Nash on Miers

[RonnieRaven]

4 weeks feels just about right considering the outcome on miers

Yeah, I would of been happy with 3 but with Voss getting 3 (severe impact)and his victim took the most marks in the league for the rd and led his team to a win they can’t give the same to Nash the following week with Miers(severe impact) getting proper knocked out and could miss two
weeks.

 

[PenAndPaper]

Not true as Smith's two incidents are both under the Fixed financial sanction section.

Obscene gestures for giving the crowd the bird and misconduct for the football. Throwing the football is not under any of the classifiable offences attracting suspensions.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2025/02/14/24bc7921-5a4b-4ccb-bca6-df93229183c1/149960_2025_AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines_RGB_FA-2-.pdf

Sections 3.3 and 4.3

Firstly, let's get one thing absolutely straight. He didn't throw the football, he held the football and struck Impey while still holding it. It was a strike, no matter how low impact it was, it was a strike.

In section 3.3 they use the wording "usually" when talking about what the player is being hit with constituting a strike. That does not rule out being struck in the head with a football.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Firstly, let's get one thing absolutely straight. He didn't throw the football, he held the football and struck Impey while still holding it. It was a strike, no matter how low impact it was, it was a strike.

In section 3.3 they use the wording "usually" when talking about what the player is being hit with constituting a strike. That does not rule out being struck in the head with a football.

... And yet Michael Christian at the MRO has listed it as misconduct as explained.

Go figure.

 

[Cyclops]

Brutal strike to the head. Not reckless, swiping through a guy's head because "the ball might be on the other side" is a deliberate hit.

High, high impact, intentional. 4 weeks. They might want to make an example, but good record should cancel that out.

Firstly, let's get one thing absolutely straight. He didn't throw the football, he held the football and struck Impey while still holding it. It was a strike, no matter how low impact it was, it was a strike.
In section 3.3 they use the wording "usually" when talking about what the player is being hit with constituting a strike. That does not rule out being struck in the head with a football.

Pushed a footy in a bloke's face. Its a strike like a fart is a chemical weapons attack.

 

[PenAndPaper]

... And yet Michael Christian at the MRO has listed it as misconduct as explained.

Go figure.

Yeah let's not be using Michael Christian as a source of consistency when he's generally all over the shop.
Wild that the AFL hasn't considered it a strike when it absolutely was a strike. Personally, I wouldn't give a week for it but whether I think it should be a week or not is irrelevant, it was obviously an intentional strike, with low impact, high contact and should have been graded as such.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Yeah let's not be using Michael Christian as a source of consistency when he's generally all over the shop.
Wild that the AFL hasn't considered it a strike when it absolutely was a strike. Personally, I wouldn't give a week for it but whether I think it should be a week or not is irrelevant, it was obviously an intentional strike, with low impact, high contact and should have been graded as such.

You're entitled to an opinion but that doesn't make it right.

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

There's no maximum grading for careless, only a minimum. Tribunal could still say 6 or more if they see fit.

We will appeal if it's 6, anything g above 4 I can see the club appealing it.

 

[PenAndPaper]

You're entitled to an opinion but that doesn't make it right.

Doesn't make it wrong either.
The fact that if Smith didn't have the ball in his hand and hit Impey it would have been called a strike is the laughable thing here. It was a striking action, he struck Impey.

Precedence is an interesting thing for Morris to be using there when the Tribunal doesn't actually take precedence into account anyway.

Not to mention it was something that happened a decade ago and the ball was released from his hand (though I'd still consider that a strike anyway).

 

[Purple Suit]

Doesn't make it wrong either.
The fact that if Smith didn't have the ball in his hand and hit Impey it would have been called a strike is the laughable thing here. It was a striking action, he struck Impey.

Precedence is an interesting thing for Morris to be using there when the Tribunal doesn't actually take precedence into account anyway.

Not to mention it was something that happened a decade ago and the ball was released from his hand (though I'd still consider that a strike anyway).

The ball has air in it though so it was more like a pillow fight than a strike.

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

You're entitled to an opinion but that doesn't make it right.

If were cracking down on head contact would have thought getting a ball to the head constitutes a different definition these days. I mean Rioli got suspended for attempting to strike back than.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Doesn't make it wrong either.
The fact that if Smith didn't have the ball in his hand and hit Impey it would have been called a strike is the laughable thing here. It was a striking action, he struck Impey.

Precedence is an interesting thing for Morris to be using there when the Tribunal doesn't actually take precedence into account anyway.

Not to mention it was something that happened a decade ago and the ball was released from his hand (though I'd still consider that a strike anyway).

Details matter.

Bumps to the head are rough conduct not striking as it isn't the hands or arms causing the contact. Tripping is its own separate charge (even using hands) and not striking because the action is different.

So there being a football in the hand is the detail that makes it misconduct and not a strike.

 

[PenAndPaper]

Details matter.

Bumps to the head are rough conduct not striking as it isn't the hands or arms causing the contact. Tripping is its own separate charge (even using hands) and not striking because the action is different.

So there being a football in the hand is the detail that makes it misconduct and not a strike.

No, its rough conduct because its a footballing act. Tripping has its own thing because its not a strike or a footballing act.

The action of having a football in your hand and hitting someone in the face is not a different action than not having a football in your hand and hitting someone in the face, they are the same action...which is a strike.

 

[ShadowCat]

Funny, I thought this was the Nash on Miers thread. Strange hill to die on, conflating Nash knocking Miers out and making him miss 2 weeks...versus a love tap to the head with a footy - that importantly caused Impey no ill effects and made for theatre for the rest of the match.

In regards to this argument about a 'strike'...people seem to be missing the fact that strikes don't constitute bans, if they don't result in injury. It's an outcome based MRP, whether we like it or not.

If Impey goes off with concussion, you guys have a point and Smith gets a week. As it stands, you don't. Nothing happened. The force was minimal at best, and no-one remonstrated with Smith seriously, just like the Cats didn't with Nash - as it was not intentional, just extremely clumsy.

Not everything has to be a tribal shitfight. It was a fantastic game, and lived up to the rivalry with a record crowd and theatre/pressure everywhere. Maybe we can just leave it at that.


*Patrick Cripps

9

Patrick Cripps

Age

30

Ht

195cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

25.9

5star

K

9.8

4star

HB

16.1

5star

M

3.4

3star

T

5.8

5star

CL

7.4

5star

D

21.0

5star

K

10.1

4star

HB

10.9

5star

M

2.5

3star

T

3.8

4star

CL

6.3

5star

D

12.6

4star

K

4.8

2star

HB

7.8

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.2

5star

CL

1.4

4star

striking charge from last week:

 

[Art Vandelay_]

No, its rough conduct because its a footballing act. Tripping has its own thing because its not a strike or a footballing act.

The action of having a football in your hand and hitting someone in the face is not a different action than not having a football in your hand and hitting someone in the face, they are the same action...which is a strike.

And yet in the real world it's been assessed as misconduct, just as Rance was way back when.

What you think it is does not align with what it actually is.

 

[PenAndPaper]

Funny, I thought this was the Nash on Miers thread. Strange hill to die on, conflating Nash knocking Miers out and making him miss 2 weeks...versus a love tap to the head with a footy - that importantly caused Impey no ill effects and made for theatre for the rest of the match.

In regards to this argument about a 'strike'...people seem to be missing the fact that strikes don't constitute bans, if they don't result in injury. It's an outcome based MRP, whether we like it or not.

If Impey goes off with concussion, you guys have a point and Smith gets a week. As it stands, you don't. Nothing happened. The force was minimal at best, and no-one remonstrated with Smith seriously, just like the Cats didn't with Nash - as it was not intentional, just extremely clumsy.

Not everything has to be a tribal shitfight. It was a fantastic game, and lived up to the rivalry with a record crowd and theatre/pressure everywhere. Maybe we can just leave it at that.


*Patrick Cripps striking charge from last week:

View attachment 2292235

Nash and Smith incidents were significantly different in severity, nobody is arguing they are the same thing. Nash getting 4 weeks would be a deserved outcome imo.

Strikes don't constitute bans within the AFL's own matrix when the strike is low impact and to the body, not the head. I haven't seen the Cripps strike but I dare say that if it was graded as intentional then it must have been to the body and if it wasn't, he should get a week by the AFL's very own matrix.

The force of the strike on Impey was minimal, not arguing that. Again, going by the AFL's very own suspension matrix, Smith's strike was intentional, low impact and high contact which constitutes a week suspension.

This isn't a tribal shit fight from me. This is just showing how inconsistent the AFL is when they even have their own guidelines which they ignore.

 

[PenAndPaper]

And yet in the real world it's been assessed as misconduct, just as Rance was way back when.

What you think it is does not align with what it actually is.

And that assessment is absolutely incorrect by the AFL, therein lies the problem.
It was very clearly a strike.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

And that assessment is absolutely incorrect by the AFL, therein lies the problem.
It was very clearly a strike.

But you're not listening. The presence of the football matters.

Can I be guilty of vehicular homicide as a pedestrian on the sidewalk? No. Because of the absence of a vehicle.

The presence and use of the football to move towards an opponent is precisely what makes this misconduct which is in the guidelines.

 

[ShadowCat]

Nash and Smith incidents were significantly different in severity, nobody is arguing they are the same thing. Nash getting 4 weeks would be a deserved outcome imo.

Strikes don't constitute bans within the AFL's own matrix when the strike is low impact and to the body, not the head. I haven't seen the Cripps strike but I dare say that if it was graded as intentional then it must have been to the body and if it wasn't, he should get a week by the AFL's very own matrix.

The force of the strike on Impey was minimal, not arguing that. Again, going by the AFL's very own suspension matrix, Smith's strike was intentional, low impact and high contact which constitutes a week suspension.

This isn't a tribal shit fight from me. This is just showing how inconsistent the AFL is when they even have their own guidelines which they ignore.

Even if we agree with all you say re: a strike, it still doesn't change the fact that a) a football was in between the hand and the head of Impey...and more importantly, and more relevant, b) for Smith to be holding a football, his hand is open so the strike is an open palm strike with his hand and not a clenched fist.

The AFL for the last few years, has always adjudicated open palm strikes as negligible contact, and a fine for misconduct at most. When players get into dust ups, and another one hits someone in the face, the hand being open or closed is a determining factor on whether or not it constitutes a ban or a fine.

All roads lead to a fine in this circumstance. The AFL may be murky as sh*t on other matters, but on this particular one, there's no other eventuation than 'misconduct' and a fine as the outcome. His hand was open, the force was insignificant, and a ball was in between his open palm and Impey's head. There's no other way for this to be determined.

 

[PenAndPaper]

But you're not listening. The presence of the football matters.

Can I be guilty of vehicular homicide as a pedestrian on the sidewalk? No. Because of the absence of a vehicle.

The presence and use of the football to move towards an opponent is precisely what makes this misconduct which is in the guidelines.

That is a strange comparison that only strengthens my point because the act of homicide was still present. The same as the act of striking by Smith, following on from your analogy then the AFL should bring in a striking with an instrument...may as well give him 2 weeks.

If Smith puts his boot on his hand and punches someone in the face, you're saying that should be misconduct then too since it wasn't his hand skin-on-skin making contact?
That absolutely should be a strike, just like Smith striking Impey with a ball in his hand should be a strike.

 

[PenAndPaper]

Even if we agree with all you say re: a strike, it still doesn't change the fact that a) a football was in between the hand and the head of Impey...and more importantly, and more relevant, b) for Smith to be holding a football, his hand is open so the strike is an open palm strike with his hand and not a clenched fist.

The AFL for the last few years, has always adjudicated open palm strikes as negligible contact, and a fine for misconduct at most. When players get into dust ups, and another one hits someone in the face, the hand being open or closed is a determining factor on whether or not it constitutes a ban or a fine.

All roads lead to a fine in this circumstance. The AFL may be murky as sh*t on other matters, but on this particular one, there's no other eventuation than 'misconduct' and a fine as the outcome. His hand was open, the force was insignificant, and a ball was in between his open palm and Impey's head. There's no other way for this to be determined.

If you hypothetically do agree with everything I'm saying re: a strike then its a strike and abides by that AFL matrix for striking, so should be a week.

This is exactly where the AFL are murky on these situations and the problem I have with it. Smith grabbing a ball and striking Impey in the head with it is absolutely a striking action, the fact the football is there should be irrelevant. A football being used should not absolve the action from what it was, which was a strike, albeit a very low impact one.

 

[div12ressie]

impey deserved a fine for flopping acting like he'd been shot.

 

[Cyclops]

Bizarre derailing ITT.

Gnash 4 or 6?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

That is a strange comparison that only strengthens my point because the act of homicide was still present. The same as the act of striking by Smith, following on from your analogy then the AFL should bring in a striking with an instrument...may as well give him 2 weeks.

If Smith puts his boot on his hand and punches someone in the face, you're saying that should be misconduct then too since it wasn't his hand skin-on-skin making contact?
That absolutely should be a strike, just like Smith striking Impey with a ball in his hand should be a strike.

Not really.
The comparison is accurate.

Smith has been sanctioned for his actions. And the different classification is based on those details that separate it from another tribunal charge. Which is what the analogy was hinting at.

 

[Tugga27]

Bizarre derailing ITT.

Gnash 4 or 6?

It's more of a case of 3 or 4.

 

[hawkman]

It's more of a case of 3 or 4.

AFL are only asking for 4