Chol concusses Stewart

[joe444]

No suspension. Tough luck for us.

The Gerard Whately reasoning this morning that "the system is supposed to suspend him in order for you to appeal and then we find out" is bizarre.

He's implying that everyone knows this if we've been "paying attention". If this is the way the system works, I suppose the reasoning is it's a bit like speeding fines.

But it seems stupid.

#FreeMabior #Toolazytoinflictviolence #Alreadytakesthreequartersoff

 

[PhatBoy]

Lynch threw a haymaker

That’s it. That’s all you had to say. Nothing more. Could have left it right there.

 

[THECHIEFTON]

Thought he would get off tbh. Bit unlucky that the other Hawks player tripped Stewart. I'm not sure what Chol could have realistically done to avoid what happened.

 

[huwcar]

Tribunal challenge confirmed by the Hawks. In a sane world he gets off.

 

[HeHateMe]

Thought he would get off tbh. Bit unlucky that the other Hawks player tripped Stewart. I'm not sure what Chol could have realistically done to avoid what happened.

Yeah that's the bit that doesn't sit well with me. Stewarts momentum was driving forward after shaking the Butler (I think) tackle, chol commits the 2nd but falls into the momentum and poor Stewart cops the weight of both of them on the way down.

This one as much as any falls into accidental, but they have suspended others as well who are stiff.

 

[_Mike_]

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.

System has been broken for a very long time, it is purely reaction based and lacks consistency in the grading and application of penalties etc.

 

[Do the Dew]

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.

I, and every Richmond supporter, don't. Guy is a sniper and consistently looked after my the MRO/tribunal.

I actually thought Chol did pretty much everything right. There was no sling/dump, no second action, no spear the head to the ground, he rolled off his back so it wasn't even really an illegal tackle. MRO is a joke hence why it's 3 weeks.

 

[Do the Dew]

Yeah that's the bit that doesn't sit well with me. Stewarts momentum was driving forward after shaking the Butler (I think) tackle, chol commits the 2nd but falls into the momentum and poor Stewart cops the weight of both of them on the way down.

This one as much as any falls into accidental, but they have suspended others as well who are stiff.

*sniper

 

[fusion]

This whole incident is made worse by the AFL not making changes when everyone pointed out flaws in:

1. Having the bye pre-finals instead of pre-GF. Even having the bye is a total overreaction from North resting players in a dead rubber.

2. The rigid MRP and tribunal system which gives either 0 or 3 weeks for any tackle that leads to a concussion. When Paul Curtis landed what would have been the perfect tackle on an opponent that dived forward at the same time, but still got 3 weeks on appeal, many asked about this happening in the finals.

It's going to keep happening in finals, where good sides play tough, physical football.

The only way for Chol to get down to 0 weeks is some technicality, if the tribunal follows their flawed rules as previously. But the AFL want this type of incident to be 3 weeks, as they are so scared of being sued in a class action, that they won't change the rules. Wait for them to send a 2026 season guide basically saying Chol/Curtis type tackles are illegal and will continue to be 3 weeks.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Imagine being a Richmond fan's wife or kids.

If you ever said or did anything bad to them, even years and years ago, they'd always bring it up out of nowhere and tell you how it makes you an evil person and they will hold onto it forever and never ever forget about it.

 

[Vindicater]

Tribunal challenge confirmed by the Hawks. In a sane world he gets off.

Yes.

But this is AFL world so Chol will walk out with four weeks.

 

[Do the Dew]

Imagine being a Richmond fan's wife or kids.

If you ever said or did anything bad to them, even years and years ago, they'd always bring it up out of nowhere and tell you how it makes you an evil person and they will hold onto it forever and never ever forget about it.

Stewart gutlessly sniped one of our players off the ball. No apology, no remorse, nothing. Likewise from his coach. He's also been involved in at least a half dozen other incidents that I posted on his thread from this season where he did the jumping "smother" bump and was somehow let off the hook.

So yes, myself and all the other Richmond supporters that booed him every time he went near the ball when we last played will continue to hate the sniping dog for the rest of his career.

 

[My Tilly]

Stewart gutlessly sniped one of our players off the ball. No apology, no remorse, nothing. Likewise from his coach.

He did apologize.
He was visibly shaken by what he did to Prestia during one of the breaks.

You Richmond supporters posses a hell of a lot of inner hatred. It's the kind of hatred that manifests itself at a lot of games throughout the year.
The culture is terrible.

Without doubt, the worst supporter base in the country.

 

[Carnthefkntigs]

Zero consistency in tribunal decisions continues.

 

[bigman]

Wow. Inept league.

Wonder how Paul Curtis feels.

 

[nylexbandit]

So players can now drive guys into the turf again?

 

[the big lebowski]

I can only assume the 3 weeks have been transferred to Curtis?

Geez the afl system doesn’t even try and hide the 2 tier nature these days.

 

[Badesumofu]

The people comparing to Curtis need to take another look. The tribunal covered this explicitly in their reasoning. There are very clear and important differences:

The Hawks relied on certain points of difference from the Curtis tackle. There is force in that submission.There was no third player involved in the Curtis tackle, no tangle of legs, no part of either arm free. The time available to Curtis to sum up the situation prior to affecting the tackle was considerably longer than that available to Chol.The circumstances of Curtis’ tackle did not change mid tackle. The circumstances of Chol’s tackle did.

 

[HairyO]

So players can now drive guys into the turf again?

Yep. If another player starts the tackle which causes a bunch of players legs to get tangled, and there is no obvious, deliberate driving motion.

The tribunal made the right decision. We should be happy. We need the MRO to stop the automatic 0 or 3 weeks crap. It doesnt work. It wont ever work.

 

[the big lebowski]

The people comparing to Curtis need to take another look. The tribunal covered this explicitly in their reasoning. There are very clear and important differences:

Mate, if the exact tackles were the other way around, some new ridiculous justification would be used to get the same outcome

If chol played for north and Curtis hawthorn, the suspensions would work out the opposite

And fyi neither should have been suspended

 

[Xtreme]

Sanity prevails. Chol is a gentle giant, he wouldn't hurt a fly. Or annoying pest defenders.

 

[HairyO]

Mate, if the exact tackles were the other way around, some new ridiculous justification would be used to get the same outcome

If chol played for north and Curtis hawthorn, the suspensions would work out the opposite

And fyi neither should have been suspended

Yeah, we get easy runs with the Tribunal. Scrimshaw 3 weeks and Nash 4 weeks...

Sicily was the 1st to get weeks for what was consider a great tackle which accidentally injured someone.

 

[bzparkes]

The people comparing to Curtis need to take another look. The tribunal covered this explicitly in their reasoning. There are very clear and important differences:

Pinned both arms, landed in his back and Stewart got concussed.

For the record, I thought Curtis should've got off and I have no issue with Chol getting off but based on precedent, he should've received 3 weeks.

Harley Reid got suspended for 2 weeks for a 'dangerous' tackle that wasn't a sling and didn't injure anyone.

Zero consistency from the tribunal, as usual.

 

[DocSholl]

So you can pin both arms and drive your opponent forward now, so long as something unexpected happens. Good to get this clarification

 

[DocSholl]

The people comparing to Curtis need to take another look. The tribunal covered this explicitly in their reasoning. There are very clear and important differences:

Yes, very clear and important differences that all happened to occur within less than a second.

Both should have been cleared but let's not pretend they're all that different incidents.