Hawkins off the ball hit, weeks or finals discount?

Remove this Banner Ad

Tony Harrison said:
They didn't say careless, they deemed it not to be a strike and an open hand.
As the camera is blindsided there would be leeway to give the benefit of the doubt.
Tom isn't afforded that luxury in this case.

Nice to see you get your information from memes.
Must be why you're so knowledgeable.
Click to expand...
Don't make me laugh please... Anyone who cannot see Dusty's hand is in a fist needs a visit to OPSM - you can see his ******* knuckles. Your trying to tell me Dusty was going for the open hand slap to the jaw - I'm done here lol. Just admit the MRP got influenced by $$ and didn't want to rub Dusty out of Brownlow contention.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sterge said:
You're missing the point it's not about the damage caused or hawkins being soft it's the fact he swung at all.

The tribunal is a mess, the fact that the result affects the outcome more than the intent is wrong, it should be a penalty for the action and loading for damage caused.
Click to expand...
Should have been graded insufficient force and let off. Schofield played the game without any issues - no concussion - nothing.
 
The Emu said:
Don't make me laugh please... Anyone who cannot see Dusty's hand is in a fist needs a visit to OPSM - you can see his ******* knuckles lol. Just admit the MRP got influenced by $$ and didn't want to rub Dusty out of Brownlow contention.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's not a fist.
I'm saying there was ambiguity in the vision and the front on photo had it as an open hand, (yes it may have been after it was a fist).
It's not that the AFL don't want Tom to play, it's that there is no ambiguity to get him off.
 
The Emu said:
Should have been graded insufficient force and let off. Schofield played the game without any issues - no concussion - nothing.
Click to expand...

A full blooded round arm that put him on the ground for a good minute....

Insufficient force...

Ok mate
 
The Emu said:
Schofield admitted he played it up. If it was as bad as you say he would have gone off for concussion tests - he didn't did he?
Click to expand...

If he played it up he would have been up as soon as he realised there was no whistle, you don't just lay on the ground for a minute just for a laugh.

Low impact can still result in no injury, the only way hawkins gets off is if west coast look after him
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The Emu said:
We all agree the impact was low - I'm arguing that it was careless not intentional. Schofield had his head at Hawkins chest level - Hawkins did not realise this when he made contact or he would not have done it. The MRP has had no issues grading these cases as Careless in the past when its clear the effect will be unreasonable given the player played out the game without issues.
Click to expand...


It was off the ball.

By definition it was intentional.

Case closed.


The player playing out the game is a measure of impact, not intent, and if your trying to argue that in order to qualify as low impact (and you contradict yourself here, so it's not clear if that's what you're saying), the victim needs to be forced to leave the ground for treatment, then you'd be laughed out of the tribunal. He went down, and stayed down...that's at least low impact.

The only debate here is one week or two. Call it finals discount, but Hawkins got off easy.
 
Last edited:
RegHickeyStand said:
Selwood did go off. I don't know that Shofield went off. Did he?
Click to expand...
Selwood wasn't injured though, or off for any longer than usual period, which is my point - sling tackles only get a week if there is an injury. I'm not saying I agree with it, it's just the way it is.

And Schofield going off or not is not relevant to Hawkins' charge, you should know that if you have read a few posts in this thread. That one comes down to whether his act was careless or intentional.
 
The Emu said:
We all agree the impact was low - I'm arguing that it was careless not intentional. Schofield had his head at Hawkins chest level - Hawkins did not realise this when he made contact or he would not have done it. The MRP has had no issues grading these cases as Careless in the past when its clear the effect will be unreasonable given the player played out the game without issues.
Click to expand...
Think we tried this defence in the Gaff case as well. Brayshaw moved lower as the punch came and it did far more damage than expected.

It didn't help him though, once you swing a punch you are responsible for it's consequences as far as the MRO is concerned.
 
The Emu said:
Should have been graded insufficient force and let off. Schofield played the game without any issues - no concussion - nothing.
Click to expand...
Are you a fan of allowing attempted murderers get off if there was no damage to the other person?

The AFL want to run out off the ball hits and this is an off the ball hit with the potential to do great harm (see Brayshaw).

Edit: Also the vision shows that he had a clenched fist like Dusty.
 
SloppyJoe said:
Selwood wasn't injured though, or off for any longer than usual period, which is my point - sling tackles only get a week if there is an injury. I'm not saying I agree with it, it's just the way it is.

And Schofield going off or not is not relevant to Hawkins' charge, you should know that if you have read a few posts in this thread. That one comes down to whether his act was careless or intentional.
Click to expand...
It appeared careless. He apologized immediately. There was nothing going on with the two prior that indicate intent.

I'm not sure that other stuff you say is actually the rules. Its like what they say one week to the other. Then change.
 
The Emu said:
Schofield admitted he played it up. If it was as bad as you say he would have gone off for concussion tests - he didn't did he?
Click to expand...
Please show us where he said that.
A credible source though not that guy on the Geelong board.
 
RegHickeyStand said:
It appeared careless. He apologized immediately. There was nothing going on with the two prior that indicate intent.

I'm not sure that other stuff you say is actually the rules. Its like what they say one week to the other. Then change.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to see what he says he was trying to do with his swinging arm.

And as to sling tackles - don't think I'm quoting the rules. I'm definitely not doing that.
 
David King reckons there's behind the goal vision which clearly shows he has a case for the action being in the play. Will be interesting.
 
David King’s defence is as ridiculous as it comes.

Virtually every player in the modern game is within a kick of the ball, I guess we can now whack blokes off the ball and if we get them in the head it’s simply ‘I was making position for the ball as I though it was about to be kicked in my direction’.
 
Martin#4 said:
David King’s defence is as ridiculous as it comes.

Virtually every player in the modern game is within a kick of the ball, I guess we can now whack blokes off the ball and if we get them in the head it’s simply ‘I was making position for the ball as I though it was about to be kicked in my direction’.
Click to expand...
Gaff was just trying to get away from Brayshaw to get the next contest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LordLucifer
MRP / Trib. Rampe Gets Two Match Suspension For Off The Ball Bump
2 3
Replies
70
Views
3K
.Shotties.
.Shotties.
tangolikelama
MRP / Trib. Webster KO's Simpkin - Update 7 week penalty
33 34 35 36 37
Replies
914
Views
32K
j09948772
J
The Hobo
Viney hit on Boak
Replies
9
Views
745
The Hobo
The Hobo
Chaisa
MRP / Trib. Hunter on Rozee hit
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
3K
danster168
danster168
BigVic
MRP / Trib. Rhyan Mansell hit on James Aish
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
195
Views
8K
Roby
Roby
fpm84
MRP / Trib. Caminiti hit on Murphy
18 19 20 21 22
Replies
544
Views
14K
Wosh
Wosh
Chief
MRP / Trib. MRP and Tribunal - 2024 - Rd 5 - Charlie Cameron 1 week?
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
282
Views
10K
Adelaide Hawk
Adelaide Hawk

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top