MRP / Trib. Nankervis on Lloyd

[HairyO]

You're bang on with this

Sicily deserved three
Nank deserved four

Whatever Sicily deserved, Nankervis deserved more.

Have all the Swans players deserved their suspensions this year?

 

[juss]

Most said 3-4 , 3 is on the lighter end of the range but it's in the appropriate range.

We got the good end of the range this time.

 

[spudmaster]

3 weeks and forced to leave his doors unlocked when Pickett is around.

 

[My_Username]

The Geelong troll squad must be devistated.

The wine coolers will be flowing down Geelong way tonight.

 

[Area51]

Less than the dog even without the AFL media running the good bloke defence.

 

[Maddo11]

Whatever Sicily deserved, Nankervis deserved more.

Have all the Swans players deserved their suspensions this year?

I'd argue Parker was maybe a little stiff seeing as since then there have been a few get off for insufficient force. But our argument at tribunal was garbo so

Just let the Sicily tackle go, like he should have..

 

[Maddo11]

For those playing at home, same as DeGoey, would have been 4 weeks but tribunal accepted contrition as being worthy of 25% discount

 

[THECHIEFTON]

Had to be 3 after Degoey got 3. Simple as that.

For what it's worth I think Degoey was lucky to get 3.

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

For those playing at home, same as DeGoey, would have been 4 weeks but tribunal accepted contrition as being worthy of 25% discount

Amazing what can happen with one simple word “sorry”. What a load of s**t.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

3 weeks is a disgrace. What Nankervis did was far far worse than Sicily did to McLuggage (which was accidental I firmly believe)

Hawthorn fans have every to feel angry/victims of a miscarriage of justice.

 

[My_Username]

For those playing at home, same as DeGoey, would have been 4 weeks but tribunal accepted contrition as being worthy of 25% discount

In effect, they gave an 'early plea' discount even though the rules say you can't early plea when going to the tribunal.


What's that old saying about 2 wrongs not making a right?

a) Early plea 'discount' should be allowed for tribunal cases when they're referred straight there. (really, why not?)
b) If the rule says it can't happen, then it really shouldn't happen, especially not in a sideways/sneaky way like this.

 

[BF Tiger]

Why did they waste everyone's time? After the JDG three week penalty for a very similar hit this was always going to be three weeks. I said it earlier in the thread that three weeksis the going rate for these type of hits this year, rightly or wrongly.

Next year they need to be increased. A Nankervis/JDG hit 4-5 weeks and a Stewart hit 5-6 weeks.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

Why did they waste everyone's time? After the JDG three week penalty for a very similar hit this was always going to be three weeks. I said it earlier in the thread that three weeksis the going rate for these type of hits this year, rightly or wrongly.

Next year they need to be increased. A Nankervis/JDG hit 4-5 weeks and a Stewart hit 5-6 weeks.

I am more annoyed about Sicily's harsh penalty (I honestly would have only given him a week off, at most)

 

[Romeoh1]

3 =About right I’d have thought. Not quite as bad as Stewart who copped 4 from memory.

 

[My_Username]

3 weeks is a disgrace. What Nankervis did was far far worse than Sicily did to McLuggage (which was accidental I firmly believe)

Once again, Richmond getting preferential treatment at Tribunal (how many times have we said that over the years)
Hawthorn fans have every to feel angry/victims of a miscarriage of justice.

The balance between penalties for different cases is way out.

The AFL has clearly decided to crack down on certain issues and the penalties are out of proportion.

Some of the dangerous tackles/bumps that get 3 weeks are pretty marginal, they're really accidents/mistakes due to insufficient care being taken (thinking Sicily, Mansell more than Nankervis), but you can throw a deliberate jumper punch to the chin and you'll only get a week.

Being a second or two late in contesting a ball, or a couple of degrees off in the angle you take a player to the ground in a tackle aren't nearly as bad as a deliberate action, even if it's 'just' a jumper punch, but to the AFL, it's 3 times as bad!

To compare two similar incidents from the same team, the Mansell and Nankervis bumps should never have got the same penalties.

Mansell runs 10-20M in a straight line towards the ball, moving at serious speed he gets there a second late, and when he realises he'll be second to the ball he braces and mostly makes impact with the arm, but also touches the head...3 weeks.
Nankervis lined him up for a bump, was never going for anything else and while I doubt he intended to hit high, he did....3 weeks.

How are they equivalent?
( To be clear, I think Mansell should have got less...1 week would have been sufficient. I'm fine with 3 for Nankervis ).

A lot more emphasis should be put on the intent behind the action rather than the result, but the AFL is afraid to do that because saying a player deliberately tried to hurt another is considered offensive by the player who did it...even though often it's clearly the case.

 

[Hoops]

3 =About right I’d have thought. Not quite as bad as Stewart who copped 4 from memory.

The act was as bad, perhaps not the outcome.

 

[THECHIEFTON]

The balance between penalties for different cases is way out.

The AFL has clearly decided to crack down on certain issues and the penalties are out of proportion.

Some of the dangerous tackles/bumps that get 3 weeks are pretty marginal, they're really accidents/mistakes due to insufficient care being taken (thinking Sicily, Mansell more than Nankervis), but you can throw a deliberate jumper punch to the chin and you'll only get a week.

Being a second or two late in contesting a ball, or a couple of degrees off in the angle you take a player to the ground in a tackle aren't nearly as bad as a deliberate action, even if it's 'just' a jumper punch, but to the AFL, it's 3 times as bad!

To compare 2 from the same team, the Mansell and Nankervis bumps should never have got the same penalties.

Mansell runs 10-20M in a straight line towards the ball, moving at serious speed he gets there a second late, and when he realises he'll be second to the ball he braces and mostly makes impact with the arm, but also touches the head...3 weeks.
Nankervis lined him up for a bump, was never going for anything else and while I doubt he intended to hit high, he did....3 weeks.

How are they equivalent?
( To be clear, I think Mansell should have got less...1 week would have been sufficient. I'm fine with 3 for Nankervis ).

A lot more emphasis should be put on the intent behind the action rather than the result, but the AFL is afraid to do that because saying a player deliberately tried to hurt another is considered offensive by the player who did it...even though often it's clearly the case.

Spot on. This is the problem with just looking at the outcome and not intent.

 

[Toump Ass]

For those playing at home, same as DeGoey, would have been 4 weeks but tribunal accepted contrition as being worthy of 25% discount

This genuine remorse discount can get ****ed IMO.

 

[THECHIEFTON]

This genuine remorse discount can get ****ed IMO.

Pretty funny. As if players won't just say anything to get 1 week less.

 

[My_Username]

Pretty funny. As if players won't just say anything to get 1 week less.

I've always taken 'early plea' to be more a PR/admin thing that mostly just helps the AFL/MRP/Tribunal...

It makes the AFL look 'fair' when players admit their guilt and accept their penalty, and saves them the need to actually document/justify it fully against appeals, etc. For the AFL, it's less work, and looks better, so they figure let's give them a discount big enough to encourage it.

 

[Maddo11]

Pretty funny. As if players won't just say anything to get 1 week less.

Well i mean Sicily didn't, he doubled down, then doubled down again

 

[shaky]

The balance between penalties for different cases is way out.

The AFL has clearly decided to crack down on certain issues and the penalties are out of proportion.

Some of the dangerous tackles/bumps that get 3 weeks are pretty marginal, they're really accidents/mistakes due to insufficient care being taken (thinking Sicily, Mansell more than Nankervis), but you can throw a deliberate jumper punch to the chin and you'll only get a week.

Being a second or two late in contesting a ball, or a couple of degrees off in the angle you take a player to the ground in a tackle aren't nearly as bad as a deliberate action, even if it's 'just' a jumper punch, but to the AFL, it's 3 times as bad!

To compare two similar incidents from the same team, the Mansell and Nankervis bumps should never have got the same penalties.

Mansell runs 10-20M in a straight line towards the ball, moving at serious speed he gets there a second late, and when he realises he'll be second to the ball he braces and mostly makes impact with the arm, but also touches the head...3 weeks.
Nankervis lined him up for a bump, was never going for anything else and while I doubt he intended to hit high, he did....3 weeks.

How are they equivalent?
( To be clear, I think Mansell should have got less...1 week would have been sufficient. I'm fine with 3 for Nankervis ).

A lot more emphasis should be put on the intent behind the action rather than the result, but the AFL is afraid to do that because saying a player deliberately tried to hurt another is considered offensive by the player who did it...even though often it's clearly the case.

I think Nank would have been aiming to tackle Lloyd, but the speed he gathers and releases the ball caught Nank out.
From there he should have tried not to bump, he made the wrong split second decision. I too was more of a brace, more so than Degoey, you can see he raises his left hand, if he was truely trying to put a heavy bump on to do as much damage as possible he wouldn’t get into that position.
The trouble Nank has is he is a slow and less nimble ruckman and bulky.
If Degoey had the same bulk the WCE player would have been injured far worse than they were.
End of the day they AFL would make this all much easier if they just banned bumping. If it was against the rules and a free kick and or 50, even without high contact, players would stop doing it.

 

[My_Username]

I think Nank would have been aiming to tackle Lloyd, but the speed he gathers and releases the ball caught Nank out.
From there he should have tried not to bump, he made the wrong split second decision. I too was more of a brace, more so than Degoey, you can see he raises his left hand, if he was truely trying to put a heavy bump on to do as much damage as possible he wouldn’t get into that position.
The trouble Nank has is he is a slow and less nimble ruckman and bulky.
If Degoey had the same bulk the WCE player would have been injured far worse than they were.
End of the day they AFL would make this all much easier if they just banned bumping. If it was against the rules and a free kick and or 50, even without high contact, players would stop doing it.

Define a 'bump'.

How does that differ from just bumping into each other?

 

[THECHIEFTON]

I think Nank would have been aiming to tackle Lloyd, but the speed he gathers and releases the ball caught Nank out.
From there he should have tried not to bump, he made the wrong split second decision. I too was more of a brace, more so than Degoey, you can see he raises his left hand, if he was truely trying to put a heavy bump on to do as much damage as possible he wouldn’t get into that position.
The trouble Nank has is he is a slow and less nimble ruckman and bulky.
If Degoey had the same bulk the WCE player would have been injured far worse than they were.
End of the day they AFL would make this all much easier if they just banned bumping. If it was against the rules and a free kick and or 50, even without high contact, players would stop doing it.

This is a terrible take. Ban the bump? Umm no.

Also Nank was never looking to tackle. He wanted to bump and make Lloyd feel it. He just stuffed up and got him right down the middle and the top of his shoulder hit his jaw.

 

[shaky]

Define a 'bump'.

How does that differ from just bumping into each other?

Ahh. That probably comes back to a brace!
Obviously there is still going to be contact in the game, but I think they have to take the bump out as a form of shepherding or taking another player out of the contest.
Unfortunately footy is past the old days and needs to be a contest for the footy, not off the ball physical contests anymore.