Jack Redpath suspended for 3 matches

Status
Not open for further replies.

flamethrower

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 14, 2003
6,573
2,807
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
LA Angels, Sharks
That was a strike? WTF, that was so far from a strike that it almost ended up in the other team's dugout. (Gratuitous baseball reference).

Big Jack just has to be more vigilant about who he pushes, avoiding those who go down quicker than a $2 whore.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

El_Scorcho

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2007
25,753
61,298
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
It's pretty clearly not a punch from the footage. As he swings you can see a wide open hand.

Intentional conduct can't really be argued.
Low impact is obvious, and it's at the low end of low impact.
Contact to the head again can't really be argued.

The argument to make would have been regarding sufficient force. He's struck him in the face with an open hand and Davis has milked the contact in an attempt to win a free.

In terms of the length of the suspension though, all the bleating in this thread about 3 weeks is silly. He didn't get 3 weeks for this offence. The grading of Intentional/Low/Head is 2 weeks down to 1 with a guilty plea for someone without Redpath's record. It's 3 weeks because he has a bad record and because he didn't take the early plea discount.
 

Mahama

Team Captain
Dec 28, 2003
371
29
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
It's pretty clearly not a punch from the footage. As he swings you can see a wide open hand.

Intentional conduct can't really be argued.
Low impact is obvious, and it's at the low end of low impact.
Contact to the head again can't really be argued.

The argument to make would have been regarding sufficient force. He's struck him in the face with an open hand and Davis has milked the contact in an attempt to win a free.
Just to correct a few things you've said here... Firstly, no, an argument around sufficient force was always going to be the most difficult one to make, as it would rely on Davis himself admitting he wasn't hurt and contact was negligible - wasn't going to happen.

So the Dogs argued against both the high contact, and the intentional conduct. Now, as the strangely obsessed Giants fan pointed out a couple of posts above, we quickly lost any hope of having it graded as contact to the body when Redpath admitted his hand slipped up to Davis' neck (not face, by the way), and the tribunal guidelines very clearly state that when contact is made both high and to the body, it will be classified as high. Fair enough.

Our best argument, then, was about intent. Intentional conduct is when a player intends to commit a particular offence. For Redpath, this means the tribunal needed to determine if he intended to strike Davis (regardless of where he was aiming). There are a few factors that make their finding - that he did intend to strike Davis - particularly strange:
  • Contact was with an open hand, so not a punch, and arguably with a pushing motion.
  • Redpath stated he was attempting to push Davis, and I saw no argument from the AFL lawyer against this.
  • Initial contact was with the shoulder - the AFL lawyer certainly didn't argue against this.
If you work through this logically and sum it up, this means the tribunal had to have found it was proven that Redpath intended to slap Phil Davis on the shoulder. If anyone can find any examples of widespread shoulder-slapping attacks in the AFL, I'd love to see it, but I'm pretty sure that's not a thing.

Careless conduct was far more likely to have been accurate - it acknowledges there was contact to Davis' neck which caused him some pain (...) without attempting to create a weird scenario where Redpath goes around deliberately slapping opponents' collar bones. The result would've been a $1500 fine and minimal loss of reputation for the tribunal.

No wonder the AFLPA is meeting with the AFL to discuss the decision.
 

Bokonon_

Cancelled
Nov 23, 2016
10,562
7,067
AFL Club
GWS
Just to correct a few things you've said here... Firstly, no, an argument around sufficient force was always going to be the most difficult one to make, as it would rely on Davis himself admitting he wasn't hurt and contact was negligible - wasn't going to happen.

So the Dogs argued against both the high contact, and the intentional conduct. Now, as the strangely obsessed Giants fan pointed out a couple of posts above, we quickly lost any hope of having it graded as contact to the body when Redpath admitted his hand slipped up to Davis' neck (not face, by the way), and the tribunal guidelines very clearly state that when contact is made both high and to the body, it will be classified as high. Fair enough.

Our best argument, then, was about intent. Intentional conduct is when a player intends to commit a particular offence. For Redpath, this means the tribunal needed to determine if he intended to strike Davis (regardless of where he was aiming). There are a few factors that make their finding - that he did intend to strike Davis - particularly strange:
  • Contact was with an open hand, so not a punch, and arguably with a pushing motion.
  • Redpath stated he was attempting to push Davis, and I saw no argument from the AFL lawyer against this.
  • Initial contact was with the shoulder - the AFL lawyer certainly didn't argue against this.
If you work through this logically and sum it up, this means the tribunal had to have found it was proven that Redpath intended to slap Phil Davis on the shoulder. If anyone can find any examples of widespread shoulder-slapping attacks in the AFL, I'd love to see it, but I'm pretty sure that's not a thing.

Careless conduct was far more likely to have been accurate - it acknowledges there was contact to Davis' neck which caused him some pain (...) without attempting to create a weird scenario where Redpath goes around deliberately slapping opponents' collar bones. The result would've been a $1500 fine and minimal loss of reputation for the tribunal.

No wonder the AFLPA is meeting with the AFL to discuss the decision.
Despite your strange obsession with fantasy he did in fact strike Davis. Categorising it as a slap is silly. Many methods of fighting train hitting with the heel of the palm as the most effective punch. Whether you agree or not it's certainly an effective method of striking.
As for your assertion that it's all the victims fault I attach an extract from Sliding doors with the article available on the AFL's website.

"If you get hit unexpectedly in the windpipe and start coughing ...then... you don't deserve to be called soft.

Rethink your Phil Davis opinions. Also, you might wish to know he spoke to Bulldogs lawyers before the Redpath Tribunal hearing, hoping to assist their ultimately unsuccessful defence."

Just in case your ready to grow and address reality.
 

Testekill

Don't look at me like that
Dec 3, 2009
13,463
11,231
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Bulldogs, Williamstown
So clearly Walker has to go based on precedent. Did the same thing but Rampe didn't flop
 

Arkangel

Team Captain
Jun 8, 2007
396
808
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
"If you get hit unexpectedly in the windpipe and start coughing ...then... you don't deserve to be called soft.

Rethink your Phil Davis opinions. Also, you might wish to know he spoke to Bulldogs lawyers before the Redpath Tribunal hearing, hoping to assist their ultimately unsuccessful defence."
I think you're making a mistake here in relying on Damian Barrett for valid information about football. Barrett has his own agenda, which depending on the context is seemingly either (a) to try to create as much controversy about everything as possible without regard for the truth of any matter, or (b) to suck up to people who have actual or perceived standing in the football world. To my eyes, the high contact Redpath made was pretty clearly to the side of Davis' neck, which (according to my limited knowledge of human anatomy) is not where the windpipe is located. See this video from roughly 2:00 on: http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-08-14/greene-fined-redpath-banned-brayshaws-boost
 

Bokonon_

Cancelled
Nov 23, 2016
10,562
7,067
AFL Club
GWS
I think you're making a mistake here in relying on Damian Barrett for valid information about football. Barrett has his own agenda, which depending on the context is seemingly either (a) to try to create as much controversy about everything as possible without regard for the truth of any matter, or (b) to suck up to people who have actual or perceived standing in the football world. To my eyes, the high contact Redpath made was pretty clearly to the side of Davis' neck, which (according to my limited knowledge of human anatomy) is not where the windpipe is located. See this video from roughly 2:00 on: http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-08-14/greene-fined-redpath-banned-brayshaws-boost
I dont think supporters of the team Redpath plays for are a more reliable source of information, call me crazy if you wish, and yes it's to the throat.
 

GoalSneak38

Club Legend
Aug 16, 2006
2,243
839
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I dont think supporters of the team Redpath plays for are a more reliable source of information, call me crazy if you wish, and yes it's to the throat.
Mate time to jog on. Commentators last night summed it up perfectly saying how the Redpath decision was a joke, that Walker will have to go and as Ling said he took that push better than Phil Davis. This is coming from people who played the games and have been following the game their whole lives. Not like you who has just started following the game. Seriously jog on - A League starts soon


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Bokonon_

Cancelled
Nov 23, 2016
10,562
7,067
AFL Club
GWS
Mate time to jog on. Commentators last night summed it up perfectly saying how the Redpath decision was a joke, that Walker will have to go and as Ling said he took that push better than Phil Davis. This is coming from people who played the games and have been following the game their whole lives. Not like you who has just started following the game. Seriously jog on - A League starts soon


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
It's way past time you moved on clearly. From your pisting you seem way more of an internet troll than a footy fan to me. Who will you be "supporting" next year?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Adelaide Hawk

Hall of Famer
Sep 21, 2002
47,417
37,360
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Norwood
If I were a Bulldogs supporter, I'd be livid. Redpath gets three because he pushed a serial flopper in Davis, while Jonas belts a Bulldogs player in the head with a forearm behind the play, and gets 2!!!! Do away with the MRP, it's a joke.
 

LukeParkerno1

Post-Human
Sep 23, 2005
106,430
40,076
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
If I were a Bulldogs supporter, I'd be livid. Redpath gets three because he pushed a serial flopper in Davis, while Jonas belts a Bulldogs player in the head with a forearm behind the play, and gets 2!!!! Do away with the MRP, it's a joke.
You do realise Redpath only got an extra week because the Dogs challenged it at the tribunal correct?

Both players had poor records. There is a lesson there- don't do the wrong thing over and over again.
 

Adelaide Hawk

Hall of Famer
Sep 21, 2002
47,417
37,360
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Norwood
You do realise Redpath only got an extra week because the Dogs challenged it at the tribunal correct?

Both players had poor records. There is a lesson there- don't do the wrong thing over and over again.
Yes, I do realise that. What Jonas did was far worse than Redpath. Belting someone in the head BEHIND THE PLAY is far worse than pushing someone and the only reason he fell over is because he was milking a free. You do realise that don't you?
 

LukeParkerno1

Post-Human
Sep 23, 2005
106,430
40,076
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
Yes, I do realise that. What Jonas did was far worse than Redpath. Belting someone in the head BEHIND THE PLAY is far worse than pushing someone and the only reason he fell over is because he was milking a free. You do realise that don't you?
Don't do things over and over again and you won't get ridiculous suspensions. Would anyone have kicked up a storm if Redpath got 1 week? probably not, was soft but it was there. That was what he would have got if he didn't belt another bloke earlier this season. I would say the same if this was a Swans player- stop doing stupid stuff!
 

Topkent

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2010
36,500
45,420
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Winnipeg Jets
Don't do things over and over again and you won't get ridiculous suspensions. Would anyone have kicked up a storm if Redpath got 1 week? probably not, was soft but it was there. That was what he would have got if he didn't belt another bloke earlier this season. I would say the same if this was a Swans player- stop doing stupid stuff!
It wasnt worth a week, it was one of the most pissweak suspensions of all time and the AFL is heading down a dangerous path if they are going to start banning blokes all the time for that.
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
19,000
15,900
AFL Club
Geelong
If I were a Bulldogs supporter, I'd be livid. Redpath gets three because he pushed a serial flopper in Davis, while Jonas belts a Bulldogs player in the head with a forearm behind the play, and gets 2!!!! Do away with the MRP, it's a joke.
This has all come about because acts of thuggery have been all but stamped out of the game, so now the AFL has turned its attention to (a) the physicality of the game and (b) trivial acts - because it can.
 

sobrave

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 15, 2015
9,707
18,164
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Yes, I do realise that. What Jonas did was far worse than Redpath. Belting someone in the head BEHIND THE PLAY is far worse than pushing someone and the only reason he fell over is because he was milking a free. You do realise that don't you?
'belted behind play' lol take your hand off it
maybe watch the footage again. dahlhouse runs into him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top Bottom