AFL Player #20: Peter "Litre" Wright 🏅 - Pleads guilty at tribunal, 4 week suspension - 26/3

[Lore]

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

 

[andleanback]

If 2MP marks this ball and knocks out the swans player which I think would have been even worse if he hit him with his left shoulder rather than turning what is the tribunal result? And why would it be any different to both players getting to the ball at the exact same time as it happened.

Yep could’ve been like the worner McCarthy incident last week, which was a horrific collusion. Where’s the duty of care then just goes out the window because McCarthy gets their a tad earlier and is able to mark the ball, seems like the afl are just using a player protecting themselves as reason to blame concussion on, to absolve the game from responsibility. It wasn’t the game, it was the player.

 

[BrunoV]

Pleaded for 3?

What idiot ran that case? Might as well run a proper argument to put pressure on for the appeal.

This is how convention gets changed via the back door. It's so unfair and it's validated by the actions of people who don't even think about the game.

We going to get a direction about what Wright should have done (I.e. pull out)?

 

[jdBombers3598]

I’ll declare up front I hate the Bombers as I’m sure it’s mutual - mortal enemies. But I also come in peace.
I wanted to vent how this was a terrible decision to give Peter Wright a 4 week suspension.
I know some, even some Bombers supporters, felt it was worthy of a suspension whereas many others felt it wasn’t. I’m on the latter side of that opinion.
Peter Wright is not known for his aggression. If anything, rightly or wrongly, many have felt he lacked aggression and could throw his giant frame around much more than he does.
He has always been a ball player, very fair and I’m certain he always will be.
Until the last millisecond, he only had eyes for the ball and the impact between players and the ball was simultaneous.
Even if the AFL just wanted to make a statement, then give him a week, not four. I understand the AFL want to protect our players from head knocks but we mustn’t change the physical fabric of our game.
A bit more of the game we all love was killed today imo.
Happy to take the criticism if some disagree.

Not wrong there. Well said

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

I'm more interested in what constitutes the different grades of impact. Is that written down anywhere or is that where the AFL leaves themselves the out to just make it up as they go along based on outrage/the vibe?

For me it's all about how they define "conduct". Technically, conduct is about the way in which actions are alway aligned with particular intentions/outcome/aims. Wright's intention was to avoid injuring himself, not to hurt Cunningham.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

If the AFL were serious Gary Rohan should have got weeks for the Jeremy Cameron incident

It is still a non intentional head knock.

Yep totally.

 

[Agronomus]

What are they doing to our great game?

 

[fairbump_playon]

Yes he was probably always going to get weeks.

But that defence is a joke. For one, they should have been aiming to get him off completely. Even if they fail, the ground is laid for leniency in sentencing.

There were many counter arguments to make. The injured shoulder thing was truly one of the lamest.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I'm more interested in what constitutes the different grades of impact. Is that written down anywhere or is that where the AFL leaves themselves the out to just make it up as they go along based on outrage/the vibe?

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2024/03/13/bfe20552-9e6a-4464-88b6-509b31d77ed8/2024-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

They use all of the below words to say "vibe". It's actually embarrassing they have put this to print.

Consideration will be given as to whether the Impact is Low, Medium, High or Severe. In determining the level of Impact, regard will be had to several factors.

Firstly, consideration will be given to the extent of force and in particular, any injury sustained by the Player who was offended against. The absence of injury does not preclude the classification of impact as Severe.

Secondly, the potential to cause injury must be factored into the determination of Impact, particularly in the following cases:

• Intentional strikes, such as those with a swinging clenched fist, raised forearm or elbow;
• High bumps, particularly with significant head contact and/or Player momentum;
• Any head-high contact with a Player who has his head over the ball, particularly when contact is made from an opponent approaching from a front-on position;
• Forceful swings that make head-high contact to a Player in a marking contest, ruck contest or when tackling;
• Any contact that occurs when the Victim Player should not reasonably be expecting or is not reasonably prepared for contact (i.e. contact off the ball); and
• Any dangerous tackle.

In the case of any intentional strike, strong consideration will be given to the distance the incident occurs from the ball and the expectation of contact of the Victim Player.

Thirdly, consideration will be given not only to the impact between the offending Player and the Victim Player, but also any other impact to the Victim Player as a result of such impact. By way of an example, where a Victim Player as a result of the impact from the offending Player is pushed into the path of a fast-moving third Player, the impact to the Victim Player may be classified as High or Severe, even though the level of impact between the offending Player and the Victim Player was only Low or Medium.

In addition, consideration will be given to the body language of the offending Player in terms of flexing, turning, raising or positioning the body to either increase or reduce the force of impact.

It should be noted that Low Impact is the minimum impact required for a Classifiable Reportable Offence and this requires more than just a negligible impact. The MRO may however consider the potential to cause injury to upgrade Impact from negligible to a higher level of Impact.



It's funny though, when you google it you actually also get this document from AFL Queensland which is actually written in plain English and makes perfect sense - even if you don't agree with it. Like it was written by somebody with a brain, not some dickhead bureaucrat. It looks like a local AFLQ thing though, don't think it's present in other states or the AFL:

https://www.aflq.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Set-Penalty-Guide.pdf

IMPACT GUIDELINES

Low – Minimal or no impact on the game, and Player continues to play unabated or was able to play, and No ongoing issues.

Medium – Clearly some impact on the Player, and / or the Player left the field for a lengthy period of time, and / or some possible lower level ongoing treatments.

High – Major impact on the player, and / or Was not able to participate in the remainder of the game, and / or major ongoing issues that require medical intervention and / or May miss some matches.

Severe – Major impact and serious injury to the player, and / or Likely to miss a significant number of matches.

Note – These are proposed base level impact guidelines. The impact can be raised under the potential to cause
serious injury.

 

[JT_the_Man]

For all this talk of “Essendon edge” we’ve been weak as piss at the tribunal. First not appealing Redman, now this.

 

[fairbump_playon]

For all this talk of “Essendon edge” we’ve been weak as piss at the tribunal. First not appealing Redman, now this.

More like Essendon hedge

 

[Vander18]

We going to get a direction about what Wright should have done (I.e. pull out)?

Exactly what I’ve been thinking - will the AFL come out and say the expectation here is that the player going towards the ball actually pulls out of the contes?

 

[Blind Turn]

* it - get him in a moon boot and pretend he is injured for the next four weeks

Is he going to Dorevitch pathology?

 

[ghostdog]

Weak as piss by the club not to fight it on principle.

I share this sentiment. If the players can be expected to play on the edge, the Club should have supported that by challenging the tribunal. To implore the players to demonstrate their commitment and then not support them when they do leaves a bit of a hollow feeling.

 

[Lore]

Our lawyer is a numpty, if he is part of the coterie then that goes to explaining quite a bit about the clubs failures if this is who they listen to.

If a coterie was behind it he would’ve been out there impersonating Robbo. This reeks of a PR team getting involved way too soon.

 

[Lore]

I share this sentiment. If the players can be expected to play on the edge, the Club should have supported that by challenging the tribunal. To implore the players to demonstrate their commitment and then not support them when they do leaves a bit of a hollow feeling.

Maybe there is no cash left in the footy dept soft cap for tribunal expenses

 

[Schnitzengruben]

Was Dennis Denuto our lawyer?

 

[Foxx]

Does Brad Scott play any part in the decision making?
He seems to have his AFL house uniform on a lot during his interviews.

I'm almost thinking he's still on their side of the fence.

Redman guilty, Wright guilty...

 

[Shanghaistu]

Was Dennis Denuto our lawyer?

At least he would have questioned the ‘vibe’ of the proceedings…

 

[Shanghaistu]

Does Brad Scott play any part in the decision making?
He seems to have his AFL house uniform on a lot during his interviews.

I'm almost thinking he's still on their side of the fence.

Redman guilty, Wright guilty

Scott might be a complete masochist - surely he knows AFL House openly detests us more than any other club yet he still took on our coaching gig

 

[BomberFan355]

Was Dennis Denuto our lawyer?

 

[ant555]

So that's it. No point bothering appealing anything in the future then?

While we watch other clubs do the exact opposite, and can sometimes get a different outcome to your supposed no wiggle room take it on the chin result.

Either these other clubs are wrong, or you are...

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

When you get graded the way Wright did then yes. Severe and high impact has no longer got any room to manoeuvre such nice they changed the rules after Maynard / Bradshaw .

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

I don’t think the club’s done anything wrong. Under the new rules both Redman and Wright had no chance of getting off. Pleading guilty may have even saved Wright from getting more weeks

 

[Dave]

"This is one of those examples where it was possible for Wright to avoid forceful high contact and prevent injury," Pane said.

I'd like them to explain how.

 

[Cup_o_Jobe]

I know I'm in the minority but I completely get the decision and while it's unfortunate for 2MP that his is the precedent-changing case here, it is important for the game that this kind of thing gets a hefty suspension so we can change behaviors.

I think part of what has made the conversation so disjointed in the last few days is that back when the AFL first started taking head knocks seriously, the debate was all about intentional hits. The standard was expressly stated as, and a line was drawn at, "if you're just trying to protect yourself, that's fair enough, you're entitled to do that". I think a lot of people still have this notion of being allowed to "protect yourself" stuck in the head as the prevailing standard. The problem with that is by protecting yourself in any 50/50 collision, you're putting all the risk on to the other bloke. It doesn't square with the notion of owing a duty of care to the opponent when it comes to head knocks.

The moment 2MP turned his body to brace for impact/protect himself, as instinctual as it probably was, he was essentially electing to let Cunningham take all of the risk and danger of the impact. He was deciding to prioritize his well-being over the opponent. If we're serious about CTE, that simply cannot be the standard. Players need to be prepared to share the risk (and thereby dilute the risk), so that we can drive down the incidence of concussion.

If Pete doesn't turn his body and present his shoulder, the collision is still nasty, but it is a lot less likely to wipe Cunningham out. If he held his line and went for the mark, he'd not be spending the next month in the bleachers. It's really that simple.

 

[citizen-erased]

Had to lol at Cripps at saying you have to play the ball and when you turn into it it looks like a bump.