Pearce V DBJ collision

[SC_Power]

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?

Again, DBJ getting the ball first means a hell of a lot in the interpretation of this collision.

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 that he could have avoided with a straight tackle for example. That’s where his mistake is made, and he may have to pay the penalty.

 

[Stopher]

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

Can we please park the 'Vic bias' bullshit?? It's so ****ing lame. Peter Wright got 4 weeks in a very similar incident all of last year. FFS

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Again, DBJ getting the ball first means a hell of a lot in the interpretation of this collision.

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 that he could have avoided with a straight tackle for example. That’s where his mistake is made, and he may have to pay the penalty.

How could Pearce tackle him? It was a marking contest and BJ never possessed the ball.

It was a 50/50 marking contest where both could have marked the ball.

What would you have liked Pearce to do? He was not allowed to tackle.

 

[Spirit Level]

The fact that Pearce will likely get weeks for this shows how much of a joke the league has become.

If this was a Collingwood player they wouldn't even be looking at it

 

[SC_Power]

How could Pearce tackle him? It was a marking contest and BJ never possessed the ball.

It was a 50/50 marking contest where both could have marked the ball.

What would you have liked Pearce to do? He was not allowed to tackle.

Not allowed to bump either. Tackling motion is the lesser of the possible actions he could have taken.

It wasn’t a 5050 contest, DBJ got there first, Pearce was late.

Repeating myself, I’m leaving this to those with other views, good bad or indifferent.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Not allowed to bump either. Tackling motion is the lesser of the possible actions he could have taken.

It wasn’t a 5050 contest, DBJ got there first, Pearce was late.

Repeating myself, I’m leaving this to those with other views, good bad or indifferent.

He didn't bump. His left arm is extended which is the tackling motion that you suggest he should have done. And now you want him suspended for it.

It was 50/50 because both could have marked it. Pearce going for the contest had the desired affect as BJ didn't mark it.

 

[Maddo11]

3 weeks, as expected

 

[kingswood71]

3 weeks as expected.

 

[HairyO]

So if Pearce was injured DBJ would cop the weeks because running with the flight and making front-on contact is outlawed.

That is how ******ed the AFL has become.

 

[imperial_oz]

You can watch Patrick Cripps

9

Patrick Cripps

Age

30

Ht

195cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

25.9

5star

K

9.8

4star

HB

16.1

5star

M

3.4

3star

T

5.8

5star

CL

7.4

5star

D

21.0

5star

K

10.1

4star

HB

10.9

5star

M

2.5

3star

T

3.8

4star

CL

6.3

5star

D

12.6

4star

K

4.8

2star

HB

7.8

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.2

5star

CL

1.4

4star

do that every other week and it doesn't even get looked at.

If the AFL thinks sanctioning the odd player for a footy collision gets them off the hook for their failures with concussion, they're wrong. Their inconsistent conduct will sink them faster.

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

So if Pearce was injured DBJ would cop the weeks because running with the flight and making front-on contact is outlawed.

That is how ******ed the AFL has become.

If DBF tucked in, jumped and made head contact that resulted in a concussion, then yes, yes he would.

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

You can watch Patrick Cripps do that every other week and it doesn't even get looked at.

If the AFL thinks sanctioning the odd player for a footy collision gets them off the hook for their failures with concussion, they're wrong. Their inconsistent conduct will sink them faster.

Please provide video evidence for all 11 games this year.

 

[Bicco]

Freo should contest but they have the worst legal representation in the league. Can't remember them ever getting a player off.

 

[Schauermann]

The game needs more fights so the MRP has some real work to do...

 

[FreoRicci]

The fact that Pearce will likely get weeks for this shows how much of a joke the league has become.

If this was a Collingwood player they wouldn't even be looking at it

Angus Brayshaw’s career over after Maynard’s hit.
No week and he won the flag the week after. Nice

 

[El_Scorcho]

Pretty straightforward one. Pearce isn't a dirty player but when you've got a full view of the contest as you approach and your opponent is in a vulnerable position, the AFL expects you to exercise your duty of care to avoid hurting someone. He's made a poor split second decision to go too hard into a contest in this situation and hit a guy hard in the head.

SC_Power summed it up perfectly earlier. If it was a Freo player running back with the flight, does Pearce do something differently? Absolutely he does. There's a reason we almost never see friendly fire incidents like this. If you can't get to a marking contest without smashing into an opponent's head, you pull up short and take steps to lessen the impact. That's been the expectation for a decade or more.

 

[Stax on the mill]

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 lets DBJ take the mark, or Pearce tries to mark and collects DBJ in the process.

AFL changed the rules following the Maynard accidental collision with Brayshaw. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

FFS keep up!

 

[Stax on the mill]

The fact that Pearce will likely get weeks for this shows how much of a joke the league has become.

If this was a Collingwood player they wouldn't even be looking at it

Ignorant and idiotic post.

 

[CakeEater]

Pretty straightforward one. Pearce isn't a dirty player but when you've got a full view of the contest as you approach and your opponent is in a vulnerable position, the AFL expects you to exercise your duty of care to avoid hurting someone. He's made a poor split second decision to go too hard into a contest in this situation and hit a guy hard in the head.

SC_Power summed it up perfectly earlier. If it was a Freo player running back with the flight, does Pearce do something differently? Absolutely he does. There's a reason we almost never see friendly fire incidents like this. If you can't get to a marking contest without smashing into an opponent's head, you pull up short and take steps to lessen the impact. That's been the expectation for a decade or more.

He actually didnt hit him in the head.

As for him doing something differently if its his player of course he does- he doesnt have an intent to make a contest against his own team.

As i said earlier if he played for a big vic club and was captain its a 0 weeker as weve seen on numerous occurences (cripps, Cotchin et al

Non vic off broadway club captain its a 3 week

 

[Art Vandelay_]

So if Pearce was injured DBJ would cop the weeks because running with the flight and making front-on contact is outlawed.

That is how ******ed the AFL has become.

It's not outlawed though.
Byrne-Jones had his eyes on the ball the whole time which is allowed when contesting from front on. There have been instances of no FK being paid against for front on contact because the player had eyes for the ball only and contested it.

 

[SC_Power]

So if Pearce was injured DBJ would cop the weeks because running with the flight and making front-on contact is outlawed.

That is how ******ed the AFL has become.

If Pearce had got there first….. possibly.
And if DBJ had seen Pearce, turned his body and collected Pearce high… probably.

 

[El_Scorcho]

He actually didnt hit him in the head.

As for him doing something differently if its his player of course he does- he doesnt have an intent to make a contest against his own team.

As i said earlier if he played for a big vic club and was captain its a 0 weeker as weve seen on numerous occurences (cripps, Cotchin et al

Non vic off broadway club captain its a 3 week

Oh hey you're preaching to the choir there. I definitely agree that they're more likely to ignore the rules to let him off if it's say, Brayden Maynard ending someone's career in a final. But that's a different argument than whether this was worth weeks or not.

 

[chaosball32]

SC_Power summed it up perfectly earlier. If it was a Freo player running back with the flight, does Pearce do something differently? Absolutely he does. There's a reason we almost never see friendly fire incidents like this.

I don’t think you two have thought this one through. Of course Pearce would react differently if it was a Freo player, why would he try to spoil his own teammate?

If Pearce doesn’t try to impact the contest, his opponent takes a mark unopposed i50 and has a shot on goal, and then Pearce is being scrutinised for a different reason.

 

[Spirit Level]

Ignorant and idiotic post.

Oh yeah? Tell me how genius

 

[SC_Power]

I don’t think you two have thought this one through. Of course Pearce would react differently if it was a Freo player, why would he try to spoil his own teammate?

If Pearce doesn’t try to impact the contest, his opponent takes a mark unopposed i50 and has a shot on goal, and then Pearce is being scrutinised for a different reason.

So do you think it’s a decision to hit DBJ high (who incidentally did drop the ball before contact but no time to change Pearce’s decision) and cause a serious concussion upon hitting head on the ground as he had no control on his movements?

If that’s the argument to the AFL, let’s see how it goes.