Pearce V DBJ collision

[kingswood71]

So, in short, it’s Byrne Jones’ fault that he got to the ball first?

Not ducking. Not leading with his head in the tackle. But marking a ball that he got to before an opponent.

Cool, let’s make sure that interpretation is added to the AFL guidelines. Running with the ball to take a mark is to be advised against. We need to define an acceptable angle of approaching a mark? Not 180 of course, is 150 acceptable? 90? 45? Please let us know.

And if Pearce didn’t know that Byrne Jones was there, how was Byrne Jones supposed to know that Pearce was there? Was he meant to pull out because there might be a player coming, even though that apparently wasn’t an option for Pearce (who was beaten to the ball)?

So many questions that need answering….

Simple question though after looking at the video multiple times....did Pearce have any other option?
Its quite evident from the video that his eyes were 100% on the ball until just immediately prior to the contact.
What was he to do? Stop? Not try to turn at the last millisecond to brace for contact? Quick Ninja Back flip?

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Pearce had 3 options once he realized he was Byrne Jones was coming:
1. Protect himself and impact the play ( the option he ultimately chose with BJ dropping the mark).
2. Go for the mark too with outstretched hands.
3. Step left or right and avoid all contact.

Each option had a risk.

Option 1 had the risk that he if he got him in the head he'd be suspended. If he curled up a bit more, got all body but collapsed BJ's lung he would have been Ok. Maybe free kick for front on contact.

Option 2 risks two sore bodies or a clash of heads so 2 concussions.

Option 3 risks losing respect from his players and AFL community.

Which option should he have picked and which option would the AFL like players to pick in the future?

AFL have already set the precedent with the Maynard decision that some head contact is inevitable so I think Pearce picked the right option in the circumstances.

 

[HTPunter]

So, in short, it’s Byrne Jones’ fault that he got to the ball first?

Not ducking. Not leading with his head in the tackle. But marking a ball that he got to before an opponent.

Cool, let’s make sure that interpretation is added to the AFL guidelines. Running with the ball to take a mark is to be advised against. We need to define an acceptable angle of approaching a mark? Not 180 of course, is 150 acceptable? 90? 45? Please let us know.

And if Pearce didn’t know that Byrne Jones was there, how was Byrne Jones supposed to know that Pearce was there? Was he meant to pull out because there might be a player coming, even though that apparently wasn’t an option for Pearce (who was beaten to the ball)?

So many questions that need answering….

Jesus christ. Reading comprehension hasn’t been taught in Adelaide, has it?

Not once did I say there any needs to be anything against running with the flight of the ball. What a load of sensitive, emotional drivel.

He ran back with the flight of the ball and did not once check to brace, turn his body, or protect himself.

Like I said - his coaches & teammates would love him. I’m not knocking him for his approach!!
BUT the fact he just ran into contact without any form of self preservation DOES NOT put the entirety of the duty of care on Pearce. Pearce should not be suspended because he & DBJ both approached the ball, one without a hint of self preservation, and got there a tenth of a second later.

I’m just sick of an injured player having to take 0 responsibility for the two sided contest in a contact sport, while the uninjured player is judged as having 100% of the duty of care.

Also, DBJ did not “mark the ball”.

This was a marking contest in a 360 degree contact sport where both players had a fair & reasonable play on the ball.

 

[SC_Power]

Simple question though after looking at the video multiple times....did Pearce have any other option?
Its quite evident from the video that his eyes were 100% on the ball until just immediately prior to the contact.
What was he to do? Stop? Not try to turn at the last millisecond to brace for contact? Quick Ninja Back flip?

Simple answer: I am 100% convinced that Pearce knew leading up to the contest that Byrne Jones was there. Does anyone seriously believe that an experienced defender like Pearce had no idea of any players in the vicinity of the contest directly in front of him?

Even coach Longmuir admitted as much, by stating that he’d “have crucified” Pearce if he’d pulled out and let Byrne-Jones mark the ball ie Longmuir thought he knew, and had time.

Pearce is a victim of misjudging his position and being beaten to the ball quite easily. Because of that misjudgement, he put himself in that position where he had to choose. He chose to brace and bump, and caused an injury to an opponent playing the ball.

Should it be a ban? I personally don’t believe it should be but I’m a dinosaur from the days when those incidents were normal and deliberate and accepted. By all modern standards in how the game is being judged now, it should be a ban, and if it isn’t then there will just demonstrate another level of inconsistency that is all too frequent these days.

 

[CakeEater]

Cakeeaters standard MRP assessment

1 weeks punishment

Standard 3 week non victorian player punishment

Less:

• 1 week All Australian discount
• 1 week discount it happened off broadway game versus 2 non vic sides

 

[Purple Suit]

The tribunal are looking at it wrong, if Atkins hadn’t over cooked the kick there would have been an easy mark and shot on goal. Start dishing out suspensions for dodgy kicking might be a solution to some of these injuries but I suppose there might be a few teams who will struggle to field a side every week.

 

[piesaregreat]

Will get weeks
Not fair but he will

 

[CakeEater]

Will get weeks
Not fair but he will

I hear the Dockers are changing his name by deed poll to Brayden Maynard to confuse the tribunal

 

[SC_Power]

Jesus christ. Reading comprehension hasn’t been taught in Adelaide, has it?

Not once did I say there any needs to be anything against running with the flight of the ball. What a load of sensitive, emotional drivel.

He ran back with the flight of the ball and did not once check to brace, turn his body, or protect himself.

Like I said - his coaches & teammates would love him. I’m not knocking him for his approach!!
BUT the fact he just ran into contact without any form of self preservation DOES NOT put the entirety of the duty of care on Pearce. Pearce should not be suspended because he & DBJ both approached the ball, one without a hint of self preservation, and got there a tenth of a second later.

I’m just sick of an injured player having to take 0 responsibility for the two sided contest in a contact sport, while the uninjured player is judged as having 100% of the duty of care.

Also, DBJ did not “mark the ball”.

This was a marking contest in a 360 degree contact sport where both players had a fair & reasonable play on the ball.

Thanks for starting with an insult, really appreciated that.

You used the words “The person who had the most disregard for Darcy’s safety, was Darcy.” In a “fair and reasonable” contest for the ball, absolutely correct.

But is he to reasonably expect late contact? Byrne Jones got there first. Clearly. Enough time for Pearce to realise, turn, jump, make contact causing injury.

I’m not saying Pearce intended to hurt. But he put himself in a position to, because he was late to the contest. 20-30 years ago it’s maybe a free kick. Nowadays?

 

[kingswood71]

Simple answer: I am 100% convinced that Pearce knew leading up to the contest that Byrne Jones was there. Does anyone seriously believe that an experienced defender like Pearce had no idea of any players in the vicinity of the contest directly in front of him?

Even coach Longmuir admitted as much, by stating that he’d “have crucified” Pearce if he’d pulled out and let Byrne-Jones mark the ball ie Longmuir thought he knew, and had time.

Pearce is a victim of misjudging his position and being beaten to the ball quite easily. Because of that misjudgement, he put himself in that position where he had to choose. He chose to brace and bump, and caused an injury to an opponent playing the ball.

Should it be a ban? I personally don’t believe it should be but I’m a dinosaur from the days when those incidents were normal and deliberate and accepted. By all modern standards in how the game is being judged now, it should be a ban, and if it isn’t then there will just demonstrate another level of inconsistency that is all too frequent these days.

Knowing he was there doesnt answer my question though. What else was Pearce supposed to do? He had as much right to contest the ball as Byrne Jones did. He equally had a duty of care to avoid injury to the opponent and himself, however, his eyes on the ball until the last split second. What could he have reasonably done to avoid contact in that split second? Not braced and risk Byrne Jones running thru him??
As I have already posted, he will get 3 weeks most likely....

 

[Purple Suit]

Knowing he was there doesnt answer my question though. What else was Pearce supposed to do? He had as much right to contest the ball as Byrne Jones did. He equally had a duty of care to avoid injury to the opponent and himself, however, his eyes on the ball until the last split second. What could he have reasonably done to avoid contact in that split second? Not braced and risk Byrne Jones running thru him??
As I have already posted, he will get 3 weeks most likely....

I think it’s the bracing part for the contact which is basically a bump, don’t brace and you won’t get suspended.

Yes, it’s a natural instinct and he was in the contest but it resulted in a concussion. Really needs a different jumper on to get off.

 

[z547043]

I reckon judging by the media “good guy” “football incident” “split second” narrative already in the media, Pearce will get off.

My admittedly biased view
Pearce is late to the contest, has his feet on the ground when Byrne Jones attempts the mark, jumps in the air to make contact, shoulder just glances the jaw
Byrne-Jones hits his head quite forcefully on hitting the ground, which is where the concussion is most likely from. But that is an outcome of Pearce’s illegal bump, so it’s part of the assessment.

Will be part of the defence that his eyes were tracking the ball and hence was a football collision, however if a player doesn’t have awareness of where players are in front of them then I’m unsure how that can be a defence. There’s no quick change of direction, or a bouncing ball, or players being pushed in different directions.

Put it this way: Ask yourself if this incident would have occurred if Pearce was contesting a Fremantle teammate running back with the ball.

I think this is exactly the question you need to ask, because this is exactly the logic that the AFL is applying to these situations and the player’s duty of care.

No doubt DBJ puts himself in an extremely dangerous position running back with the flight and eyes only for the ball.

However, given the trajectory of the ball and Pearce’s positioning, I think the AFL places a higher duty of care onus on Pearce who should reasonably be able to foresee the player and track the flight of ball. Humans, especially elite athletes can track multiple moving objects, so given the situation, Pearce is the player with the onus of preventing significant contact there IMO.

If you want to extrapolate further, you can also argue DBJ gets to the ball first and Pearce is late to the contest, but that’s very marginal.

So anyway the original question of whether we would have the same outcome if DBJ was a Fremantle player is a pertinent one. And one that my honest answer is no, I think Pearce would have changed his body position and avoided contact if it had been a Freo player.

As a Freo poster has already run through his a,b,c options, I think he chose option a and committed to body contact also in part to stop DBJ from getting behind him and potentially gathering the loose ball. Can you blame him? No, he’s an elite athlete, playing for his team and trying to help them win and had a split second decision to make. But I think had it been a Freo player backing up, he would have pulled out or moved to the side and avoided contact.

I’m sure many posters will disagree, but I think that’s the way the AFL looks at these incidents now.

 

[Channels]

If the MRP are consistent with their Maynard decision, he has no case to answer.

If the MRP are consistent with their Wright interpretation, Pearce gets 3-4 weeks.

As usual, players don't have guidance how to approach situations. Pearce either let's DBJ take the mark, or Pearce tries to mark and collects DBJ in the process.

 

[Lach72]

It looked like nothing live, but watching the replay now, I reckon he's in trouble. He shouldn't be, but he is
Seems similar to the Peter Wright one against Sydney last year, Wright shouldn't have been suspended but the AFL have set the precedent that the guy backing back has all the rights and the guy running in towards the ball has a duty of care, even if his eyes are on the ball.
I'm fearlng the worst. 3-4 weeks

Same as Wright last year. Was competing for the ball but they will claim DBJ was in a vulnerable position running back and had to show greater care not to cause a collision and resulting injury. Likely 3-4 weeks same as Wright.

Wot?
Wright left the ground two meters before he got to the ball, jumped two feet in the air, turned sideways and smashed the guy in the head with his shoulder.

Pearce is watching the ball, has his arms out, DBJ gets a touch on it that moves the ball left, doesn’t hit the head with more than a glancing blow and his head hits the ground where the concussion comes from.

Wouldn’t be more different to Wright

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

If the MRP are consistent with their Maynard decision, he has no case to answer.

If the MRP are consistent with their Wright interpretation, Pearce gets 3-4 weeks.

As usual, players don't have guidance how to approach situations. Pearce either let's DBJ take the mark, or Pearce tries to mark and collects DBJ in the process.

They wont be consistent with the Maynard incident as they changed the rules after that event.

Regardless, Pearce chose to tuck himself in and bump. Concussion caused = easiest 3 week decision for the MRO.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Simple answer: I am 100% convinced that Pearce knew leading up to the contest that Byrne Jones was there. Does anyone seriously believe that an experienced defender like Pearce had no idea of any players in the vicinity of the contest directly in front of him?

Even coach Longmuir admitted as much, by stating that he’d “have crucified” Pearce if he’d pulled out and let Byrne-Jones mark the ball ie Longmuir thought he knew, and had time.

Pearce is a victim of misjudging his position and being beaten to the ball quite easily. Because of that misjudgement, he put himself in that position where he had to choose. He chose to brace and bump, and caused an injury to an opponent playing the ball.

Should it be a ban? I personally don’t believe it should be but I’m a dinosaur from the days when those incidents were normal and deliberate and accepted. By all modern standards in how the game is being judged now, it should be a ban, and if it isn’t then there will just demonstrate another level of inconsistency that is all too frequent these days.

I disagree that Pearce was beaten to the ball quite easily and Pearce chose to bump.

Pearce would have marked the ball at his groin, and in this pic, Pearce's left arm is extended so he's not bracing to bump and is just as exposed as BJ. He just had more mass.

What would you have preferred Pearce do?

 

[Maddo11]

If the MRP are consistent with their Maynard decision, he has no case to answer.

The rule that allowed Maynard to get off were immediately changed, so not likely

If the MRP are consistent with their Wright interpretation, Pearce gets 3-4 weeks.

As usual, players don't have guidance how to approach situations. Pearce either let's DBJ take the mark, or Pearce tries to mark and collects DBJ in the process.

Pearce didn't end up doing either option

 

[Channels]

The rule that allowed Maynard to get off were immediately changed, so not likely



Pearce didn't end up doing either option

Wasn’t aware they changed the rule. So what is the rule?

 

[420]

If the MRP are consistent with their Maynard decision, he has no case to answer.

If the MRP are consistent with their Wright interpretation, Pearce gets 3-4 weeks.

As usual, players don't have guidance how to approach situations. Pearce either let's DBJ take the mark, or Pearce tries to mark and collects DBJ in the process.

It was apparently legal up until Nov 2023 to leave the ground and bump a player in the head causing a brain injury after they've disposed of the ball. Pierce will get weeks

 

[SC_Power]

I disagree that Pearce was beaten to the ball quite easily and Pearce chose to bump.

Pearce would have marked the ball at his groin, and in this pic, Pearce's left arm is extended so he's not bracing to bump and is just as exposed as BJ. He just had more mass.

What would you have preferred Pearce do?
View attachment 2324581

Pearce’s feet are on the ground in your snapshot above.

Here is the impact, feet off the ground, hip and shoulder high, DBJ hits head on the ground.

Pearce being late to the contest and not being aware of other players in front of him, put himself in a position where he has ended up with the collision.

Just as if DBJ was late to the contest, turned and saw Pearce, jumped and made the same contact to Pearce, he’d be cited as well.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Agree with afl.com.au TRSF on it. Standard 3 weeks for this type of incident.

 

[flamethrower]

Same as the Peter Wright cheap shot - 4 weeks.

That would be a suspension in the NHL where fighting and violence is mandatory.

 

[kingswood71]

Pearce’s feet are on the ground in your snapshot above.

Here is the impact, feet off the ground, hip and shoulder high, DBJ hits head on the ground.

Pearce being late to the contest and not being aware of other players in front of him, put himself in a position where he has ended up with the collision.

Just as if DBJ was late to the contest, turned and saw Pearce, jumped and made the same contact to Pearce, he’d be cited as well.

View attachment 2324632

If that's the impact, and allegedly Pearce collected him with the shoulder high, how come theres a gap between the shoulder and DBJ's head?

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Pearce’s feet are on the ground in your snapshot above.

Here is the impact, feet off the ground, hip and shoulder high, DBJ hits head on the ground.

Pearce being late to the contest and not being aware of other players in front of him, put himself in a position where he has ended up with the collision.

Just as if DBJ was late to the contest, turned and saw Pearce, jumped and made the same contact to Pearce, he’d be cited as well.

View attachment 2324632

I was commenting on the beaten to the ball quite easily and chose to bump comment. They both could have marked the ball and Pearce didn't bump. Pearce's left arm is still out in your pic so hadn't braced.

BJs feet are off the ground too in that pic. Ball is a metre away

BJ not being aware of other players in front of him, put himself in a position where he has ended up with a collision.

Again I ask, what should have Pearce have done differently?

 

[SC_Power]

If that's the impact, and allegedly Pearce collected him with the shoulder high, how come theres a gap between the shoulder and DBJ's head?

Fair question, Gap between frames is my immediate answer.

No doubt the main issue with the concussion is DBJ’s head hitting the ground heavily.