Player Watch #26 Luke Parker

Remove this Banner Ad

d05af3810baa11138a15ef8d759b18c8


Luke Parker
Luke Parker has plenty of football ahead and has already compiled a resume packed with impressive achievements. Since landing at the Sydney Swans via the 2010 AFL Draft, he has won a 2012 premiership medal, earned All Australian selection and won two Bob Skilton medals. In 2015, he was added to the club’s leadership group at the age of just 22, and has led the team as a co-captain alongside Josh Kennedy and Dane Rampe since 2019. While Parker is among the league’s elite midfielders, his strong marking and expert game awareness make him a genuine threat when rotating through the forward line.

Luke Parker
DOB: 25 October 1992
DEBUT: 2011
DRAFT: #40, 2010 National Draft
RECRUITED FROM: Langwarrin (Vic)/Dandenong U18

www.sydneyswans.com.au

Luke Parker | AFL

Follow Luke Parker's progress through AFL
www.sydneyswans.com.au www.sydneyswans.com.au
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Heeney2Franklin said:
6 weeks will take to round 17-18?(not counting the bye)

By then probably done in the red and white jumper unless our midfield gets significant injuries.
Click to expand...
I really hope this isn't it. Parks has been a champion of the club and deserves to go out accordingly. But as guys like Hanners, ROK and even Buddy have shown, you very rarely get the fairytale finish.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

LukeParkerno1 said:
Might have ended that way but if you choose to bump you wear the consequences. It’s just so silly even trying to bump 5+ metres off the ball
Click to expand...

that was parker's mistake ... the ball was gone ... any attempt at a bump that late was inviting this kind of disaster
disaster for parker, more so for the injured player
high risk, negligible reward
 
Heeney2Franklin said:
Soon as it was referred to the tribunal it was always going to be 5+
Click to expand...

Yep, honestly expected 6, and 5 weeks if we got lucky. Wasn’t as bad as Websters and that was proven tonight
 
the hypnotoad said:
that was parker's mistake ... the ball was gone ... any attempt at a bump that late was inviting this kind of disaster
disaster for parker, more so for the injured player
high risk, negligible reward
Click to expand...

Literally chose the single thing you shouldn’t do in that situation it’s unfortunate he’s not this type of player and I hope he gets back and plays some good footy for us at the back end of the year to be there if we cop an injury or two.

I’m excited for potentially Sheldrick though
 
JackHiscoxWasFast said:
What’s the possible harm in appealing it ?
Click to expand...
Swans should support the judiciary system unless they believe they have clearly got it wrong like Rampe. You need to have grounds for appeal. The classification is correct - careless, severe impact, high contact so it can't be that. Intent doesn't come into it (careless). The only grounds could be that the penalty is more severe than similar cases. Don't like our chances.
Last but not least to not be seen as hypocritical.
I think the club is correct and I'm 100% sure that Luke is genuinely remorseful and would be devastated at the outcome to the kid.
Time to move on.
 
LukeParkerno1 said:
Might have ended that way but if you choose to bump you wear the consequences. It’s just so silly even trying to bump 5+ metres off the ball
Click to expand...
Those consequences should still be reasonable. No debating he made the wrong decision and executed it poorly.
 
On one hand, I get that it wasn't as bad as Webster's and that it was completely accidental that he got him high. But ultimately, he just didn't need to do it. It was so far off the ball.

It's unfortunate, but an opposition player is out for 6-8 weeks for an action that was several metres off the contest and unnecessary, so I think it's a reasonably fair outcome.

Needs to be consistency though. The Maynard farce from last year can't happen again.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ashep said:
Those consequences should still be reasonable. No debating he made the wrong decision and executed it poorly.
Click to expand...

Not in today’s footy. There’s shepherding which is fine but under no circumstances do you go near the head
 
LukeParkerno1 said:
At the time McCartin wasn’t out for that long let’s be real there and he doesn’t have facial injuries that require surgery. It was also vaguely in a contest. This was nowhere even near a contest not even close. You choose to bump you suffer the consequences it’s pretty bluntly simple- there’s a simple alternative that Luke could have done not bump
Click to expand...
Let’s be real McCartin has a bad history with concussion having missed many weeks last few years.
 
Last edited:
Reasons for sanction:

From footage, it’s clear Smith was not in a position to impact the contest and did not expect the contact. Accordingly, Parker failed in his duty of care.

There's always potential to cause injury in the action of Parker. The reasonableness of the bump engaged in by Parker is the heart of the issue, which leads to the charge as accepted.

We weigh up the matters … the incident being off the ball, unforeseen by Smith, causing injuries likely to result in surgery and 10 weeks missed games by Smith brings the Tribunal to the conclusion this was not at the lower end of carelessness.

It's the totality of the incident which ultimately settles the sanction to be imposed by the Tribunal.

Parker, having breached his duty of care when he engaged in the bump, accepts he accepts in cross examination he had alternative actions, which the Tribunal finds he did have that he could have taken rather than to bump.

Two video tendered documents tendered by defence we say are distinguishable from this incident and we place little weight on them.

The Tribunal is left with the unenviable task of assessing all the circumstances with this charge and matters put by both AFL Victoria and Parker’s legal team and have arrived at appropriate penalty of a six-match sanction.

Reasons for why exceptional and compelling circumstances argument failed:

Parker has a prior history, with some nine sanctions being imposed. We find he's not a player that qualifies as a verifiable example of exemplary disciplinary history. The Tribunal is not bound by this minimum penalty is at large to increase the penalty commensurate with this offence.
 
LukeParkerno1 said:
Not in today’s footy. There’s shepherding which is fine but under no circumstances do you go near the head
Click to expand...
He didn't even leave the ground and he didn't "go near the head". It was an accidental head clash. If the bloke is 3 inches taller or Parker is 3 inches shorter, this is a non-issue. That doesn't get him off, but an outcome largely contingent on terrible luck shouldn't rub him out for a month and a half.

Yes that clash resulted from a deliberate decision to bump, but you'll see 100 similar incidents this weekend with different outcomes.
 
Adnico26Parker said:
Reasons for sanction:

From footage, it’s clear Smith was not in a position to impact the contest and did not expect the contact. Accordingly, Parker failed in his duty of care.

There's always potential to cause injury in the action of Parker. The reasonableness of the bump engaged in by Parker is the heart of the issue, which leads to the charge as accepted.

We weigh up the matters … the incident being off the ball, unforeseen by Smith, causing injuries likely to result in surgery and 10 weeks missed games by Smith brings the Tribunal to the conclusion this was not at the lower end of carelessness.

It's the totality of the incident which ultimately settles the sanction to be imposed by the Tribunal.

Parker, having breached his duty of care when he engaged in the bump, accepts he accepts in cross examination he had alternative actions, which the Tribunal finds he did have that he could have taken rather than to bump.

Two video tendered documents tendered by defence we say are distinguishable from this incident and we place little weight on them.

The Tribunal is left with the unenviable task of assessing all the circumstances with this charge and matters put by both AFL Victoria and Parker’s legal team and have arrived at appropriate penalty of a six-match sanction.

Reasons for why exceptional and compelling circumstances argument failed:

Parker has a prior history, with some nine sanctions being imposed. We find he's not a player that qualifies as a verifiable example of exemplary disciplinary history. The Tribunal is not bound by this minimum penalty is at large to increase the penalty commensurate with this offence.
Click to expand...
Thanks A26P
 
ashep said:
He didn't even leave the ground and he didn't "go near the head". It was an accidental head clash. If the bloke is 3 inches taller or Parker is 3 inches shorter, this is a non-issue. That doesn't get him off, but an outcome largely contingent on terrible luck shouldn't rub him out for a month and a half.

Yes that clash resulted from a deliberate decision to bump, but you'll see 100 similar incidents this weekend with different outcomes.
Click to expand...

He’s bumped and made head contact so yes he has gone near the head. It’s fairly obvious that you almost can’t bump nowadays so why even do it
 
LukeParkerno1 said:
Not in today’s footy. There’s shepherding which is fine but under no circumstances do you go near the head
Click to expand...
Do yourself a favour and watch the incident.You think he actually targeted the blokes head with the back of his own head ? That is what made contact with the blokes face and caused the damage. There was no intent to make contact with his head. He had to be suspended for execution of the sheperd and the contact to the head but 6 based on the garbage you have just posted is ridiculous. Hall got 6 weeks for putting Staker in a coma.
 
I’m saddened by the 6 weeks, but not surprised - even though I think it’s overly harsh.

The prospect of (potentially) never seeing Luke Parker in the red & white again is hard to come to terms with. He’s an absolute champion of the club.

The only positive I can see - it might open the door for Gus Sheldrick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Opinion Parker, Mills, Reid, Adams... best 22?
2 3 4 5
Replies
117
Views
4K
RubbaDuck
RubbaDuck
Heeney2Franklin
Autopsy 26 point win against West Coast.
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
298
Views
8K
Heeney2Franklin
Heeney2Franklin
SwansProudly
  • Locked
Game Day 2023 Round 02 Swans v. Hawks - Sun. 26 Mar - 1:10PM - SCG
21 22 23 24 25
Replies
609
Views
7K
SwansProudly
SwansProudly
Olian
  • Locked
Preview Swans v Blues Friday Night Lights 26th May 7:50pm
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
462
Views
12K
SwansProudly
SwansProudly
SwansProudly
  • Locked
Game Day 2023 Round 11 Bloods v Blues 26th May 7:50pm @ SCG
35 36 37 38 39
Replies
968
Views
12K
GotTheGoodes
GotTheGoodes
Mister B
Meet Up Rd 2 v Hawthorn Sunday 26th March
Replies
12
Views
902
SM
SM

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top