Tyler Sonsie punch (VFL) - how many weeks? (poll added)

[Roby]

On a scale of 1-100, where 100 is Barry Hall on Staker level of force behind the punch, where would Sonsie's punch sit on that scale for force in your opinion?

I'm not going to get into this deabte

1) we don't have a biomechanist using sensors to measure Newton's second law

2) your basing most of the arument on force of the hit, when the act and they way it was attempted is disgusting

Your basically saying, that because there was no concussion and Sonsie didn't hit someone squarely in the jaw or nose, that because he missed, we should look favourably on this?

Meteoric Rise if this is the hill you want to die on... then you will DIE on this hill. Everyone one the forum will now think you are happy for thugs to be in the game and get a few weeks for their actions.

 

[Roby]

So the tribunal agreed that it wasn't a closed fist, that first contact was with the shoulder and there was no concussion or injury concerns.....

While it's a bad look I won't be surprised if the 3 weeks stands.

Sure..

 

[Roby]

Force matters. Was initially graded as severe. “Lack” of force saw it get downgraded to high. Still doesn’t mean it was right or he should walk free, but there are different penalties for different levels of force.

In this instance it appears the Roo player continued in the game, suffered no concussion (or delayed concussion), no cuts, no broken bones or teeth,…

So while an ugly incident the force was not there. In all reality Kossie Pickett’s shoulder charge on Bailey Smith was uglier, probably had more force and had far more potential to cause damage.

Force does not matter.

Not for this act.

It's like saying:

"I shot him, but the bullet only grazed him."

Yeah, force matters, I suppose. If Sonsie sent someone to hospital as opposed to what happened, instead of 6 weeks, he can be suspended for a whole year. Really doesn't marry with what someone may get for the same act out in public, outside of a football field.

 

[Roby]

The Richmond tax.
Was not in the same stratosphere as the ones above.

Public outcry out of anything Richmond is seriously getting ridiculous.

If you honestly believe it's a Richmond tax then you've lost the plot.

 

[Roby]

4 or 5, thereabouts.
6 or more seems a bit outrageous to me personally.

You didn't really address my point.

 

[sherb]

If you honestly believe it's a Richmond tax then you've lost the plot.

I didn't realize how strong the sense of victimhood was amongst some Tigers supporters.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I'm not going to get into this deabte

1) we don't have a biomechanist using sensors to measure Newton's second law

2) your basing most of the arument on force of the hit, when the act and they way it was attempted is disgusting

Your basically saying, that because there was no concussion and Sonsie didn't hit someone squarely in the jaw or nose, that because he missed, we should look favourably on this?

Meteoric Rise if this is the hill you want to die on... then you will DIE on this hill. Everyone one the forum will now think you are happy for thugs to be in the game and get a few weeks for their actions.

I think he should have been suspended. It was a stupid act, and a violent act. But there is a correct penalty for each prohibited act. It is not a matter of dying on hills. It will barely matter to Richmond's fortunes what the penalty is, within reason of course. You just want to see a fair penalty, as with every case.

When you are talking about a strike, as with other prohibited actions, the level of force needs to be considered. Otherwise you'd be getting suspended for something equivalent of a little punch in the arm your missus gives you when you say something you shouldn't. This is not even debatable. It is why for example Paddy McCartin's punch on Aaron Black got 5 weeks and Franklin's "punch" on Trent Cotchin got 1 week, both without much fanfare that I recall. They both did the same thing, just with entirely different levels of force. And the level of force Sonsie used appears imo to have been somewhere between those two incidents. None of the victims had any serious injury or concussion, so the only differing factor I can see is the force.

But just so I can get your position straight here, are you arguing the force behind a strike should not be considered in penalising the offending player?

I happen to like a little bit of violence in my sport, both playing and watching. It's why I will watch and play Aussie Rules or cricket but not so drawn to tennis or snooker etc. Violence tests courage in the truest sense, an element alone that can separate many competent sportsmen from great ones. As a fast bowler in cricket in my prime I used to think I don't necessarily want the batsman out immediately. I also want to hurt him. Then if he beats me he will have proven both his courage and skill and won my respect completely. I played football with much the same attitude. But always more or less within the limits of the rules of the sport. I don't like players doing really dangerous, reckless or disgusting acts and going unpunished. And I do think where a player is outside the rules of the sport he should be punished. Sonsie was well outside what is allowed and should be punished. What we are debating is the degree of the punishment. 3 weeks is more than enough to dissuade players from ever wanting to repeat what Sonsie did, which basically had no benefit to his team. It is extremely rare for these things to happen now, and where it does, see Caminiti on Murphy, Junior Rioli on Murphy and this one with Sonsie, it is normally the result of a half push half striking motion aimed at the upper body that has gone wrong.

Barry Hall - I am de-registering that player and asking him to show cause why he should ever be allowed on a footy field again.

Gaff - not sure what happened with that one but something went wrong somewhere, way out of character, but 8 weeks is enough in the circumstances.

Paddy McCartin - very very close to Barry Hall territory for mine, fortunately the victim not seriously injured so 5 or 6 weeks seems right.


So I don't condone these acts at all or Sonsie's. But Sonsie's is an order of magnitude below those ones. The penalty matrix is there for a reason. Use it. Or change it. Don't have it then vary it when there is mass hysteria about a routine example of the prohibited act of deliberately striking an opponent off the ball.

 

[Roby]

The wall of text means nothing.

You can claim force all you like but Sonsie went for his head. He was hitting his arm like you say in your post.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Force does not matter.

Not for this act.

It's like saying:

"I shot him, but the bullet only grazed him."

Yeah, force matters, I suppose. If Sonsie sent someone to hospital as opposed to what happened, instead of 6 weeks, he can be suspended for a whole year. Really doesn't marry with what someone may get for the same act out in public, outside of a football field.

If you are suspending that for a year in the event of a serious injury, don't people need to know this will be the penalty in advance? Why for eg would you suddenly suspend one for a year when all the previous cases have seen much lesser penalties? I don't get it.

 

[Roby]

If you are suspending that for a year in the event of a serious injury, don't people need to know this will be the penalty in advance? Why for eg would you suddenly suspend one for a year when all the previous cases have seen much lesser penalties? I don't get it.

Gaff was suspended for I believe 8 weeks?

The same action today is not 8 weeks, it will be more.

What did Barry Hall get? He ain't getting the same now. It will be double at a minimum.

There was a time when these hits were seen as reasonable.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I didn't realize how strong the sense of victimhood was amongst some Tigers supporters.

They still believe ARC is corrupt and Lynch was denied a goal that cost them last season's flag.
Utter nutcases.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Gaff was suspended for I believe 8 weeks?

The same action today is not 8 weeks, it will be more.

What did Barry Hall get? He ain't getting the same now. It will be double at a minimum.

There was a time when these hits were seen as reasonable.

So what you are saying is the matrix used to grade incidents is meaningless. With every new case it should be a more severe penalty than the last case? Or what are you saying?

The incident was graded by the Tribunal to the maximum level in 2 of the 3 relevant areas. High contact, and deliberate. This was not contested by Sonsie. I think we all accept those gradings. The VFL argued for the maximal impact grading of "severe." Sonsie successfully argued for the second highest impact grading of "high."

If Sonsie was correct, and you have not said anything to show he was not correct, then that triggers a 4 week ban, down to 3 with an early guilty plea. Which is what he got.

If the VFL is correct and it was "severe" impact then he would be due a higher penalty, more like 4 to 5 weeks, given the lack of injury.

But explain your position to me please. Are you arguing that the Tribunal should ignore all of these guidelines and just hand him by far the stiffest penalty ever for an incident like this because it is 2023 and no longer 2022 or 2021 when other vaguely comparable incidents occurred? If they did that wouldn't Sonsie just appeal on the grounds of the penalty being grossly excessive relative to all other previous cases?

 

[BF Tiger]

Gaff was suspended for I believe 8 weeks?

The same action today is not 8 weeks, it will be more.

What did Barry Hall get? He ain't getting the same now. It will be double at a minimum.

There was a time when these hits were seen as reasonable.

Both those impacts were classified as severe. When that happens and it is subsequently sent to the tribunal then the tribunal has a lot more say in the penalty (ie it falls outside the matrix).

If Sonsie had not successfully argued from severe down to high then he’d have fallen outside the matrix. As he did successfully argue it now falls inside the matrix and a fixed penalty is set.

I’d be happy to see the entire system blown up. Write the rules from the ground up. Three categories for intent (careless, reckless, deliberate) as too many acts seem to just not be deliberate enough to get that grading so get the lesser careless grading at the moment. Acts also defined as footballing or non-footballing. Minimum two weeks for any deliberate head strike. But I’m also very against changing interpretations and penalties mid-way through a season, so Sonsie needs to be graded relative to what is in place at the moment.

 

[Hank Heavenly]

This grading system was for football acts. It was never meant to be for non-footy actions (striking, kicking etc.)
Now we have a situation where intentionally striking someone gets the same as a tackle. Throw the system out and go back to the old tribunal.
I think common sense would creep back in if they did

That's exactly what it's meant for...

The tribunal is designed to suspend players who commit non-football actions on the footy field.
The matrix was designed to grade those non football actions accordingly.

It's only in the last 3-5 years that football actions have now crept into the matrix under the MRO which is complete horsesh!t, but what is also does now, is undermine the the whole system when a non football action occurs.

If you don't believe me, find a case in the first 115 years of Australian rules where a football action, like tackling, was actually reported or taken before the tribunal let alone have a player suspended for it.

The MRO and Tribunal are now are trying to be used to change the way the game is played, rather than outlaw non football actions.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

Jeez, and I thought McCartin was lucky. That was Hall/Gaff-levels of what the *ery.

No it wasn't. Hall much worse and Gaff's was worse too.

I will say though that just punching someone is assault, let the cops and courts deal with it.

 

[TheOptimum18]

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The * was the appeal all about in the first place. It had no chance of being graded severe contact.

Dine out on a bag of penises Whateley you Richmond hating campaigner.

 

[TheOptimum18]

The * was the appeal all about in the first place. It had no chance of being graded severe contact.

Dine out on a bag of penises Whateley you Richmond hating campaigner.

Very interesting as well that no one has described this as "woefully inadequate" after not even being cited by the MRO.

 

[tiger_tough]

So the tribunal agreed that it wasn't a closed fist, that first contact was with the shoulder and there was no concussion or injury concerns.....

While it's a bad look I won't be surprised if the 3 weeks stands.

As expected.

Few posters in here made to look pretty silly. "10 weeks", "Criminal charges" etc etc

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Very interesting as well that no one has described this as "woefully inadequate" after not even being cited by the MRO.

View attachment 1788591

Couple of frames of a scuffle v a player charging at a player and striking him?

 

[Toump Ass]

You didn't really address my point.

So what was your point sorry?
Fair penalty. Common sense prevails.

 

[sherb]

As expected.

Few posters in here made to look pretty silly. "10 weeks", "Criminal charges" etc etc

"Persecution tax".

 

[Muddiemoose]

Couple of frames of a scuffle v a player charging at a player and striking him?

Might want to watch the Sonsie footage again
Definitely no charging involved and as bad as it looks the force was obviously negligible since no medical report

Only difference between the two is one player want to ground and the other stays on his feet given the lack of medical reports I dare say the player who went to ground put some mayo on it to win himself a free

 

[hotchilli]

Might want to watch the Sonsie footage again
Definitely no charging involved and as bad as it looks the force was obviously negligible since no medical report

Only difference between the two is one player want to ground and the other stays on his feet given the lack of medical reports I dare say the player who went to ground put some mayo on it to win himself a free

You have to be kidding there right?

 

[Muddiemoose]

You have to be kidding there right?

No injury whatsoever and he went to ground… at the very least you would have a concussion if he was legitimately dazed