Double loading for dangerous acts off the ball

[ReturningHawk]

Sometimes I think we forget that a suspension is supposed to indicate that you've done something so unacceptable, and you need to be temporarily stopped from playing so as to protect the other players, and to give you time to change your behaviour.

What hasn't sat right with me for several years now is that we're seeing longer suspensions for incidents like bumps, tackles and contests gone wrong, but off-the-ball hits are still getting similar penalties. Players this year such as Archer, Curtis and May have all received 3+ weeks for football acts that were very much in play. Toby Greene

4

Toby Greene

Age

32

Ht

182cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.7

5star

K

12.5

5star

HB

10.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.0

5star

G

1.2

4star

D

17.5

4star

K

9.5

4star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.8

4star

T

1.0

2star

G

2.3

5star

D

26.6

5star

K

12.4

5star

HB

14.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.6

5star

G

0.0

1star

can then drop his forearm into someone's head, kick someone in the nuts (hard) and only get 1 week. Clearly Toby actually needs 4-5 weeks off to reflect on his behaviour, I don't know why we take this less seriously than a sling tackle? How did Tom Lynch only get one more week than Jackson Archer? Those situations are chalk and cheese. We need to come down harder on dangerous acts behind play, rather than hanging players out to dry who are a split second off in contesting the footy.

I propose the following receive an immediate suspension at double-loading if done off the ball/in a dead-ball situation, as I have seen them all resulted in horrific, career-threatening and sometimes life-threatening injury:

• Eye-gouging
• Propelling a player into the fence/interchange
• Kicking/stomping
• Punching to the head
• Elbow thrown back
• Dropping fore-arm into a player on the ground
• Dropping knee into a player on the ground

Do you agree?

 

[Jim Cricket]

Sometimes I think we forget that a suspension is supposed to indicate that you've done something so unacceptable, and you need to be temporarily stopped from playing so as to protect the other players, and to give you time to change your behaviour.

What hasn't sat right with me for several years now is that we're seeing longer suspensions for incidents like bumps, tackles and contests gone wrong, but off-the-ball hits are still getting similar penalties. Players this year such as Archer, Curtis and May have all received 3+ weeks for football acts that were very much in play. Toby Greene can then drop his forearm into someone's head, kick someone in the nuts (hard) and only get 1 week. Clearly Toby actually needs 4-5 weeks off to reflect on his behaviour, I don't know why we take this less seriously than a sling tackle? How did Tom Lynch only get one more week than Jackson Archer? Those situations are chalk and cheese. We need to come down harder on dangerous acts behind play, rather than hanging players out to dry who are a split second off in contesting the footy.

I propose the following receive an immediate suspension at double-loading if done off the ball/in a dead-ball situation, as I have seen them all resulted in horrific, career-threatening and sometimes life-threatening injury:

• Eye-gouging
• Propelling a player into the fence/interchange
• Kicking/stomping
• Punching
• Elbow thrown back
• Dropping fore-arm into a player on the ground
• Dropping knee into a player on the ground

Do you agree?

Agree to a point but if they're going to do that they should also take into account retaliation. Forwards and rovers are scragged during and behind play for the whole game and while I realise it's 'part of football' it's an ugly part IMO, so in some cases I believe a whack can be justified, but not a kick, gouge or scrape with the stops, all of which Toby has done, or a whack from behind, which he's probably also done.

 

[ReturningHawk]

Agree to a point but if they're going to do that they should also take into account retaliation. Forwards and rovers are scragged during and behind play for the whole game and while I realise it's 'part of football' it's an ugly part IMO, so in some cases I believe a whack can be justified, but not a kick, gouge or scrape with the stops, all of which Toby has done, or a whack from behind, which he's probably also done.

You can’t be excused for dropping a knee into an opponent because he held your jumper in a few marking contests. That is an infantile attitude. There should be zero tolerance.

 

[LordLucifer]

Sometimes I think we forget that a suspension is supposed to indicate that you've done something so unacceptable, and you need to be temporarily stopped from playing so as to protect the other players, and to give you time to change your behaviour.

What hasn't sat right with me for several years now is that we're seeing longer suspensions for incidents like bumps, tackles and contests gone wrong, but off-the-ball hits are still getting similar penalties. Players this year such as Archer, Curtis and May have all received 3+ weeks for football acts that were very much in play. Toby Greene can then drop his forearm into someone's head, kick someone in the nuts (hard) and only get 1 week. Clearly Toby actually needs 4-5 weeks off to reflect on his behaviour, I don't know why we take this less seriously than a sling tackle? How did Tom Lynch only get one more week than Jackson Archer? Those situations are chalk and cheese. We need to come down harder on dangerous acts behind play, rather than hanging players out to dry who are a split second off in contesting the footy.

I propose the following receive an immediate suspension at double-loading if done off the ball/in a dead-ball situation, as I have seen them all resulted in horrific, career-threatening and sometimes life-threatening injury:

• Eye-gouging
• Propelling a player into the fence/interchange
• Kicking/stomping
• Punching to the head
• Elbow thrown back
• Dropping fore-arm into a player on the ground
• Dropping knee into a player on the ground

Do you agree?

Agree with most of that, it's a joke now.

Time to get back to dealing with every incident by tribunal and it gets judged on merit/face value etc.

The inconsistency in penalties by using the grid formula is farcical.

Added to that, the handing out of fines has to stop as well. If the incident is enough to warrant a fine then it is enough tot be given a suspension.

Either they get a suspension or they get off, no half-measures please.

The other thing to do is that if a player gets suspended for something (eg. player XY gets 2-weeks for eye-gouging) then he automatically gets a 1-week hangover added. If he comes back for another eye-gouging offence and is found guilty, then he gets whatever the tribunal gives him (say 2-weeks) PLUS the hangover (makes it 3-weeks in total). However, the hangover then gets doubled to 2-weeks if that player comes back again on the same offence.

As a further examnple, let's say this player comes back for a third eye-gouging offence, he gets what the tribunal gives him (say 2-weeks) PLUS the hangover (another 2-weeks) but the hangover gets doubled yet again. If he was stupid enough to commit the offence a fourth time and is found guilty, he gets the tribunal penalty PLUS the hangover which would probably make it 6-weeks in total.

Serial offenders need to be dealt with more harshly instead of the wet lettuce approach.

As a last kicker, if a club decides to contest or appeal any tribunal offence (could be tripping, spitting, striking etc) and their appeal is unsuccessful, then the reported player gets another 2-weeks added to their penalty. Far too many times clubs are rolling the dice hoping for a 'hail mary' result when the grounds for their appeal is quite frivolous and a waste of time.

Finally point, let's get rid of the "legalese" defences and judge the offences purely from a football standpoint. As a Carlton supporter, I was extremely pleased when Cripps got off a couple of years ago but if truth be told, he never should have.

We are not operating in a court of law, this is a sports competition, let's treat it that way with some commonsense.

 

[Do the Dew]

Sometimes I think we forget that a suspension is supposed to indicate that you've done something so unacceptable, and you need to be temporarily stopped from playing so as to protect the other players, and to give you time to change your behaviour.

What hasn't sat right with me for several years now is that we're seeing longer suspensions for incidents like bumps, tackles and contests gone wrong, but off-the-ball hits are still getting similar penalties. Players this year such as Archer, Curtis and May have all received 3+ weeks for football acts that were very much in play. Toby Greene can then drop his forearm into someone's head, kick someone in the nuts (hard) and only get 1 week. Clearly Toby actually needs 4-5 weeks off to reflect on his behaviour, I don't know why we take this less seriously than a sling tackle? How did Tom Lynch only get one more week than Jackson Archer? Those situations are chalk and cheese. We need to come down harder on dangerous acts behind play, rather than hanging players out to dry who are a split second off in contesting the footy.

I propose the following receive an immediate suspension at double-loading if done off the ball/in a dead-ball situation, as I have seen them all resulted in horrific, career-threatening and sometimes life-threatening injury:

• Eye-gouging
• Propelling a player into the fence/interchange
• Kicking/stomping
• Punching to the head
• Elbow thrown back
• Dropping fore-arm into a player on the ground
• Dropping knee into a player on the ground

Do you agree?

Reminder that Butts was completely uninjured by Lynch. Lynch got 5 weeks.

Curtis just punched a guy off the ball in the throat. Gets 1 week. Zurhaar lined a guy up with a bump but missed. Nothing. Stewart jumps and cleans up Wines in an identical incident to Maynard. Fine. Maynard shoves Reid into a fence, Mihocek shoves Vlastuin into a contest, Ginbey shoves Lalor into a contest. Nothing to see here. Mansell pushes off a guy for separation. 3 weeks.

Only thing that makes sense in all of this is that the MRO and the tribunal are horrible.

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

Agree to a point but if they're going to do that they should also take into account retaliation. Forwards and rovers are scragged during and behind play for the whole game and while I realise it's 'part of football' it's an ugly part IMO, so in some cases I believe a whack can be justified, but not a kick, gouge or scrape with the stops, all of which Toby has done, or a whack from behind, which he's probably also done.

Absolutely. if provocation can be proven, then the tribunal can reduce the penalty accordingly.

 

[Some Idiot]

Agree to a point but if they're going to do that they should also take into account retaliation. Forwards and rovers are scragged during and behind play for the whole game and while I realise it's 'part of football' it's an ugly part IMO, so in some cases I believe a whack can be justified, but not a kick, gouge or scrape with the stops, all of which Toby has done, or a whack from behind, which he's probably also done.

So forwards should just be able to love tap defenders and leave them winded and unable to chase before leading?

 

[Do the Dew]

So forwards should just be able to love tap defenders and leave them winded and unable to chase before leading?

Sam Darcy likes this...

 

[ReturningHawk]

Reminder that Butts was completely uninjured by Lynch. Lynch got 5 weeks.

Curtis just punched a guy off the ball in the throat. Gets 1 week. Zurhaar lined a guy up with a bump but missed. Nothing. Stewart jumps and cleans up Wines in an identical incident to Maynard. Fine. Maynard shoves Reid into a fence, Mihocek shoves Vlastuin into a contest, Ginbey shoves Lalor into a contest. Nothing to see here. Mansell pushes off a guy for separation. 3 weeks.

Only thing that makes sense in all of this is that the MRO and the tribunal are horrible.

Throw a roundarm to the back of someone's head and you're reasonably lucky if either of you play footy in the following 12 months. I've got no time for anyone defending a coward's punch that has no place in sport or society. Tribunal inconsistencies and inadequacies are a seperate discussion.

 

[ReturningHawk]

Absolutely. if provocation can be proven, then the tribunal can reduce the penalty accordingly.

"Mr Hall, to the the charge of striking an opponent to the head with severe impact, how do you plead?"

"Your honour, I was provoked"

Chalk that up as another win for common sense.

 

[Do the Dew]

Throw a roundarm to the back of someone's head and you're reasonably lucky if either of you play footy in the following 12 months. I've got no time for anyone defending a coward's punch that has no place in sport or society. Tribunal inconsistencies and inadequacies are a seperate discussion.

I'm not defending it, I'm calling out the MRO inconsistencies. Curtis just punched a guy in the throat and got 1 week!!! Makes no sense that two similar actions have such a massive discrepancy in punishment and there's been 0 media talk on it.

Hypothetically, if this round Lynch punches the same Saints player in the throat off the ball and he goes down in the exact same way as Curtis did, I'm guessing Lynch would get 6 weeks. The whole system is a joke.

 

[ReturningHawk]

I'm not defending it, I'm calling out the MRO inconsistencies. Curtis just punched a guy in the throat and got 1 week!!! Makes no sense that two similar actions have such a massive discrepancy in punishment and there's been 0 media talk on it.

Hypothetically, if this round Lynch punches the same Saints player in the throat off the ball and he goes down in the exact same way as Curtis did, I'm guessing Lynch would get 6 weeks. The whole system is a joke.

Good. The number of Richmond fans attempting to downplay it has been pretty disturbing. Of course the tribunal system is horribly inconsistent. I can't stand seeing completely unnecessary stuff like Curtis or Greene get 1 week whilst we are handing out 3-4 weeks for tackles and line-ball contests.