Nick Larkley Average play

[Val Keating]

And it was our free in front of goal at the time. Dumb and low by larkey.

Judd on Adams levels of low.

I was up the other end and didn’t know what the 2 50’s were for. Completely understand iced the game.

That looks pretty bad from Larkey. Deliberate too. Tunnelling happens every week and definitely needs to be taken out of the game. Someone is going to seriously get hurt one day. Has anyone ever been suspended for tunnelling before?

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

I'm a big believer of suspending based on intent rather than outcome. Now obviously it's impossible to do that consistently, but in a situation like this one where Larkey is irrefutably attempting to hurt or put the Carlton player in a dangerous situation, it has to be punished. I still play local footy and have been tunnelled multiple times in my life. It's one of the scarier moments you can have, and I once broke my wrist as a result of one instance.

Larkey was clearly not going for the ball, and waited for his opponent to jump before engaging in conduct. A duty of care must be owed in this instance.

2-4 weeks for me. Very lucky no injury resulted.

Im blessed with a vertical leap of about 8cm so I've never had to worry about being tunnelled but just 4 weeks ago one of the best blokes in our team was tunnelled/knocked off line mid air, broke his scaphoid and radius. Looking at 12-18 months out from footy, potential permanent nerve damage and months of rehab to try to gain full movement back in his hand. Obviously at an AFL club access to medical treatment and rehab specialists is all much more convenient but a grub act like this can be life changing for those involved.

I dont know if the rules will permit a suspension but all bias aside I really think this should get weeks. Probably as obvious as you can get in terms of maleficent intent but Young got straight back up. Will be an interesting decision

 

[Virgin Dog]

Another great example of why intent should be a bigger factor than impact. This was a clearly intentional, reckless act that could have caused serious injury. Doesn't matter that Young got back up, I'd much rather see this heavily penalised over cases like Ryder from a few weeks back

 

[my name was taken]

Should be a month imo, shouldnt be using the typical scales.

 

[Nikita Blue]

Was awful. Larkey is very lucky he didn't cause a serious injury. The message has to be sent by the AFL that acts like this will not be tolerated.

 

[conrad_437]

Im blessed with a vertical leap of about 8cm so I've never had to worry about being tunnelled but just 4 weeks ago one of the best blokes in our team was tunnelled/knocked off line mid air, broke his scaphoid and radius. Looking at 12-18 months out from footy, potential permanent nerve damage and months of rehab to try to gain full movement back in his hand. Obviously at an AFL club access to medical treatment and rehab specialists is all much more convenient but a grub act like this can be life changing for those involved.

I dont know if the rules will permit a suspension but all bias aside I really think this should get weeks. Probably as obvious as you can get in terms of maleficent intent but Young got straight back up. Will be an interesting decision

Honestly one of the most dangerous things you can do in the game, more so than any ill-timed bump. Hopefully the AFL gets its act together on this one.

 

[Hubnester]

Is there a precedence for this?
If not I hope they set a strong one, that is ridiculously dangerous and irresponsible. Let's spin the wheel and see where it lands on this one.

If I recall right, in recent years Lonie and Impey both suffered season ending knee injuries after being dangerously shoved in the air - no one seemed to care about that action at the time, and I know it's a bit different, I still think that should be rubbed out.

 

[Val Keating]

Got one week

 

[Foucault1989]

Got one week

Joke. Young and Stocker get the same penalty for legal actions.

 

[my name was taken]

Shocked they applied their template considering its the potential damage from the fall and not the amount of contact actually applied by Larkey that's the issue. The act is very different to a stray bump

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Needed to be 2 weeks at least, if they wanted to make a statement.

 

[Bald]

One week is a piss take. If Young is seriously injured here then Larkey is looking at 4-5 weeks+

The outcome I’ve conceded needs to be considered but it shouldn’t have this much of a consideration.

 

[The Nostradamus]

It ain’t medium impact hope we challenge

Low impact nudge to tunnel

 

[Smeg Head]

Another massive intentional scumbag act massively under penalized by the current weightings.

 

[my name was taken]

It ain’t medium impact hope we challenge

Low impact nudge to tunnel

It's why the model doesn't fit. That's low impact if it was a high contact bump.

Low, medium or high impact, the danger involved in tunnelling is the same for all instances and why it needs to be assessed separately.

 

[Wonderdog]

The MRO has now set the standard as he should. Tunnelling now means one week if the tunnelled player is not injured. Now let’s see the consistency.

 

[theyellowsash]

Average play is a severe understatement. It was a dog act by a guy who was just pissed off that he was beaten, so wanted to get a cheap shot in.

Deserved 2+ weeks, the 1 he got is pathetic. Potential for injury doing something like this is huge.

 

[Kramer1]

Nick Larkey

20

Nick Larkey

Age

25

Ht

198cm

Wt

96kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.5

2star

K

4.6

2star

HB

3.9

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

1.5

3star

G

1.4

5star

D

7.0

1star

K

4.0

1star

HB

3.0

2star

M

2.0

2star

T

1.0

2star

G

1.0

4star

D

8.8

3star

K

4.2

2star

HB

4.6

4star

M

3.2

4star

T

1.4

4star

G

0.8

4star

#shitcampaigner

 

[DamoESP]

What were the Ziebell and Jason incidents?

I assume the Ziebell one is when he couldn’t catch Saad while he was running away early in the first so launched and grabbed/tapped his ankle, tripping Saad up from behind causing him to go near on face first into the deck.

Tripping players is real dangerous thing to do on the footy field, even the commentators mentioned how it used to be an instant report if you did that (no idea why it isn’t anymore)

 

[StillAtLarge]

I mean North can easily argue it was low impact (which it was) and attempt to have it downgraded but I think they cop their medicine with a quick guilty plea.
There should be a seperate criteria for dangerous acts which are unacceptable and automatic 3+ week bans whatever the force/in play/point of contact is. If I was North I'd get him to front the media and apologise otherwise he'll have a target on his back (no pun intended) in this fixture for years

 

[The Nostradamus]

I mean North can easily argue it was low impact (which it was) and attempt to have it downgraded but I think they cop their medicine with a quick guilty plea.
There should be a seperate criteria for dangerous acts which are unacceptable and automatic 3+ week bans whatever the force/in play/point of contact is. If I was North I'd get him to front the media and applogise otherwise he'll have a target on his back (no pun intended) in this fixture for years

I’d argue it down to low impact and cop our whack via a fine

Suspensions are very act and outcome based as opposed to potential to injure

 

[Devington]

I mean North can easily argue it was low impact (which it was) and attempt to have it downgraded but I think they cop their medicine with a quick guilty plea.
There should be a seperate criteria for dangerous acts which are unacceptable and automatic 3+ week bans whatever the force/in play/point of contact is. If I was North I'd get him to front the media and applogise otherwise he'll have a target on his back (no pun intended) in this fixture for years

The MRP can recommend it go ungraded straight to the tribunal which is what they should have done in this situation. I'm fine with him copping a week for what he did (it was stupid, selfish, and dangerous) but loathe that the MRP reverse engineered an outcome that doesn't make much sense on the face of it.

 

[theyellowsash]

I assume the Ziebell one is when he couldn’t catch Saad while he was running away early in the first so launched and grabbed/tapped his ankle, tripping Saad up from behind causing him to go near on face first into the deck.

Tripping players is real dangerous thing to do on the footy field, even the commentators mentioned how it used to be an instant report if you did that (no idea why it isn’t anymore)

Its not a suspendable offence anymore because the afl changed the rules to protect fyfes brownlow

 

[perplexed]

If this is worth a week Dane Rampe

24

Dane Rampe

Age

33

Ht

187cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.0

4star

K

10.6

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

2.5

4star

MG

358.8

5star

D

14.1

3star

K

9.0

4star

HB

5.1

3star

M

3.4

3star

T

1.5

2star

MG

284.5

4star

D

10.6

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

2.4

3star

T

1.4

4star

may as well retire.
North should appeal. Since when does low impact intentional contact to the body get a suspension?

 

[theyellowsash]

If this is worth a week Dane Rampe may as well retire.
North should appeal. Since when does low impact intentional contact to the body get a suspension?

Pretty sad if you can't see why a cheap shot like that should be a suspension