MRP / Trib. Tom Stewart - Result 4 week match suspension

[tigs2010]

Pay that one.

I agree for Richmond fans its s**t to have one of your best taken out in an important game.

But that's exactly what ol' helmet hair cotchin did in 2017. GWS were in it up to their necks until that point. And the AFL let him play the next week

You’re an imbecile

 

[BG32]

It’ll be 3 or 4 weeks

 

[Underarm]

Pay that one.

I agree for Richmond fans its s**t to have one of your best taken out in an important game.

But that's exactly what ol' helmet hair cotchin did in 2017. GWS were in it up to their necks until that point. And the AFL let him play the next week

Except Shiel kept playing after that incident. A later marking contest caused his concussion.

 

[Sterge]

Yes it would. It deserves a number of weeks. But its not the worst in a long time. He didnt punch him or lead with an elbow.

True the last geelong bloke to lead with an elbow got zero weeks

 

[Romeoh1]

Deserves 3 weeks. Brain fade from a very fair player. Apart from that- what a good game he played.

 

[sobrave]

Except Shiel kept playing after that incident. A later marking contest caused his concussion.

 

[perplexed]

Looks like 3 to me. Intentional-High-High. Would have to have thrown an elbow to be graded as severe.

View attachment 1432652

If a player is knocked out the impact is severe. It should go to the tribunal and be a 4+ penalty. I think he'll get away with four coz it's Stewart not Toby.

 

[Tony Harrison]

Cameron got 5 weeks, deservedly, on Harris Andrews

31

Harris Andrews

Age

27

Ht

202cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.8

3star

K

7.4

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

5.6

5star

T

1.6

4star

MG

151.7

2star

D

17.0

4star

K

9.0

4star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.0

3star

D

9.8

3star

K

5.0

2star

HB

4.8

4star

M

3.4

4star

T

1.6

4star

MG

94.0

2star

and that was a lot closer to contesting the ball than this one.

 

[Seeds]

If a player is knocked out the impact is severe. It should go to the tribunal and be a 4+ penalty. I think he'll get away with four coz it's Stewart not Toby.

He wasnt knocked out. He was concussed.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The big problem with this one for Stewart both in terms of the judiciary and public opinion, is there is no way of telling what he did apart from a player just deliberately trying to take out an opposition key player. If it was a brain fade, then as brain fades go it was right up there.

The AFL sent David McKay to the Tribunal with a recommendation for 3 weeks for contesting the ball fairly.

They sent Dangerfield to the tribunal with a recommendation for 3 weeks for his horrendous late bump on Kelly.

This will be a huge test of where the AFL sits on players causing concussion with a deliberate act. If things unfold as they should:

- Brad Scott should say I can have no part in this due to a clear conflict of interest.

- The MRO should refer it to the Tribunal with a request for the maximum possible penalty, so as not to cap the tribunal’s punishment. So the MRO or whoever stands in for Brad Scott whould ask for a remainder of season suspension. Then the tribunal should consider it on its merits. 4 weeks would be the absolute minimum you would think, and as many as 6-8 weeks in play.

 

[Seeds]

Cameron got 5 weeks, deservedly, on Harris Andrews and that was a lot closer to contesting the ball than this one.

Cameron had a raised elbow. Andrews went to Hospital with bleeding on the brain. timing is one of many factors.

 

[Seeds]

The big problem with this one for Stewart both in terms of the judiciary and public opinion, is there is no way of telling what he did apart from a player just deliberately trying to take out an opposition key player. If it was a brain fade, then as brain fades go it was right up there.

The AFL sent David McKay to the Tribunal with a recommendation for 3 weeks for contesting the ball fairly.

They sent Dangerfield to the tribunal with a recommendation for 3 weeks for his horrendous late bump on Kelly.

This will be a huge test of where the AFL sits on players causing concussion with a deliberate act. If things unfold as they should:

- Brad Scott should say I can have no part in this due to a clear conflict of interest.

- The MRO should refer it to the Tribunal with a request for the maximum possible penalty, so as not to cap the tribunal’s punishment. So the MRO or whoever stands in for Brad Scott whould ask for a remainder of season suspension. Then the tribunal should consider it on its merits. 4 weeks would be the absolute minimum you would think, and as many as 6-8 weeks in play.

6-8 weeks would be completely inconsistent with all other incidences.

 

[Rich01]

Remembered only by idiots like you who no one really cares about..

He'll get at least 4.

Sure.
I reckon if I look thru this thread there will be some knob who brings up the Cotchin hit on Shiel, or Lynch rough housing. It always leaves a stain on the players rep unfortunately for Tom.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

6-8 weeks would be completely inconsistent with all other incidences.

Can you recall one like this in recent years?

Not sure I can. Most others even actions where you think that is pretty unsound you could see what the player might have been trying to do. This one you cannot see what Stewart could have been trying to do that would be legitimate.

 

[DrakeOMalfoy]

3 or 4 weeks.

Houli got 4 weeks (and only on appeal because he’s a good bloke remember) for cold clocking Lamb behind play and Gaff only got 6 weeks for breaking a jaw off the ball

 

[garlic munchers]

I would say 4-5 weeks

I think people need to get real regarding comparing it to Milburn.



A lot lot worse.

Would have to be one of the shittiest blokes as well.

Celebrating a cheap shot against someone running back with the flight. Really?

 

[Rich01]

He wasnt knocked out. He was concussed.

What’s the definition of knocked out?

 

[perplexed]

He wasnt knocked out. He was concussed.

What are you on about? Prestia was a mess. No way was he getting up before a ten count.

 

[perplexed]

What’s the definition of knocked out?

"to stun by a blow for a 10-count"

 

[Randomizor]

Can you recall one like this in recent years?

Not sure I can. Most others even actions where you think that is pretty unsound you could see what the player might have been trying to do. This one you cannot see what Stewart could have been trying to do that would be legitimate.

Gaff got 8 for his hit on Brayshaw
Solomon 8 when he broke Ling’s jaw
Jonas 6 for his horrendous elbow on an eagles player a few years back

This doesn’t come close to those. You don’t get to add 2 weeks just because it happened to a Richmond player.

 

[dean33]

Lol. The elbow wasnt even raised. No broken bones. its a 3 weeker.

Considering the coaches brother is the head of football I’d be surprised if he got more than a fine.

 

[ams4crows]

View attachment 1432616

Watch the MRO try and say this is Careless

Geelong will argue it was careless but it was intentional should also be graded severe

 

[Hinkley29]

The big problem with this one for Stewart both in terms of the judiciary and public opinion, is there is no way of telling what he did apart from a player just deliberately trying to take out an opposition key player. If it was a brain fade, then as brain fades go it was right up there.

The AFL sent David McKay to the Tribunal with a recommendation for 3 weeks for contesting the ball fairly.

They sent Dangerfield to the tribunal with a recommendation for 3 weeks for his horrendous late bump on Kelly.

This will be a huge test of where the AFL sits on players causing concussion with a deliberate act. If things unfold as they should:

- Brad Scott should say I can have no part in this due to a clear conflict of interest.

- The MRO should refer it to the Tribunal with a request for the maximum possible penalty, so as not to cap the tribunal’s punishment. So the MRO or whoever stands in for Brad Scott whould ask for a remainder of season suspension. Then the tribunal should consider it on its merits. 4 weeks would be the absolute minimum you would think, and as many as 6-8 weeks in play.

Why should Brad Scott have no part?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Why should Brad Scott have no part?

He has a clear conflict of interest. It is pretty simple.

 

[Hinkley29]

He has a clear conflict of interest. It is pretty simple.

Former Richmond player Emmitt Dunne sat on the tribunal for 20 years and then joined the Richmond board in 2017.

I am sure you were fine with him making decisions on suspensions for 20 years.

There is no such thing as a person in footy who isn’t conflicted in some way, shape or form.