Paddy Ryder bump on Will Day

[HairyO]

Day had a graze on his chin. I assume shaving rash and not from Ryder ?

Problem is, Im not sure he is shaving yet.

 

[kozi]

The nature of the collision itself was still Ryder's fault for 2 reasons

1. Day was kicking the ball and couldn't be sure what Ryder's action would be until he was already in the kicking motion. Day could hardly stop before impact.

2. Ryder chose to bump. To hip and shoulder. To turn his body sideways towards an incoming player, who was in the kicking motion and whose entire body was facing forwards and exposed. He could've tackled instead.

I'm not convinced you've even watched the incident tbh. Go back and watch it, especially the last footage from behind the play. There's a clip in this article

Saints’ bid to free star from ban fails after failed argument, lengthy Tribunal hearing

Saints’ bid to free star from ban fails after failed argument, lengthy Tribunal hearing

www.foxsports.com.au

Day didn't even have the awareness that Ryder was there. He planted the kicking foot and changed direction right into him. I suspect this is what Saints will argue at the appeal. The actual footage makes the point you made about Day not being able to stop before the impact look silly.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

I think Paddy is in trouble and the best he can hope for is a reduction to 1 week.

I don’t think the fact that he has braced for contact and is almost stationary is a good enough defence (he wasn’t actually completely stationary and when you watch it back in slow motion you can see his momentum is still moving forward slightly into the bump).

At no point in the lead up to making contact has Ryder had eyes on the ball. He has made a B-line for Day and at no point did he try and smother the ball or intercept the ball. His line of movement did not deviate at any point even when it was clear he would not impact the play. At that point he should have stepped aside and not initiated contact.

As you can see in the stills, in the first image Day is already kicking the ball. At this point Ryder still has the option to not engage with Day as the play has moved on and he is not impacting the ball.

Ryder also has a duty of care towards Day. As Day is in the motion of kicking the ball, he is completely vulnerable and unable to protect himself for the bump.

In short, if Ryder actually showed any attempt to go the ball I think he’d be ok but as he has not, this is the result.

 

[Philth]

No head contact.
Fair bump.
That’s football.
No suspension.

 

[PJays]

I'm not convinced you've even watched the incident tbh. Go back and watch it, especially the last footage from behind the play. There's a clip in this article

Saints’ bid to free star from ban fails after failed argument, lengthy Tribunal hearing

Saints’ bid to free star from ban fails after failed argument, lengthy Tribunal hearing

www.foxsports.com.au

Day didn't even have the awareness that Ryder was there. He planted the kicking foot and changed direction right into him. I suspect this is what Saints will argue at the appeal. The actual footage makes the point you made about Day not being able to stop before the impact look silly.

I've watched it about 30 times.

Day may or may not have seen him, but it doesn't change the fact that Ryder turned his body sideways into an incoming player who was facing forwards with his body exposed. The ultimate result (sadly and unforeseeably) was whiplash and a concussion.

Ryder had other options.

Whether Ryder was stationary is irrelevant.

Going back to basketball analogies, if a defender slides under an opposing player who's in the air and the defender is stationary before the offensive player makes contact, the defender can still get a foul. The offensive player has the right to land. You see this when jump shooters kick their legs out on 3s (Bryce Cotton in the NBL is brilliant at this), or when a player is driving into the key and airborne and the defender slides underneath.

Point is, stationary defenders can still get fouls. Being stationary at the exact point of impact is not the sole consideration. It's about being in the relevant motion before your opponent was in their motion. The shooting player always has the right to land.

The movement principles of this Will Day situation are analogous I think, because Day was in a kicking motion and unable to stop moving forward. So whether Ryder was stationary in the instant of contact is irrelevant to me. Day set his course of motion before Ryder did (ie a running kick. And one further step, without which the running kick was impossible). Day should have the right to complete his action without his head suffering whiplash after running into a turned shoulder.

 

[HairyO]

No head contact.
Fair bump.
That’s football.
No suspension.

What is an acceptable number of CTE suicides and other early deaths for you to get the game you want ?

 

[PJays]

I think Paddy is in trouble and the best he can hope for is a reduction to 1 week.

I don’t think the fact that he has braced for contact and is almost stationary is a good enough defence (he wasn’t actually completely stationary and when you watch it back in slow motion you can see his momentum is still moving forward slightly into the bump).

At no point in the lead up to making contact has Ryder had eyes on the ball. He has made a B-line for Day and at no point did he try and smother the ball or intercept the ball. His line of movement did not deviate at any point even when it was clear he would not impact the play. At that point he should have stepped aside and not initiated contact.

As you can see in the stills, in the first image Day is already kicking the ball. At this point Ryder still has the option to not engage with Day as the play has moved on and he is not impacting the ball.

Ryder also has a duty of care towards Day. As Day is in the motion of kicking the ball, he is completely vulnerable and unable to protect himself for the bump.

In short, if Ryder actually showed any attempt to go the ball I think he’d be ok but as he has not, this is the result.

View attachment 1370541View attachment 1370542

View attachment 1370543View attachment 1370544

Brilliant post

Thanks for showing what I've been saying in previous posts using screenshots.

Ryder had other options- tackle, smother, pull out completely. He chose to turn sideways, using his shoulder to bump the incoming player who had already committed to their kicking motion.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Brilliant post

Thanks for showing what I've been saying in previous posts using screenshots.

Ryder had other options- tackle, smother, pull out completely. He chose to turn sideways, using his shoulder to bump the incoming player who had already committed to their kicking motion.

Exactly. If it was an accidental head knock while both we’re contesting the ball then fair game and accidents happen. It’s the fact the Day has already disposed of the ball that I think anyway, seals Ryders fate.

This is one of those perfect examples where duty of care comes into it in the current game.

 

[BarbieITFC]

I've watched it about 30 times.

Day may or may not have seen him, but it doesn't change the fact that Ryder turned his body sideways into an incoming player who was facing forwards with his body exposed. The ultimate result (sadly and unforeseeably) was whiplash and a concussion.

Ryder had other options.

Whether Ryder was stationary is irrelevant.

Going back to basketball analogies, if a defender slides under an opposing player who's in the air and the defender is stationary before the offensive player makes contact, the defender can still get a foul. The offensive player has the right to land. You see this when jump shooters kick their legs out on 3s (Bryce Cotton in the NBL is brilliant at this), or when a player is driving into the key and airborne and the defender slides underneath.

Point is, stationary defenders can still get fouls. Being stationary at the exact point of impact is not the sole consideration. It's about being in the relevant motion before your opponent was in their motion. The shooting player always has the right to land.

The movement principles of this Will Day situation are analogous I think, because Day was in a kicking motion and unable to stop moving forward. So whether Ryder was stationary in the instant of contact is irrelevant to me. Day set his course of motion before Ryder did (ie a running kick. And one further step, without which the running kick was impossible). Day should have the right to complete his action without his head suffering whiplash after running into a turned shoulder.

What other options did he have - I've watched this a dozen times and I can't for the life of me work out what else he was supposed to do?? Someone suggested he should have tackled Day - but that's a free kick because he doesn't have the ball - so the game has already outlawed that action. He could have dropped to the floor - but then would have legged Day. He could have sped up - but as pointed out Day changed direction and if Ryder would have sped up then they would have run into each other.

He didn't put some sauce on the block like some blokes do, he didn't raise his elbow, he just braced for contact - which is an entirely human response. It's not Ryder's fault he's 40% bigger and heavier than Day.

On the same weekend that Walters gets a $1000 fine for shoving a player into the Umpire - I know which act I think was worse.

 

[kozi]

I've watched it about 30 times.

Day may or may not have seen him, but it doesn't change the fact that Ryder turned his body sideways into an incoming player who was facing forwards with his body exposed. The ultimate result (sadly and unforeseeably) was whiplash and a concussion.

Ryder had other options.

Whether Ryder was stationary is irrelevant.

Live updates from the hearing show St Kilda QC basing the appeal on the fact that Ryder was stationary. I'd say that makes it pretty relevant. The QC is clueless and you're still right though, right?

Going back to basketball analogies, if a defender slides under an opposing player who's in the air and the defender is stationary before the offensive player makes contact, the defender can still get a foul. The offensive player has the right to land. You see this when jump shooters kick their legs out on 3s (Bryce Cotton in the NBL is brilliant at this), or when a player is driving into the key and airborne and the defender slides underneath.

Point is, stationary defenders can still get fouls. Being stationary at the exact point of impact is not the sole consideration. It's about being in the relevant motion before your opponent was in their motion. The shooting player always has the right to land.

The movement principles of this Will Day situation are analogous I think, because Day was in a kicking motion and unable to stop moving forward. So whether Ryder was stationary in the instant of contact is irrelevant to me. Day set his course of motion before Ryder did (ie a running kick. And one further step, without which the running kick was impossible). Day should have the right to complete his action without his head suffering whiplash after running into a turned shoulder.

We're clutching at straws here if we're reaching for a comparison like Zaza Pachulia on Kawhi Leonard in 2017 just to make the argument Ryder would have also been rubbed out in basketball as stationary fouls can occur.

 

[spudmaster]

What if Ryder had been injured by not bracing for contact from Will Day running into him?
Have the geniuses from AFL contemplated that?
Seems like Ryder has been penalised for using common sense.

He's 50kg soaking wet! Ryder would take bigger shits than that.

 

[kozi]

Rush (Saints): We would contend Ryder is stopped and braced in the sense of a basketball manoeuvre and that the momentum here is really all from Day.

Idiot QC should have come on bigfooty first before heading in tonight. Where did he go to law school?!

 

[JasRulz63]

Rush (Saints): We would contend Ryder is stopped and braced in the sense of a basketball manoeuvre and that the momentum here is really all from Day.

Idiot QC should have come on bigfooty first before heading in tonight. Where did he go to law school?!

Isn't that what Mitch Robinson argued at his appeal and failed?

 

[PJays]

Rush (Saints): We would contend Ryder is stopped and braced in the sense of a basketball manoeuvre and that the momentum here is really all from Day.

For St Kilda's sake, I would contend that QC should watch more basketball before making half baked basketball arguments at a hearing.

The momentum may have been Day's but the momentum in this hearing not going well for Saints fans if that's the best argument he's got.

 

[NeutralFan]

It is correct that Ryder had the option to contest smothering the ball. But going in for a tackle is another legitimate option in case players fake the kick or the handball and he was obviously fully committed to tackling if they met.

This scenario is becoming really dodgy since it's instinct to brace for contact once he sees the ball disposed trying hard to stop momentum. Players need leniency when they're about to run into each other and you can't brace with arm/shoulder because the AFL has a huge concussion problem.

Would say wrapping the opponent up without taking them to ground to stall each others momentum is the best thing to do to reduce concussion but they'd need to give leniency to not pay that a down the field free kick otherwise it's asking too much of players to magically stop or sidestep in an instant going flat out.

 

[westie]

How long before players have to submit a JSA before entering the field of play?

 

[spudmaster]

Ryder had the option to stop, turn around and surrender.

 

[kozi]

For St Kilda's sake, I would contend that QC should watch more basketball before making half baked basketball arguments at a hearing.

The momentum may have been Day's but the momentum in this hearing not going well for Saints fans if that's the best argument he's got.

Ah yes, a barrister has no idea what he's arguing and you know more. What's next?

 

[Plugger35]

What other options did he have - I've watched this a dozen times and I can't for the life of me work out what else he was supposed to do?? Someone suggested he should have tackled Day - but that's a free kick because he doesn't have the ball - so the game has already outlawed that action. He could have dropped to the floor - but then would have legged Day. He could have sped up - but as pointed out Day changed direction and if Ryder would have sped up then they would have run into each other.

He didn't put some sauce on the block like some blokes do, he didn't raise his elbow, he just braced for contact - which is an entirely human response. It's not Ryder's fault he's 40% bigger and heavier than Day.

On the same weekend that Walters gets a $1000 fine for shoving a player into the Umpire - I know which act I think was worse.

Yeah people saying that Ryder should have tackled, smothered the ball or somehow jumped out of the way clearly know nothing about playing football

Ryder may have tackled or smothered the ball if Day hadn't disposed of it but once he had kicked the ball they weren't options, Ryder was still moving towards Day though and he did his best to pull up and safely brace for contact but a guy of his size can't just stop on a dime or jump out of the way especially when Day contributed to the contact by changing direction back into him.

Day should also have been aware of Ryder as well and braced for contact himself but instead he left himself open and didn't protect himself which contributed to him being injured. Ryder showed a duty of care to minimise the impact of the collision as best he could but Day didn't show a duty of care to himself yet it is Ryder that cops 2 weeks which compared to other similar or worse incidents seems grossly unfair, it should be 1 week at the most.

 

[GC2015]

The question is - did Ryder have any other option other than to bump Day? If the answer is yes, then he should be suspended.

 

[PJays]

Ah yes, a barrister has no idea what he's arguing and you know more. What's next?

He might be a barrister but he's wrong that Ryder did anything resembling a "basketball manouvre" and I've explained why very clearly in this thread. The intention of a screen in basketball is never to turn sideways and shoulder the front of your opponent's body.

 

[Plugger35]

The question is - did Ryder have any other option other than to bump Day? If the answer is yes, then he should be suspended.

Did English have any other option other than to bump Blakey? I'd argue he did if you could argue Ryder did too yet one player gets off scot free while the other player gets 2 weeks, the difference being that Blakey was able to continue playing while Day was subbed off with concussion.

This is the problem with the MRP, inconsistent rulings for similar actions because the outcome is different, similar actions should be punished the same regardless of the outcome.

 

[kozi]

Isn't that what Mitch Robinson argued at his appeal and failed?

Don't think so. In any case would have been dumb if they did, wasn't anything close to this one.

 

[spudmaster]

2 week ban stands.

 

[westie]

FMD!