MRP / Trib. Sam Durham bump on Cerra - how many weeks?

[Chadwiko]

Three weeks, we reckon? Yeah?

 

[Orange Agent]

Carlton doctor $20k fine for not bringing him off.

 

[maskmcgee]

If Cerra's concussed 3, if he's not 1-2.

 

[The hands of stone]

Will be 0 or 3-4

 

[kaiserchief13]

Should be 8 imo. Is an action that could put Cerra in a wheelchair

 

[hawkman]

Crazy that it is likely 1 week just because he didn't knock him out.

That incident should be 3 weeks no matter what injury was the result

 

[fusion]

Crazy that it is likely 1 week just because he didn't knock him out.

That incident should be 3 weeks no matter what injury was the result

That's a very dangerous act, and risks a spinal cord injury. It should be 3 weeks with no concussion and 4-5 if there is.

But under the current system intent is penalised less than outcome, so he'll get a lighter penalty. And Carlton should be fined for not taking him off if we are serious about protecting players.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

If Cerra's concussed 3, if he's not 1-2.

It would be an absolute clown show if he only got 1 or 2. Intentional and about the most dangerous action you can do in the game.

So you are probably right that it will be 1 or 2 weeks, because the AFL is a clown show.

 

[StillAtLarge]

It'll be one or two. Hate seeing those incidents, really poor from Durham (who I see as a likeable fair player)

 

[Orange Agent]

Compared to Tom Stewart, it's a second away from serious injury and the intent is the same, deliberate action to bump. I don't think either incident deserves no penalty but I'm intrigued to see where this goes given the precedent already set for this weekend.

 

[warped79]

1 week less than Stewart's bump.

 

[eth-dog]

It'll be graded one of two ways:

1. Careless/High/Medium
Or
2. Careless/High/Severe (with the potential to cause injury).

If they have the potential to cause injury clause this is the one to use it on. I love Duz, love the way he plays, but I think the AFL should (and will) go with the second.

 

[Theo X]

Came back on, so it'll be one week if they're consistent.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Entirely Cerra’s fault. Durham did the right thing by going side on.

It’s a split-second thing and everybody makes mistakes, but Cerra has got that very wrong.

Since these head-high rules came in, the technique of going side-on for ground balls has been a very positive development that the players have driven. Cerra completely stuffed up here and Durham being suspended would be outrageous.

 

[maskmcgee]

 

[Tjblues]

Entirely Cerra’s fault. Durham did the right thing by going side on.

It’s a split-second thing and everybody makes mistakes, but Cerra has got that very wrong.

Since these head-high rules came in, the technique of going side-on for ground balls has been a very positive development that the players have driven. Cerra completely stuffed up here and Durham being suspended would be outrageous.

No.

Cerra is first to it, he has every right to pick it up however he pleases. Durham, who gets there second, has to adjust.

It’s not a hangable offence and it doesn’t make Durham a dirty player. But it could’ve resulted in a serious injury and he’ll probably get a week or 2.

The AFL have been pretty clear that if players choose to bump they own the consequences. I’ll be surprised if he’s not offered a suspension

 

[Bunk Moreland]

No.

Cerra is first to it, he has every right to pick it up however he pleases. Durham, who gets there second, has to adjust.

It’s not a hangable offence and it doesn’t make Durham a dirty player. But it could’ve resulted in a serious injury and he’ll probably get a week or 2.

The AFL have been pretty clear that if players choose to bump they own the consequences. I’ll be surprised if he’s not offered a suspension

It doesn’t matter who gets there first or second. We’re talking split seconds, there is going to be a collision no matter who get there’s first or who wins the ball.

The system you’re referring to will never work in reducing head impacts.

Durham didn’t choose to bump, he was contesting the football using the correct and safe technique.

This collision is entirely on Cerra for not using that same technique. It happens dozens of times per game and both players turn sideways and just bounce off each other.

Cerra led with his head and it’s entirely his fault. If somebody is to be penalised it actually should be him.

But we have a system designed by compensation lawyers.

 

[Miluxx]

Durham is in big trouble here. But someone needs to teach cerra how to attack the footy.

 

[Mr Clunk]

Whatever the outcome, if I was Cerra's parent/coach, I'd tell him to not go in like that when it's clearly two players going in for a ball at basically the same time. I'd imagine he'd already be thinking the same thing though

 

[Foxx]

Deserves a suspension, but Cerra at fault too for not turning his head like the AFL instructed them to do at the start of the season.

 

[WN123]

The AFL has created a culture that rewards players leading with their heads. In days gone by all would have attacked that ball like Durham did as both Hird and Bartel have argued.
I think Durham aimed to go as low as possible but still glanced the head with his shoulder. It is now well established that his approach will be punished. He will get 1-2. If Cerra was concussed it would have been at least 3.

 

[Vindicater]

Got the two weeks we all thought he would get.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Well, if one of the most disgraced figures in AFL history offers a disingenuous attempt to victim blame in order to distract from a player from his club committing a sh*t act, it must be true.

Yes, Cerra should have protected himself, but that doesn't have anything to do with Durham taking advantage of his vulnerability to try and take his head off in a position where someone could easily become paralysed.

Peter Caven shouldn't have gone back with the flight in front of Plugger like that without protecting himself more either. Doesn't mean Plugger had the right to try to kill him.

It's the AFL equivalent of a 'but look at what she was wearing' argument. The only action that matters is what Durham did, which was an intentional bump. He didn't commit a war crime, but it was a bad act and he should be appropriate suspended for several weeks.

It's a pathetic argument and only something established grubs like James Hird and some other bottom feeders/halfwits in the AFL media space would engage in.

 

[HairyO]

Should be 8 imo. Is an action that could put Cerra in a wheelchair

Why didnt Cerra turn his body sideways to get the ball?

Isnt that what we have been teaching kids for decades now ?

 

[Vindicater]

Well, if one of the most disgraced figures in AFL history offers a disingenuous attempt to victim blame in order to distract from a player from his club committing a sh*t act, it must be true.

Yes, Cerra should have protected himself, but that doesn't have anything to do with Durham taking advantage of his vulnerability to try and take his head off in a position where someone could easily become paralysed.

Peter Caven shouldn't have gone back with the flight in front of Plugger like that without protecting himself more either. Doesn't mean Plugger had the right to try to kill him.

It's the AFL equivalent of a 'but look at what she was wearing' argument. The only action that matters is what Durham did, which was an intentional bump. He didn't commit a war crime, but it was a bad act and he should be appropriate suspended for several weeks.

It's a pathetic argument and only something established grubs like James Hird and some other bottom feeders/halfwits in the AFL media space would engage in.

Jimmy Bartel agreed with him?