MRP / Trib. De Goey hit on Elijah Hewett

[_Mike_]

Stay on topic thanks, that also means ending the thread derailing posts & silly troll comments

 

[adammania9]

McAdam didn't concuss his opponent, who had the ball in possession when bumped. Can't believe they get the same penalty.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

What kind of fool do you have to be to argue McAdam’s hit was less severe than De Goey’s

 

[My Tilly]

Back in time to face the Bulldogs

 

[Purple Suit]

Agreed.

If you bump hit head 3-4.
Bump and leave the ground with an upward motion, increasing your chance of hitting high should be 5-6.

Leaving the ground in a bump needs to be trained out of players.

Leaving the ground increase the force of the hit, reduces the control of the bump and increases the chance of hitting high.

You want to keep the bump, make sure players don’t leap into the other player, keeping their feet lowers the bump reducing the height of the hit. Still chance of high contact, but safer.

You haven't been allowed to leave the ground for 15 years. This is as airborne as you are going to get and the player got concussed and they give him 3 weeks when tackles are getting 4. It's wrong but only by 1 week in my opinion.

 

[hawksalltheway]

Kozzie’s was miles worse than De Goey’s. 3 weeks is a fair suspension but Kozzie should have gotten 5. He had no intention other than to hit Smith in the head with as much force as possible like a torpedo. De Goey’s was a slightly late shepherd which he executed poorly and deserves his whack for not taking due care. If he wanted to use his full force he would’ve done a lot more damage.

i agree, thought kozzie was extremely lucky

 

[BEEG]

So they asked the tribunal to take into account the “outside noise” which has only been fairly rational discussions about the hit, and again tried to blame Hewett for his momentum when De Goey had more than enough time to make a decision.. and were successful.

The AFL is an absolute farce. Ask yourself what the ban would have been of it was Hewett (an unknown player) on a star of the game like De Goey. Would have been made an example of and given 4-5. The inconsistency is unbelievable

Thanks Eagles and Sheedster.

 

[hawkman]

3 weeks is a joke when Broad got 4 for a bad tackle. Degoey should have gotten 5-6 as should Stewart last year.

For years we have heard that always tackle instead of bumping as there will be greater consequences for a bump. This year is almost bringing the opposite

 

[Woody15]

So they asked the tribunal to take into account the “outside noise” which has only been fairly rational discussions about the hit, and again tried to blame Hewett for his momentum when De Goey had more than enough time to make a decision.. and were successful.

The AFL is an absolute farce. Ask yourself what the ban would have been of it was Hewett (an unknown player) on a star of the game like De Goey. Would have been made an example of and given 4-5. The inconsistency is unbelievable

How dare that lawyer try do everything he can to get a reduced penalty. Disgraceful conduct.

 

[YeoShuey]

He's not playing your lot so maybe you'll have a faint whiff of not being our bunnies yet again. And Kozi was very very lucky. In fact THAT was bullshit.

Collingwood are no chance even with him in. Melbourne are the in form side.

 

[HairyO]

So the AFL Tribunal has declared that concussing a player is worth one week.

Good to see the AFL really doing all they can to protect the head. Absolutely gutless of them.

2 weeks for tackles which cause no damage, 3 weeks for bumps which concuss and cause the injured play to miss 1 1/2 games of football (minimum).

 

[Coasters7]

How dare that lawyer try do everything he can to get a reduced penalty. Disgraceful conduct.

The fact that is was successful is hilarious. The arguments that got the penalty reduced had no relevance to the actual action. Everyone agreed it was a bad hit but it was reduced because of some irrelevant argument

 

[danielnajdek]

Collingwood are no chance even with him in. Melbourne are the in form side.

Nah clearly Carlton are the in form side.

 

[Demons09]

5-6 weeks?

Using prior tribunal decisions and referencing the AFLs tribunal guidelines, can you please explain to the audience how you came to the 5-6 weeks penalty?

Is it going to stamp head high contact through bumps out of the game though? Seems the AFL aren’t really serious about it.

 

[YeoShuey]

Nah clearly Carlton are the in form side.

Maybe if this was preseason with all the people tipping us to win the Premiership or actually being competitive this season.

 

[FIGJAM]

Prior season tribunal penalties mean nothing this year given how (apparently) worried they are about litigation. Guys have been given 1-2 weeks for reasonable tackles in play. This was very late, JDG left the ground and knocked someone out. It’s 4 minimum with potential for 5 based on the penalties that have been handed out this year

“Very” late? He would have smothered the hand pass if Hewett went left.

And this “left the ground” bullshit has got to stop! His right foot was on the ******* ground!!

The tribunal have nailed this one and been consistent too (for once).

 

[Daicos Torpedo]

Glad it's only 3.
The stupidest flog in football, Kant Cornes, can try and not make any issues like this about himself.
Always playing the Man and not the ball.
Total and utter fuggin fugged flog

 

[HairyO]

“Very” late? He would have smothered the hand pass if Hewett went left.

And this “left the ground” bullshit has got to stop! His right foot was on the ******* ground!!

The tribunal have nailed this one and been consistent too (for once).

So if Daicos is taken out at the opening bounce youre not calling for more than 3 weeks?

Complete and utter bull s**t.

 

[Occidental]

Collingwood are no chance even with him in. Melbourne are the in form side.

…. as they showed last round by kicking 8 goals against Carlton

 

[Woody15]

The fact that is was successful is hilarious. The arguments that got the penalty reduced had no relevance to the actual action. Everyone agreed it was a bad hit but it was reduced because of some irrelevant argument

Oh well. Any outside noise was generated by your club mainly so thanks.

Penalty was consistent and appropriate given the AFLs guidelines.

 

[hawkman]

2 weeks


3 weeks

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Who cares whether it’s 3,4,5 it’s a large sanction.

Probably should have hot 4, but 3 is fine

 

[Fitzey]

So if Daicos is taken out at the opening bounce youre not calling for more than 3 weeks?

Complete and utter bull s**t.

Exactly right, and if the roles were reversed and it was Hewett or another lesser known name cleaning up De Goey it’s 4-5 weeks automatically. It’s crap.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

We lost a player for 3 and everyone is offended. Its a funny game. Handy spell for one of our very best I guess.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Exactly right, and if the roles were reversed and it was Hewett or another lesser known name cleaning up De Goey it’s 4-5 weeks automatically. It’s crap.

Mate Pickett got 2 and everyone knows that was complete crap. I'd pipedown.

 

[Woody15]

Exactly right, and if the roles were reversed and it was Hewett or another lesser known name cleaning up De Goey it’s 4-5 weeks automatically. It’s crap.

No it wouldn’t. Careless, high, severe = 3 werks. There were no other extenuating circumstances to increase that grading and subsequent penalty to 4-5 weeks. So dramatic.

 

[Maddo11]

Mate Pickett got 2 and everyone knows that was complete crap. I'd pipedown.

Yeah that's good use another Vic club player getting a light punishment as an example