on, it was clearly this" has obviously trumped me.
 
I think it's pretty harsh on him. Where'd he make contact? Looks like the lower back to me, which is above Roo's centre of gravity. Add in Riewoldt's rapid deceleration in his last three steps... I call it a freak accident, which sucks, because I really dislike Shuey as a player.
 
Thewlis Dish said:
Come on. It was clearly a spur of the moment decision to tunnel, and one he would have immediately regretted.
Click to expand...
I have to say that based on video evidence like that, that I am unable to pick a spur of the moment decision, from clumsiness, from miscalculation etc. Your ability to not just see a deliberate decision, but to clearly see a deliberate decision, and then to see the emotional response to that decision is truly wondrous.

I am in awe.
 
Of course this will come across as biased as I'm a WCE supporter, but what do you guys want from footy? Men to miss games for winding players from pushes in the back...

Nick got up and took his kick 30 seconds later. It was a close time in the game and the ball was going over his head, he should be thankful that a few short breaths won him a set shot from inside 40m.

If such rough acts of play upset you start watching the primmadonnas in the World Cup, footy is not for you.
 
Adam H said:
Should have copped two and an immediate report and 50. Unfortunately anyone who has watched the disgraceful treatment Riewoldt receives from the umpires they would know he was barely lucky to get a free.
Click to expand...
Absolute crap.
You can't get a free and a 50 from one incident. That just never happens and it's not how the rules work, regardless of how bad the action was.

I think a lot of people would agree that Riewoldt is one of the key forwards that is looked after very well in comparison to others.
 
Thought it was disgraceful from Shuey. Incredibly dangerous. Dirty player who loves to duck - hate this aspect of his game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top