Chol concusses Stewart

[MisterMarcus]

Nor is Tanner Bruhn.

But I digress. No doubt the AFL will give us Brisbane Opening Round, and another two tough games to solidify the punishment for tackling a Geelong player.

Still, what goes around comes around. And it sure has for Stewart.

Never go Full Richmond, dude

 

[_Mike_]

Shouldn't be. Didn't intend to hurt him

However that doesn't matter anymore, so if it was round 17, 2 weeks

If we lose, 2 weeks

Scrape through. Flip a coin of a fine or a week.

Consequences are now based on the outcome, AFL has made it clear.

Chol’s tackle was not what I would call reckless, with how they deal with concussions it’s likely he’ll get a few matches because of the outcome.

 

[Obeanie1]

Lol!
Arms pinned, head driven into ground, didn't attempt to roll and player concussed. Gone!

No Hawks fan.

But that should not get a suspension.

He rolled off him as he tackled.

Sad day if that action means you miss playing in a grand final. Absolutely no malice in it.

 

[z547043]

if rolls were reversed and Stewart did the tackling the incident would dead and buried by late tonight

100% Facts. The one time in his AFL career he did concuss a player Stewart played the next week. He did not miss 4 games. Great call.

 

[420]

Surely Dil couldve fired up the Range Rover and cruised down to Waverley to have a chat around the campfire and sing kumbyah with Chol? Bit stiff to throw the bloke under the bus like that, we all make mistakes

 

[z547043]

You pretty much could be certain we were not getting through the game unscathed against Hawthorn.

Having said that, I think Chol is stiff here, there’s a few moving parts here with the other Hawk tackling his legs which means Stewart’s top half pretty much flops down like a pancake, rather than him being kept upright in the tackle by using his lower body.

Sucks for Stewart and disappointing to see a few fans calling this karma. Stewart has been suspended once in 8 years. He’s hardly a sniper. We once had a bloke called Scarlett, who was an absolute horrible Karmichael Hunt who really went out there to hurt the opposition. Stewart definitely isn’t in that mould.

 

[Generalissimo]

I'd have been satisfied with a free kick.

 

[Erakor]

Would they suspend Dangerfield or Daicos for a grand final for the same action and result ?

Not a chance in hell.

 

[Erakor]

You pretty much could be certain we were not getting through the game unscathed against Hawthorn.

Having said that, I think Chol is stiff here, there’s a few moving parts here with the other Hawk tackling his legs which means Stewart’s top half pretty much flops down like a pancake, rather than him being kept upright in the tackle by using his lower body.

Sucks for Stewart and disappointing to see a few fans calling this karma. Stewart has been suspended once in 8 years. He’s hardly a sniper. We once had a bloke called Scarlett, who was an absolute horrible Karmichael Hunt who really went out there to hurt the opposition. Stewart definitely isn’t in that mould.

It is disappointing for Stewart, but there has always been an obvious and easy fix for this. Having the bye now.

So many people have pointed this scenario out over the years. AFL mismanagement strikes again.

 

[Hoops]

Would they suspend Dangerfield or Daicos for a grand final for the same action and result ?

Not a chance in hell.

They wouldn't suspend Chol for a grand final. But its not grand final, so a suspension it is

 

[HairyO]

Too bad Hawthorn lost otherwise this would be the story of the century.

Bigger than Maynard ending a guy's career and not being sanctioned?

Or Cripps concussing a bloke and the AFL deliberately screwing up his Tribunal hearing so he could win on appeal and win the Brownlow?

 

[hk89]

100% Facts. The one time in his AFL career he did concuss a player Stewart played the next week. He did not miss 4 games. Great call.

hardly the same thing. Accidental damage from a tackle (partly due to player deciding to try to get rid of the ball instead of protecting themselves due to the ever changing circus of HTB interpretations from the AFL) versus a cynical hit to the head of a wide open and unprotected player.

Go to the 30 second mark on this video, and watch Stewart clearly decide to line up the vulnerable player:

The verdict is in: Tribunal makes call on Stewart hit

The Tribunal has handed down its verdict on Tom Stewart's hit on Dion Prestia

www.afl.com.au

If suspensions were based on intent rather than outcome, then if 3 was fair for Chol, that should have been 6 weeks for Stewart.

If it wasn't for the head hitting the ground, it would have been a good tackle, and probably holding the ball.

In any case, I feel bad for Stewart, and they should definitely bring in the bye to deal with the cruel nature of concussion rule and its consequences in a prelim, but punishing chol with a 3 week penalty for something done without malice (Stewart already had forward momentum, and Chol did try to roll) doesn't fix the problem.

 

[voorhees]

Would they suspend Dangerfield or Daicos for a grand final for the same action and result ?

Not a chance in hell.

100% correct
everyone knows they play favourites
chol is not one of them

 

[ReturningHawk]

Hawks will appeal, can Razor Ray as a witness and Chol gets off.

 

[Hoops]

100% correct
everyone knows they play favourites
chol is not one of them

It's called the Cotchin precedent

 

[z547043]

hardly the same thing. Accidental damage from a tackle (partly due to player deciding to try to get rid of the ball instead of protecting themselves due to the ever changing circus of HTB interpretations from the AFL) versus a cynical hit to the head of a wide open and unprotected player.

Go to the 30 second mark on this video, and watch Stewart clearly decide to line up the vulnerable player:

The verdict is in: Tribunal makes call on Stewart hit

The Tribunal has handed down its verdict on Tom Stewart's hit on Dion Prestia

www.afl.com.au

If suspensions were based on intent rather than outcome, then if 3 was fair for Chol, that should have been 6 weeks for Stewart.

If it wasn't for the head hitting the ground, it would have been a good tackle, and probably holding the ball.

In any case, I feel bad for Stewart, and they should definitely bring in the bye to deal with the cruel nature of concussion rule and its consequences in a prelim, but punishing chol with a 3 week penalty for something done without malice (Stewart already had forward momentum, and Chol did try to roll) doesn't fix the problem.

Who’s comparing the incidents? A poster said if Stewart tackled Chol in the same manner, he would be free to play. I simply pointed out the one time Stewart had concussed a player, he was rubbed out for 4 weeks and rightly so. There is zero evidence in 8 years of Stewart’s career to suggest that Stewart would be treated differently other than the Richmond tin-foil brigade sprouting it as fact. Xi Jin Ping could use diehards like that.

And if you saw my post addressing the incident directly, I think Chol is unlucky here. He definitely doesn’t deserve 3 and if the options are 0 or 3, because of AFL incompetence with their matrix, I think 0 is fairer.

I’m still of the opinion of many, that there was enough wiggle room in that incident that had Hawthorn won, Chol would have been cleared to play and just adds another layer to the AFL/tribunal incompetence.

 

[hk89]

Who’s comparing the incidents?

Sorry you're right, you were not comparing, and your point is well made.

I still think it is an interesting comparison point, because what Chol did doesn't look to me like only 1 week less than what Stewart did (and it sounds like you probably agree), which partly shows how things have changed in the last 2-3 years, and also how the AFL struggles with consistently implementing its own rules.

 

[Grockadoc]

It's called the Cotchin precedent

Again, there was reasonable doubt on Cotchin being the one who concussed Shiel... Never mind the fact that at the moment of contact, Cotchin also had his hands on the ball...


Shiel contest with Cotchin happened with 14:32 left on the clock in the first quarter.

Shiel played the entirety of the 1st quarter and was involved in another heavy collision with Astbury with 10 seconds left of the quarter.

So, IF Cotchin DID concuss/snipe Shiel and Shiel played on afterwards:

1: The giants did not conduct a concussion test which is a mandatory 20 minute wait time. Shiel was on the field earlier than 20 minutes so no HIA was performed.

This means one of the following:

1: The Giants doctors felt he was right to play.

2: The Giants doctors did a preliminary test, ignored Shiel's results and sent him back on to play.

3: The doctors did not wait long enough to observe any delayed onset symptoms which put Shiel at even more risk.

Or

4: The concussion happened after the hit with Astbury (after which point he was subbed out at quarter time.).


The first 3 are gross negligence grounds against the GWS doctors.

But number 4 is the most likely scenario regarding the timeline of events...

 

[Grockadoc]

Also, Chol stiff. Yes, Stewarts arms were pinned, but his forearms were free enough to get a handball away, so should have been enough to allow Stewart to brace at least somewhat...

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Gotta say I saw him do a similar but more restrained tackle on Smith late in the game.

It's tolerated now but when I was a kid they used to be called for in the back. I truly believe getting stricter on tackling technique would help the game and reduce the chance of these tackle related concussions.

Spot on. Because the issue at the moment, is players are not penalised on action but on outcome. If the rule is you have to rotate a player in a tackle or you can only grab one arm then the suspension is warranted. But if Stewart was fine, then there wouldn't be a suspension.

 

[Grockadoc]

Spot on. Because the issue at the moment, is players are not penalised on action but on outcome. If the rule is you have to rotate a player in a tackle or you can only grab one arm then the suspension is warranted. But if Stewart was fine, then there wouldn't be a suspension.

And this is where the system is broken. The AFL should start at a minimum suspension for the act. Plus injury loading. Would work far better than what we have now where some players are fine because a player wasn't injured, where others get 2-3 weeks for similar incidents based on outcome.

1 week for pinned arm/driving tackles. Plus 1 week for each week missed by the opposition player.

 

[Morro]

Consequences are now based on the outcome, AFL has made it clear.

Chol’s tackle was not what I would call reckless, with how they deal with concussions it’s likely he’ll get a few matches because of the outcome.

They did make this clear, right up until Lynch threw a haymaker that did eff all, but was a bad look and got 5 weeks. The system is so broken.

 

[Grockadoc]

They did make this clear, right up until Lynch threw a haymaker that did eff all, but was a bad look and got 5 weeks. The system is so broken.

Yep. And then Bailey Smith a couple of weeks later threw a little cheap shot to the back of the head of an unaware opponent from behind after a contest and nothing was even mentioned.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

And this is where the system is broken. The AFL should start at a minimum suspension for the act. Plus injury loading. Would work far better than what we have now where some players are fine because a player wasn't injured, where others get 2-3 weeks for similar incidents based on outcome.

1 week for pinned arm/driving tackles. Plus 1 week for each week missed by the opposition player.

100%. Be clear on what action is penalised.

 

[HairyO]

It's called the Cotchin precedent

And adheres to the Maynard Principle.