Pearce V DBJ collision

[imperial_oz]

Sure, if i ignore the facts that indicate otherwise, I agree with you 100%.

You've just ignored all the facts and gone with an interpretation that didn't happen.

Maybe wait until adulthood happens before watching any more footy.

 

[Lach72]

Just like the Peter Wright one last year.

The thing that nobody in footy wants to admit is these injuries are caused by the recklessness of the person running back and having no idea of their surroundings.

Not unlike when players would get hit by bending over and leading with the head. It was their fault. Technique has mostly changed now so that players go in sideways and collide with their hips, protecting their heads.

Could not be any less like wright.

Wright left the ground a meter or two before the contest turned sideways and clattered the guy square in the head.

 

[SC_Power]

You've just ignored all the facts and gone with an interpretation that didn't happen.

Maybe wait until adulthood happens before watching any more footy.

not worth the rant that you should get, suffice to say that when you resort to personal insults…

 

[theouthouse]

Well the other option is Pearce squibs the contest.

The difference between the players is DBJ had his head completely exposed to oncoming traffic. Pearce didn’t.

The old “run back with the flight, not looking where you’re going” and leaving your front-on completely exposed is the cause. I’m not 100% what the solution is, but that has to change for these hits to become a thing of the past.

Yeah the AFL need to sort out who has 'right of way' in this situation.

My opinion is with a kick the player going with the flight of the ball either needs to pull out or risk the consequence. Player coming up at the ball has the right to make a play for the ball without repercussion.

Puts the onus on the kicker.

As it stands 3 weeks is pretty light considering it's exactly the same situation as Houston vs Rankine last year, but about where the game is at currenty.

 

[garlic munchers]

Not sure how you’ve deducted that from my comment, and it’s ridiculous to pretend Pearce deliberately hit DBJ high.

It’s a pretty standard footballing incident where both players had eyes for the ball and one came off second best. Pearce had maybe 2/10ths of a second to react to the oncoming player. By that point his arm was already extended anticipating the spoil.

I don’t know what you or the MRO expect Pearce to do here. Is he supposed to magically teleport out of the way?

Absolute horseshite of a decision.

But can live with it and will move on (as a WC supporter).

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Could not be any less like wright.

Wright left the ground a meter or two before the contest turned sideways and clattered the guy square in the head.

Wright braced himself for impact as Pearce did and as would any human being about to clash with another at speed.

Players need to protect themselves and they won’t be injured.

We have this fixation with “courage” of players running back and leaving themselves totally exposed. It is brave because it leaves you totally open to serious injury, which is quite often the outcome.

We have to get away from it. Players who don’t (or can’t) brace and protect themselves get injured and get hit in the head.

The only alternative is players who are facing a contest like Pearce just stand there or pull out and don’t contest if somebody is running back, which is ridiculous.

The best protection for any injury is the protection and self preservation that players give themselves. We have these instincts for a reason. Winning a single bloody contest in a meaningless football game isn’t reason enough to ignore them, we shouldn’t encourage it. The bravery is actually pointless, reckless stupidity.

Jump in sideways leading with your shoulder and hip, if you can’t get there close enough to do that then you can’t get there. Front-on totally exposed and stretching to reach is a recipe for disaster and perhaps tragedy.

Just like players who bent over head-on for ground balls and got their head knocked off, unfortunately they are the major contributor to their own demise. Now almost all players turn side-on and both hit the contest and much fewer get injured.

Banning the other bloke for just using his most base instincts and protecting himself isn’t the answer and won’t change a thing. The AFL are on the totally wrong track there. It’s an approach invented in a meeting room by lawyers only concerned with the league being sued in 20 years. They have come up with this approach so that they can shift the legal onus from themselves to the Alex Pearces of the world - “it’s not the league’s fault, we made it illegal, look we suspended him, he just went rogue”. That doesn’t help the game, only the lawyers.

 

[Purple Suit]

Yeah the AFL need to sort out who has 'right of way' in this situation.

My opinion is with a kick the player going with the flight of the ball either needs to pull out or risk the consequence. Player coming up at the ball has the right to make a play for the ball without repercussion.

Puts the onus on the kicker.

As it stands 3 weeks is pretty light considering it's exactly the same situation as Houston vs Rankine last year, but about where the game is at currenty.

This is different to the Houston one in that it wasn’t as late and it wasn’t a bump. It’s all milli secs but Pearce is allowed to contest a mark. Contact was made before the ball hit the ground and he never tucked his arm in to bump.

I assume we will challenge to test these things but don’t like our chances due to our track record.

 

[Whiskers]

I’ve seen some pretty bad suspensions in my time but this tops it.
Michael Christian has lost his marbles, you can say it’s not a reportable incident. There was absolutely nothing Pearce could have done, not a thing any reasonable player would do.

Like others have said the onus needs to be on the player taking all the risk. Running back with the flight of the ball you need to be aware of what’s going on around you. DBJ is responsible for this outcome not Pearce but I feel like I’m stating the obvious.

What a stupid state of affairs we find ourselves in.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

If you look at the reverse angle, Pearce had his left arm extended and wasn't bracing at all. Definitely wasn't an elbow to the head.

I would argue that Pearce's approach was reasonable in the circumstances.
View attachment 2325076
View attachment 2325077
View attachment 2325078

These shots just make Pearce's decision even worse. You can clearly see that DBJ has already caught and then fumbled the ball before Pearce even jumps at him.

Also clearly shows zero attempt at playing the ball, which he needs to be doing if he's competing in a marking contest.

Unless he's going to follow Scrimshaw's example of a round house punch attempt a spoiling.

Put your faux outrage away. Pearce did nothing wrong.

Did nothing wrong? Why is he jumping up to collide with a player who has already caught & then fumbled the ball?

If DBJ doesn't drop the ball before copping Pearce smashing into him, then this is a 50m penalty. Goes from a difficult shot on the boundary to being taken from the goal line.

Alex Pearce does nothing right here.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

These shots just make Pearce's decision even worse. You can clearly see that DBJ has already caught and then fumbled the ball before Pearce even jumps at him.

Also clearly shows zero attempt at playing the ball, which he needs to be doing if he's competing in a marking contest.

Unless he's going to follow Scrimshaw's example of a round house punch attempt a spoiling.


Did nothing wrong? Why is he jumping up to collide with a player who has already caught & then fumbled the ball?

If DBJ doesn't drop the ball before copping Pearce smashing into him, then this is a 50m penalty. Goes from a difficult shot on the boundary to being taken from the goal line.

Alex Pearce does nothing right here.

I was replying to the guy that said Pearce was had a braced bicep and elbow to the head.

The ball would have hit Pearce in the groin if he kept going. Once he realized contact was inevitable he had to protect himself. If he tucked that left arm in and went in to the bump position, sure certain suspension.

But he didn't try to bump. I would say he took reasonable steps to limit the contact.

What would you prefer Pearce do? Keep going 100% for the mark and risk 2 concussions???

 

[Purple Suit]

These shots just make Pearce's decision even worse. You can clearly see that DBJ has already caught and then fumbled the ball before Pearce even jumps at him.

Also clearly shows zero attempt at playing the ball, which he needs to be doing if he's competing in a marking contest.

Unless he's going to follow Scrimshaw's example of a round house punch attempt a spoiling.


Did nothing wrong? Why is he jumping up to collide with a player who has already caught & then fumbled the ball?

If DBJ doesn't drop the ball before copping Pearce smashing into him, then this is a 50m penalty. Goes from a difficult shot on the boundary to being taken from the goal line.

Alex Pearce does nothing right here.

He didn’t catch it, he dropped it. Probably since he would have felt the oncoming presence of Pearce who arrived a milli sec later. These sorts of contests happen all the time during a game except 99% of them are with players coming from the same direction, not the opposite.

Please explain what Pearce should have done to do nothing wrong? And do you think DBJ spills it if Pearce didn’t contest?

 

[El_Scorcho]

What a crazy reading of the situation.

Pearce was watching the and this shows very clearly on the video. He doesn't see DBJ until the very last moment and the collision was unavoidable. You say you can run back with the ball, well you can also run forward to mark the ball. There was nothing that said DBJ has the right of way when both are going for the ball.

Put your faux outrage away. Pearce did nothing wrong.

Pearce is an elite key position defender and reads the play incredibly well, and like most humans, he has peripheral vision. I can assure you that he knew DBJ was there the whole time.

No outrage, I don't think Pearce is a dirty player, I don't want him suspended for 8 weeks or anything ridiculous. He just didn't take enough care in a contest against a vulnerable opponent and his opponent got a concussion. The AFL hand out 3 weeks for this sort of collision every time.

You could argue that he should be allowed to contest the footy, but the AFL have shown again and again that they want players to avoid hurting their opponents as top priority, even over contesting the footy.

 

[El_Scorcho]

He didn’t catch it, he dropped it. Probably since he would have felt the oncoming presence of Pearce who arrived a milli sec later. These sorts of contests happen all the time during a game except 99% of them are with players coming from the same direction, not the opposite.

Please explain what Pearce should have done to do nothing wrong? And do you think DBJ spills it if Pearce didn’t contest?

If a player can't contest the footy without concussing an opponent and a heavy collision was a foreseeable outcome of their actions, they can't contest the footy and need to do something differently. That has been the AFL's position for at least a decade.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Well the other option is Pearce squibs the contest.

The difference between the players is DBJ had his head completely exposed to oncoming traffic. Pearce didn’t.

The old “run back with the flight, not looking where you’re going” and leaving your front-on completely exposed is the cause. I’m not 100% what the solution is, but that has to change for these hits to become a thing of the past.

Players run back with the flight into oncoming opponents all the time, and their opponents take care not to have a heavy collision with them, because they don't want to hurt someone and they don't want a few weeks suspension.

DBJ ran back with the flight of the ball feeling safe enough in the knowledge that the rules would protect him from a heavy collision.

Pearce isn't a dirty player at all, but he made a poor split second decision to go a bit too hard into a contest where the AFL expects players to take more care, a heavy impact occurred, and his opponent got a concussion.

Yes, the expectation is that you "squib" the contest, if you need to do so to avoid hurting someone. Players do this all the time in every game, and that's the expectation from the league.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Players run back with the flight into oncoming opponents all the time, and their opponents take care not to have a heavy collision with them, because they don't want to hurt someone and they don't want a few weeks suspension.

DBJ ran back with the flight of the ball feeling safe enough in the knowledge that the rules would protect him from a heavy collision.

Pearce isn't a dirty player at all, but he made a poor split second decision to go a bit too hard into a contest where the AFL expects players to take more care, a heavy impact occurred, and his opponent got a concussion.

Yes, the expectation is that you "squib" the contest, if you need to do so to avoid hurting someone. Players do this all the time in every game, and that's the expectation from the league.

So players running with the flight of the ball now have "right of way" ??? That is going to result in more concussions as players will take advantage of this rule - just like they do with the high contact rule.

If the AFL is serious about reducing concussions, they shouldn't be providing incentives for running back with the flight anymore.

 

[El_Scorcho]

So players running with the flight of the ball now have "right of way" ??? That is going to result in more concussions as players will take advantage of this rule - just like they do with the high contact rule.

If the AFL is serious about reducing concussions, they shouldn't be providing incentives for running back with the flight anymore.

No, it won't, because players already take steps to avoid injuring other players on the field at every contest in every game in every week.

The expectation is that if you can reasonably avoid an action that could result in injury to another player, you avoid it. Players do it literally all the time because they don't want to give away free kicks, hurt someone or get suspended.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

No, it won't, because players already take steps to avoid injuring other players on the field at every contest in every game in every week.

The expectation is that if you can reasonably avoid an action that could result in injury to another player, you avoid it. Players do it literally all the time because they don't want to give away free kicks, hurt someone or get suspended.

But in your suggestion, if a player is running with the flight there is nothing that an opposition can do to contest the ball, as the player running with flight is so vulnerable that reasonable actions can result in an injury.

If Pearce marked the ball but still concussed BJ, Pearce would still be in trouble in your interpretation because BJ was so vulnerable that Pearce didn't "reasonably avoid an action could result in injury to another player".

 

[El_Scorcho]

But in your suggestion, if a player is running with the flight there is nothing that an opposition can do to contest the ball, as the player running with flight is so vulnerable that reasonable actions can result in an injury.

If Pearce marked the ball but still concussed BJ, Pearce would still be in trouble in your interpretation because BJ was so vulnerable that Pearce didn't "reasonably avoid an action could result in injury to another player".

Again, that's not true, and people make contests against players running back with the flight all the time and do so without hurting their opponent.

You're just not allowed to do it in a way that injures the other player. Again, this happens all the time, where players moderate their speed and/or body position into a contest to avoid a free/injury/suspension. Every game.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Again, that's not true, and people make contests against players running back with the flight all the time and do so without hurting their opponent.

You're just not allowed to do it in a way that injures the other player. Again, this happens all the time, where players moderate their speed and/or body position into a contest to avoid a free/injury/suspension. Every game.

But you only know if youve injured someone until after the contact.

At least you were the only who could provide an answer to what Pearce should have done differently and that was to squib the contest. I don't reckon he had time to.

 

[Stax on the mill]

Oh yeah? Tell me how genius

Because it’s a stupidly gratuitous and factually inaccurate post Einstein. Posted purely in an attempt to garner cheap likes from similarly dumb individuals.

 

[gungho]

It's the Maynard one again. If I drive my car at 100km/h through a red light into a busy intersection, I can't later argue that the collision was unavoidable because I was already going to fast into too dangerous a situation. The AFL don't want you to put yourself in a situation where a heavy collision is unavoidable if you can reasonably avoid it. If you can't get to a contest without hurting someone, you slow up.

Pearce has full view of the ball and DBJ, DBJ is looking back over his shoulder. DBJ and Pearce both know the rules and DBJ rightfully expects to not get a shoulder to his head. DBJ doesn't need to protect himself, the rules are there to protect him. Players are allowed to run back with the flight to take a mark.

Can you run back with the flight of genuinely believe you are under no risk? If the ball had gone one metre further and Pearce had have taken the mark, then there would be no suspension and DBJ could potentially be knocked out.

 

[El_Scorcho]

But you only know if youve injured someone until after the contact.

At least you were the only who could provide an answer to what Pearce should have done differently and that was to squib the contest. I don't reckon he had time to.

I don't see it as squibbing. Players slow their approach to a contest to avoid a heavy collision all the time, it's normal. It happens at almost every contest.

The only time you see the term "squibbing" raised is on the tribunal board when people are defending someone who has made an error and hit someone high.

Yes, it's important to pull out or slow down coming into a contest where you're in reasonable danger of hurting someone.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

At least you were the only who could provide an answer to what Pearce should have done differently and that was to squib the contest. I don't reckon he had time to.

Pearce never made the contest. It was a late hit on someone that had already dropped the mark. And if DBJ had held the ball it would've been a late hit after a mark was taken, resulting in a 50m penalty.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Can you run back with the flight of genuinely believe you are under no risk? If the ball had gone one metre further and Pearce had have taken the mark, then there would be no suspension and DBJ could potentially be knocked out.

There's no such thing as no risk in footy, but players should feel protected by the rules. 99.9% of the time they are.

That said, sometimes players get concussed in footy incidents where nobody involved could have reasonably foreseen that their actions might cause injury. Not every concussion is reportable.

 

[theouthouse]

This is different to the Houston one in that it wasn’t as late and it wasn’t a bump. It’s all milli secs but Pearce is allowed to contest a mark. Contact was made before the ball hit the ground and he never tucked his arm in to bump.

I assume we will challenge to test these things but don’t like our chances due to our track record.

Houston wasn't late, he was also in the same position, with the opponent who got concussed running with the flight of the ball. Both turned to protect themselves at the last second, which resulted in concussions. Stupid rules but the penalties are there as the AFL needs to be seen to do something about head knocks, deliberate or not.