Lake chokes Petrie

[astrovic]

Going through the clip frame by frame that was the worst looking one from drew, most of the time he has a clenched (unsure as to how tight) fist and is pushing into and across Lake's face. If you look at the picture I uploaded before that one you can see that drew has his hand open, pushing on and covering lake's mouth as lake looks down and to the left. It's my supposition that what we are seeing in THIS frame is drew clenching his hand into a fist, as Lake moves his head, thus moving Drew's grip up his face towards his eyes. The I uploaded after that one shows that Drew has now clenched his fist and moved it across Lake's face and away from his eyes. It's also probably important to notice how far up Drew's body Lake is, in terms of making it difficult for Drew to try and put effective leverage on any other part of Lake's body.

Yep. I cherry picked the worst looking photo, to play devil's advocate.

Anyways, whatever he was doing, he was making contact with Lake's face. The tribunal will have to decide what it was he was doing, and then then figure out whether that was unnecessary and unreasonable.

I take it that as for the most part his hand was closed rather than open, the argument that Petrie's contact to Lake's face was not unreasonable or unnecessary is strengthened? For my part I think that has to be correct. A closed hand is far less dangerous in that scenario than an open one.

 

[Devington]

Yep. I cherry picked the worst looking photo, to play devil's advocate.

Anyways, whatever he was doing, he was making contact with Lake's face. The tribunal will have to decide what it was he was doing, and then then figure out whether that was unnecessary and unreasonable.

I take it that as for the most part his hand was closed rather than open, the argument that Petrie's contact to Lake's face was not unreasonable or unnecessary is strengthened? For my part I think that has to be correct. A closed hand is far less dangerous in that scenario than an open one.

Yup, no denying that he made contact with the face. I don't believe that Drew "hacked" at Lake's face, or gauged his eyes though, as has been put forward by others.

I think it's important to remember the speed at which this all happens though. Lake throws him to the ground from the tackle, rolls him, and then puts himself in the dominant position (I would put forward Drew was unable to extract himself using his legs or core strength due to Lake's positioning) in a matter of seconds. Instead of "wrestling" him Lake grabs the back of his neck, and leans into his face with his chest.

Drew's left arm is more or less useless, he can push into Lake's chest all he wants (as he does), he isn't going to dislodge him. With his right arm he makes repeated contact to Lake's face. I believe that Lake's head is more or less the only thing Drew could get any meaningful purchase with his right arm.

The SECOND Lake pushes down Drew's arm, Drew stop's struggling. I think it could be argued pushing into Lake's face was a reasonable action given the circumstances.

At the end of the day though, the charge has been laid, and the tribunal has the last laugh. We can't deny Drew made contact with Lake's face. I think we can however deny that it was malicious (doesn't address necessariness or reasonableness, but perhaps it does address the citability of the offence) and argue that it was a reasonable response to the highly aggressive actions Lake took in tackling him to the ground, grabbing the back of his neck, and pushing his torso into Drew's face.

I'm confident we can get the charge dropped, but sure as hell not certain.

 

[astrovic]

Yup, no denying that he made contact with the face. I don't believe that Drew "hacked" at Lake's face, or gauged his eyes though, as has been put forward by others.

I think it's important to remember the speed at which this all happens though. Lake throws him to the ground from the tackle, rolls him, and then puts himself in the dominant position (I would put forward Drew was unable to extract himself using his legs or core strength due to Lake's positioning) in a matter of seconds. Instead of "wrestling" him Lake grabs the back of his neck, and leans into his face with his chest.

Drew's left arm is more or less useless, he can push into Lake's chest all he wants (as he does), he isn't going to dislodge him. With his right arm he makes repeated contact to Lake's face. I believe that Lake's head is more or less the only thing Drew could get any meaningful purchase with his right arm.

The SECOND Lake pushes down Drew's arm, Drew stop's struggling. I think it could be argued pushing into Lake's face was a reasonable action given the circumstances.

At the end of the day though, the charge has been laid, and the tribunal has the last laugh. We can't deny Drew made contact with Lake's face. I think we can however deny that it was malicious (doesn't address necessariness or reasonableness, but perhaps it does address the citability of the offence) and argue that it was a reasonable response to the highly aggressive actions Lake took in tackling him to the ground, grabbing the back of his neck, and pushing his torso into Drew's face.

I'm confident we can get the charge dropped, but sure as hell not certain.

Excellent closing address, counsellor.

 

[Devington]

Excellent closing address, counsellor.

You can thank my lack of social life, OCD tendancies, and insomnia. I can't believe i went through the whole thing frame by frame.

 

[King Corey]

You can thank my lack of social life, OCD tendancies, and insomnia. I can't believe i went through the whole thing frame by frame.

Contact the club. Seriously.

 

[astrovic]

Contact the club. Seriously.

If he wants to contact any football club about his insomnia, surely he should be calling the Demons?

 

[Event Horizon]

Let's not forget, the charge wasn't "eye gauging". It was "making unnecessary contact to the face". And this relates to the contact BEFORE Lake went for Drew's throat. Now, if the question is whether the headlock is enough reason or excuse to make contact with Lake's face, let's not forget this is the same tribunal that ruled that Ziebell had an alternative way to contest the ball when he copped the suspension against Carlton. I am worried about the outcome.

 

[shintemaster]

Let's not forget, the charge wasn't "eye gauging". It was "making unnecessary contact to the face". And this relates to the contact BEFORE Lake went for Drew's throat. Now, if the question is whether the headlock is enough reason or excuse to make contact with Lake's face, let's not forget this is the same tribunal that ruled that Ziebell had an alternative way to contest the ball when he copped the suspension against Carlton. I am worried about the outcome.

Fair enough. I guess I'm not because a) I think that there is no way that we should not be able to cover Drew for one game b) the implication is borderline offensive to Petrie. He has a 250+ game career with very few blemishes. Perhaps next time Hawthorn decide as a group they'd prefer to stage a serious of bouts instead of a game they could let us all know in advance.

 

[Devington]

Let's not forget, the charge wasn't "eye gauging". It was "making unnecessary contact to the face". And this relates to the contact BEFORE Lake went for Drew's throat. Now, if the question is whether the headlock is enough reason or excuse to make contact with Lake's face, let's not forget this is the same tribunal that ruled that Ziebell had an alternative way to contest the ball when he copped the suspension against Carlton. I am worried about the outcome.

Technically I believe it's "unnecessary and unreasonable contact to the face". And while it's hard to argue ANYTHING on the footy field is necessary, it's a bit easier to argue how reasonable a given action is. The charge also brings into account the amount of force used, which I think the lack of eye gouging in the incident could be used in our favour, added to the fact it only lasted a few seconds. But like you said, it's the tribunal, anything could happen.

 

[Event Horizon]

Technically I believe it's "unnecessary and unreasonable contact to the face". And while it's hard to argue ANYTHING on the footy field is necessary, it's a bit easier to argue how reasonable a given action is. The charge also brings into account the amount of force used, which I think the lack of eye gouging in the incident could be used in our favour, added to the fact it only lasted a few seconds. But like you said, it's the tribunal, anything could happen.

But if there was force used, we'd be looking at more than 1 week. They may argue that due to lack of force, they have offered only 1 week.
Who knows. Just think it was a big risk, unless of course we are happy for him to miss the St Kilda game.

 

[King Corey]

Just asking if it hasn't been already, Mumford's elbow strike wasn't considered 'unnecessary contact to the face' also?

 

[Event Horizon]

Perhaps next time Hawthorn decide as a group they'd prefer to stage a serious of bouts instead of a game they could let us all know in advance.

Agreed. But they would argue that's the "unsociable football" that wins premierships...

 

[Twinkletoes]

If he wants to contact any football club about his insomnia, surely he should be calling the Demons?

Nah, we provide a free insomnia cure session minutes before each game in the rooms.

 

[Only Forwards]

Agreed. But they would argue that's the "unsociable football" that wins premierships...

Yeah its not a bad thing to be a **** with a medal.

At the moment these pricks are looking like they won't get the medals but the ****ishness has been retained.

 

[Kimbo]

Technically I believe it's "unnecessary and unreasonable contact to the face". And while it's hard to argue ANYTHING on the footy field is necessary, it's a bit easier to argue how reasonable a given action is. The charge also brings into account the amount of force used, which I think the lack of eye gouging in the incident could be used in our favour, added to the fact it only lasted a few seconds. But like you said, it's the tribunal, anything could happen.

While I get the whole intent of rules like this one is to prevent fights and brawls (self defence is no excuse) in this instance you'd have to ask what other choice did Drew have to protect himself from what I'd say was an unprovoked attack by Lake. Lake didn't have to aggressively throw him to the ground etc. and Drew, as you've highlighted, had little options available to him. It's not like he could have walked away and he wasn't in a position to push Lake away. All he could have done is to allow it to happen to him or distract/fight back. My sense is that Drew was well aware of the risk of his actions looking like eye gouging and that's why the fist was closed. And/but, other than hitting the guy's head, there was little he could do. Reasonable imho.

 

[Devington]

While I get the whole intent of rules like this one is to prevent fights and brawls (self defence is no excuse) in this instance you'd have to ask what other choice did Drew have to protect himself from what I'd say was an unprovoked attack by Lake. Lake didn't have to aggressively throw him to the ground etc. and Drew, as you've highlighted, had little options available to him. It's not like he could have walked away and he wasn't in a position to push Lake away. All he could have done is to allow it to happen to him or distract/fight back. My sense is that Drew was well aware of the risk of his actions looking like eye gouging and that's why the fist was closed. And/but, other than hitting the guy's head, there was little he could do. Reasonable imho.

Agreed. The MRP and tribunal hang their hats often on "reasonable alternatives", and in this case I can't think of any, which you would think would reinforce that his action was a reasonable one. Drew also appeared to try and mitigate the amount of damage he could do with the contact.

 

[Mullett]

Good luck tonight Drew ( I know your reading this ).

 

[Flawed Genius]

Good luck tonight Drew ( I know your reading this ).

Has he been keeping up to date with BigFooty dealings?

 

[Gasometer]

Has he been keeping up to date with BigFooty dealings?

...well used to go by the name 'Jozeph'.

 

[Psi-Roos]

Thread should be renamed to "Scumbag Petrie removes Lakes eyes with his Wolverine claws. Lake responds in an appropriate manner".

Would bring it in line with the main board.

 

[grimface_87]

Explanation from the MRP on Petrie is a big positive the way I read it:

Panel member Joel Bowden defended the pursuit of the Kangaroos' Petrie, for misconduct for grabbing the face of his Hawks opponent Lake early in the scuffle.

"We looked at them (actions of Lake and Petrie) in isolation and deemed that was unreasonable or unnecessary and were quite comfortable in grading that within the current guidelines, but we were unable to grade the Lake incident so that's why it's been referred directly to the tribunal under the misconduct charge," he told the AFL website.

While Petrie's conduct was deemed negligent, the least serious in the AFL's table of penalties, Bowden confirmed the panel had considered referring him directly to the tribunal as it did for Lake.

"There was a little bit, yeah. But the issue for us is we're able to grade this under the table of offences . . . for Lake, we were unable to do that," he said.

Didn't take into account any mitigating factors when determining it was unreasonable or unnecessary. The tribunal can

 

[Chopra]

As ridiculous as it sounds I think this whole thing is a massive misunderstanding of intent.

1. Lake was been a tool getting Petries face for toweling him up
2. Petrie stuck has hand in his face and accidentally makes contact with Lakes eyes.
3. Lake thinks the dish is going the gouge and sees red (or fingers... whatever)
4. Lake proceeds to be a complete flog.

The one-eyed supporter in me wants lake to get a $20000 fine and get off without suspension because I want him to play. But that's not going to happen. Who knows what the actual suspension will be, anywhere from 1-6 weeks.

I don't think Petrie is a dirty player and I think how he has approached the story has been admirable. I also think that the media blowup of this has been out of control - maybe they should all shut the **** up until the match review panel and tribunals have made there decisions.

It does bring 2 things up

1. Whats worse for a player - A massive fine or a few weeks off? That's probably a topic for another thread
2. Should the match review panel look at all incidents the following day? I think that it is the only way to quell the influence of the media storm that follows a lot of these events. EG Viney, Lake.

Hope I haven't intruded here anyway!

 

[Wild Bill]

As ridiculous as it sounds I think this whole thing is a massive misunderstanding of intent.

1. Lake was been a tool getting Petries face for toweling him up
2. Petrie stuck has hand in his face and accidentally makes contact with Lakes eyes.
3. Lake thinks the dish is going the gouge and sees red (or fingers... whatever)
4. Lake proceeds to be a complete flog.

The one-eyed supporter in me wants lake to get a $20000 fine and get off without suspension because I want him to play. But that's not going to happen. Who knows what the actual suspension will be, anywhere from 1-6 weeks.

I don't think Petrie is a dirty player and I think how he has approached the story has been admirable. I also think that the media blowup of this has been out of control - maybe they should all shut the **** up until the match review panel and tribunals have made there decisions.

It does bring 2 things up

1. Whats worse for a player - A massive fine or a few weeks off? That's probably a topic for another thread
2. Should the match review panel look at all incidents the following day? I think that it is the only way to quell the influence of the media storm that follows a lot of these events. EG Viney, Lake.

Hope I haven't intruded here anyway!

You have been fairly reasonable in your approach to this.

We play the Saints this week - I am not sure we would have challenged if we were playing the Cats.

Gouged or Scratched its not a good look and I would not be suprised if his appeal fails. 3 or 4 for Lake is my tip - the AFL wll not like the look of the incident.

 

[muttley45]

Driving home about 1/2 hour ago, I think i heard on SEN that Drew is pleading guilty and Lake not guilty, can anyone confirm this ?

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

GET THAT UP YA!

Action considered in self-defence. Reprimand, no points.