AFL Player 20: Peter Wright - Club Leading Goalkicker!

[Lore]

Contract Status: Free Agent (?) 2027
My Boy Draft 2024: Pick 21, TheGrizz

 

[MiguelM]

I don't understand what players in Wright's position are supposed to do? I don't think he 'decided' to brace for impact, he instinctively reacted that way (there was no decision process).

Agree. Unfortunately even instinctively protecting himself has consequences if contact made to the head. It is just where we are with all the CTE stuff.

I grew up with 70s/80s footy as a kid and the Wright incident would not even be looked at, but we know more re brain injuries now, and the game has to be clear or be sued out of existence.

It was clear Wright had no intent to knock the player out and hopefully the tribunal agrees.

The commentary on the night and knee jerk reactions were ott IMO. Even heard some calling for the red card ffs.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Agree. Unfortunately even instinctively protecting himself has consequences if contact made to the head. It is just where we are with all the CTE stuff.

I grew up with 70s/80s footy as a kid and the Wright incident would not even be looked at, but we know more re brain injuries now, and the game has to be clear or be sued out of existence.

It was clear Wright had no intent to knock the player out and hopefully the tribunal agrees.

The commentary on the night and knee jerk reactions were ott IMO. Even heard some calling for the red card ffs.

Sure, but suspending players for instinctive acts won't stop those acts taking place, precisely because they're instinctive. The only way to prevent CTE stuff is either via safety equipment or change the rules to something like, "if you encounter an oncoming player you cannot attempt to mark or spoil the all." To try and outlaw instinctive acts makes zero sense.

 

[Lore]

I don't understand what players in Wright's position are supposed to do? I don't think he 'decided' to brace for impact, he instinctively reacted that way (there was no decision process).

Which shoulder has surgery last year?

 

[andleanback]

Didn’t attempt to mark.. book a flight to Bali

Yes put his hands up and bust his ribs and be out for a couple of months

 

[Beerfish]

At least this way he's not out for as long as he would have been with broken ribs and he also doesn't have broken ribs.

Silver linings.

 

[Blind Turn]

I hope the team psychologist is right on to this. Wright is one of the biggest offenders when it come to my current ‘bugbear’ - lack of marking presence from our talls. He seems to be a gentle giant and it’s not in his make-up to clean someone up. It could set him back massively on being able to impose himself on games.

 

[Highly Evolved]

If he throws his arms out Cunningham shatters his ribs, dunno what they expect of him.

Exactly. I'm not breaking my ribs in that instance. Cunningham also has a duty of care to himself - if he chooses to cut into that lead path on an angle then he needs to brace for impact too. It's just unfortunate.

 

[Snake Charmer]

Yes put his hands up and bust his ribs and be out for a couple of months

What’s your point? That didn’t happen. AFL have been pretty clear on it. As a bloke who grew up watching 90s footy I have no issue with it, and still see this sorta stuff week after week in country vic footy. But he went the body and KOd someone. It’s not on now days

 

[BomberFan355]

Just watched it, eyes on the ball and braced for contact.

As usual though, we’ll get ****ed in the arse. 4 weeks.

 

[Blind Turn]

If they’re that worried about CTE then the laws of the game need to be re-jigged for these scenarios to alter the instinctiveness at the marking contest.

You can go one of two ways. You either outlaw all front-on contact regardless of having eyes on the ball. Or you instill right-of-way laws to those going back with the flight. If you do the latter, you’re encouraging reckless courage that is more likely to earn you a free kick and thus more likely to lead to injuries rather than prevent them. So, for me it has to be the first option.

 

[Petrify]

Genuinely think he was trying to take a chest mark, didn't realise the Sydney player was coming, then braced for contact at the last moment

 

[Old Campaigner]

Genuinely think he was trying to take a chest mark, didn't realise the Sydney player was coming, then braced for contact at the last moment

That much is obvious from the replays, you see him fixated on the ball then see the swan's player on the edge of his field of vision causing him to flinch.

I'm sure the exact time will come out in the tribunal but it's literally milliseconds in it.

 

[BrunoV]

It certainly tests the actual issue faced by the AFL.

Wright is clumsy in his attempt to protect himself. It's clumsy because he jumps, to try to take a chest mark, shapes to protect himself and collides with Cunningham. There is no disguise. I don't believe he ever thought he'd be taking Cunningham out, or anything to that extent. He's not wired that way.

But the collision is inevitable at a point that, in my view, makes what happens subsequently irrelevant in terms of protecting the head and changing behaviour.

Wright is clearly entitled to play the ball. That's the issue and no one has said Wright is not allowed to protect himself and certainly not that he is not allowed to play the ball. The decision made after the collision is inevitable and is dishonestly or stupidly classified as electing to bump despite it never being explained to a player what is supposed to happen once he has legitimately decided to play the ball. Should he just hurtle in and knock himself and his opponent out? The AFL has left it to the prosecutor general Jeff Gleeson to try to con the Tribunal into inventing a convention that requires players to pull out. That is not reasonably left to the Tribunal. It needs to be legislated.

And no, none of this has any bearing, whatsoever on the AFL's liability position because the AFL has left this grey area and almost all collisions happen in the grey zone. The only issue there is whether the those running actions against the AFL can think outside of the boiler plate scenarios.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

If they’re that worried about CTE then the laws of the game need to be re-jigged for these scenarios to alter the instinctiveness at the marking contest.

You can go one of two ways. You either outlaw all front-on contact regardless of having eyes on the ball. Or you instill right-of-way laws to those going back with the flight. If you do the latter, you’re encouraging reckless courage that is more likely to earn you a free kick and thus more likely to lead to injuries rather than prevent them. So, for me it has to be the first option.

Yep, exactly.

 

[Nicholas61]

I hope the team psychologist is right on to this. Wright is one of the biggest offenders when it come to my current ‘bugbear’ - lack of marking presence from our talls. He seems to be a gentle giant and it’s not in his make-up to clean someone up. It could set him back massively on being able to impose himself on games.

I thought of this too. Looked gutted straight after the incident too so is a gentle giant, most don't seem to care. Cunningham seemed genuinely accepting of the apology post game when they had a decent chat. I have only seen Wright on the angry pills once and that was against the Saints a few years back where he was crashing packs and hurting guys a bit Dixon style then that cue went back in the rack.

 

[Beerfish]

What I was really pleased with was that he went back and slotted two set shots after that incident instead of letting all the numpty Sydney supporters get to him and completely lose confidence which is what I was expecting.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Watched the replay in full at normal speed after seeing everybody dissect it frame by frame and I'm fairly comfortable saying there was nothing Wright could to do to not hit Cunningham after he realised it was coming. Lots seem critical of Wright turning his body - if he has continued trying to take the mark then Cunningham would have copped a fist or an elbow to the head instead.

 

[bombreys]

What I was really pleased with was that he went back and slotted two set shots after that incident instead of letting all the numpty Sydney supporters get to him and completely lose confidence which is what I was expecting.

The one from long range was so pure - not many better set shot duos in the league than he and Langers, if any

 

[maskmcgee]

Nothing a lawsuit won't fix.

 

[Duckworth]

Is “it’s a collision sport, what else was he expected to do?” Enough of a defence?
Wright had eyes for the ball and adjusted for contact after he saw something in his peripheral vision. Hardly any malice in it.

 

[Tazdog]

If Maynard got off for ending Brayshaws career, then 2mp should be fine. No history of violence, he went for a mark and made an unfortunate collision.

 

[Old Campaigner]

If Maynard got off for ending Brayshaws career, then 2mp should be fine. No history of violence, he went for a mark and made an unfortunate collision.

They changed the rules specifically because Maynard got off

 

[Bunk Moreland]

It is a tough one, I really don’t know what the answer is with these sort of collisions.

The same incident - two players on a collision course going for the ball - BUT with the ball on the ground… we seem to have largely solved. It started out with the AFL suspending anybody who collected anyone in the head - which I maintain is a flawed approach. The fault in that situation is on the player who leads with his head and and gets taken out. It shat me to tears for many years… Selwood was the main offender, the bloke simply cannoned into ground ball contests… leading with his head. It’d get taken out and the other guy would get suspended while we all had to listen to how incredibly brave Joel was. Well yes he was a tough player, he was also stupidly reckless and refused to protect himself.

That seems to have worked itself out. Two players on a collision course for a ground ball now turn their bodies and hit the contest side on. Which is the best outcome as nobody’s head is in danger.

This is similar, but with the ball in the air.

How should it be looked at? In the strictest and most traditional sense, it’s Cunningham’s fault that he got knocked out. Two players attacked a contest and only one of them chose not to protect himself.

But that was pretty much required for him to get the ball. And that’s what we laud in football - “putting yourself on the line” - Cunningham did that, sacrificing his own wellbeing to stop Wright getting the ball and maybe going on to score a goal.

Really, Cunningham’s only other option was to pull out of the contest, which we do not accept.

So even though it was Cunningham’s fault, it was done with the most laudable football intentions. For 100+ years, all fair, well done, ridiculously brave, bad luck, everybody gets on with it and Wright doesn’t face any problems because he was merely protecting himself in the contest.

That doesn’t wash any more.

What were Wright’s options? Hard to know if he had any given we’re talking milliseconds. Obviously first and foremost he’s going for the ball, at what point does he consciously realise he’s not getting it and instead brace for contact? There probably isn’t a conscious decision, it’s all so quick.

What else can he do? I guess he can attack the contest with venom but instead attempt to get low. Broken ribs, punctured lung for Cunningham, which appears to be the preferred option.

Or he can pull out entirely, which we won’t accept.

Really, the only true way to get rid of these collisions is to make it “black and white” illegal to make contact with any player who is in the air going for a mark. Players won’t do it and will actively pull out of contests. We obviously won’t accept that.

 

[The Prosecutor]

 

[fairbump_playon]

It is a tough one, I really don’t know what the answer is with these sort of collisions.

The same incident - two players on a collision course going for the ball - BUT with the ball on the ground… we seem to have largely solved. It started out with the AFL suspending anybody who collected anyone in the head - which I maintain is a flawed approach. The fault in that situation is on the player who leads with his head and and gets taken out. It shat me to tears for many years… Selwood was the main offender, the bloke simply cannoned into ground ball contests… leading with his head. It’d get taken out and the other guy would get suspended while we all had to listen to how incredibly brave Joel was. Well yes he was a tough player, he was also stupidly reckless and refused to protect himself.

That seems to have worked itself out. Two players on a collision course for a ground ball now turn their bodies and hit the contest side on. Which is the best outcome as nobody’s head is in danger.

This is similar, but with the ball in the air.

How should it be looked at? In the strictest and most traditional sense, it’s Cunningham’s fault that he got knocked out. Two players attacked a contest and only one of them chose not to protect himself.

But that was pretty much required for him to get the ball. And that’s what we laud in football - “putting yourself on the line” - Cunningham did that, sacrificing his own wellbeing to stop Wright getting the ball and maybe going on to score a goal.

Really, Cunningham’s only other option was to pull out of the contest, which we do not accept.

So even though it was Cunningham’s fault, it was done with the most laudable football intentions. For 100+ years, all fair, well done, ridiculously brave, bad luck, everybody gets on with it and Wright doesn’t face any problems because he was merely protecting himself in the contest.

That doesn’t wash any more.

What were Wright’s options? Hard to know if he had any given we’re talking milliseconds. Obviously first and foremost he’s going for the ball, at what point does he consciously realise he’s not getting it and instead brace for contact? There probably isn’t a conscious decision, it’s all so quick.

What else can he do? I guess he can attack the contest with venom but instead attempt to get low. Broken ribs, punctured lung for Cunningham, which appears to be the preferred option.

Or he can pull out entirely, which we won’t accept.

Really, the only true way to get rid of these collisions is to make it “black and white” illegal to make contact with any player who is in the air going for a mark. Players won’t do it and will actively pull out of contests. We obviously won’t accept that.

To avoid suspension Wright needed to either be badly injured or to tuck himself up so he was all elbows and knees and go straight at the footy, attempting to chest mark

Cunningham would still be in hospital if Wright had done that but there would have been no suspension