Pearce V DBJ collision

[BigTacoBandit]

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.

Sorry but you introduced the term "squib" and said it's the expectation to do it now.

I don't think you can expect the captain of a team to now "squib" a 50/50 marking contest in the backline in the rain just because the guy running with the flight doesn't have any concern with their safety.

If Pearce kept going 100% for the mark, we would have 2 concussions but no suspensions. Kinda the opposite of the intention

 

[BigTacoBandit]

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.

Pearce would have marked if BJ didn't knock it away. They were both at the fall of the ball.

It could be argued that getting to contest is what made BJ drop it. Exactly what you ask a defender to do.

 

[RonnieRaven]

Let’s not forget he jogged off the field and failed a concussion test.
He wasn’t knocked out.
On replay imo the cause of that was his head hitting the ground not the contact.

I’ve been knocked out half a dozen times over my life.
If I bump my head I get concussion symptoms now they can last for 15min can last for 24hrs the force is never severe.

Lastly if we swap 200cm 95kg Pearce with 180cm 80kg and run the play again DBJ will still be the player going off with concussion symptoms.

Big guys like Pearce, wright shouldn’t be suspended because of their size.
Switta or Dudley can do exactly what Pearce did and will never be suspended

 

[El_Scorcho]

Sorry but you introduced the term "squib" and said it's the expectation to do it now.

No, I didn't, someone earlier in the thread did.

I don't think you can expect the captain of a team to now "squib" a 50/50 marking contest in the backline in the rain just because the guy running with the flight doesn't have any concern with their safety.

Yes, you can, Pearce himself does it all the time, as does every other player in the league. If it had been a 50/50 marking contest, DBJ wouldn't have had time to get hands to it and clearly drop it before contact.

If Pearce kept going 100% for the mark, we would have 2 concussions but no suspensions. Kinda the opposite of the intention

Yes, if Pearce kept going 100% without moderating his approach there would have been 2 concussions. We just need him to moderate it a little further to get that number of concussions all the way down to 0. That's been the expectation of players for at least a decade.

I like Pearce, he's a fair player, I don't see this incident as a snipe, just a misjudgement. Please don't take this as a crack at him personally.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Big guys like Pearce, wright shouldn’t be suspended because of their size.
Switta or Dudley can do exactly what Pearce did and will never be suspended

Yes, they should. It needs to be part of the risk assessment they make before charging into a contest. Smaller players should be allowed to play footy without big players charging through them against to hurt them against the laws of the game. In fact, 99.9% of the time, they do.

Again, if you can't contest a ball without taking reasonable steps to avoid hurting another player, you can't contest the ball. Yes, even if that means you have to slow down or pull out of a contest. Players do this all the time in every contest of every game. Sometimes players like Pearce in this incident just make a judgement error, sometimes players intentionally try to "leave one on" their opponent and end up hurting them. It's a suspension to stop players from doing it.

 

[RonnieRaven]

Yes, they should. It needs to be part of the risk assessment they make before charging into a contest. Smaller players should be allowed to play footy without big players charging through them against to hurt them against the laws of the game. In fact, 99.9% of the time, they do.

Again, if you can't contest a ball without taking reasonable steps to avoid hurting another player, you can't contest the ball. Yes, even if that means you have to slow down or pull out of a contest. Players do this all the time in every contest of every game. Sometimes players like Pearce in this incident just make a judgement error, sometimes players intentionally try to "leave one on" their opponent and end up hurting them. It's a suspension to stop players from doing it.

So we just need fwd players to not lead for the ball but run back with the flight of the ball because duty of care you can’t contest that player?
you can’t treat players different because of their size whilst playing any top level sport.
Not even WWE do that

 

[FreoMonocle]

The game wasn't made for players of this size, running so hard and for so long.

100 years ago, there were still front on clashes, but the running stats now are so different and monster rucks/kpf's were relatively short people. More kg at higher speed. Players aint on the beers and pies all week, probably most players could contend for a spot 100 years ago for the Australian track and field contingent in the Olympics - but are laying tackles or bumping at the same time.

I'd hate to say it, but for AFL level, maybe next level down as well, we might need to pad boney parts (elbows, shoulders, knees) to preserve the other player. How many injuries per game are acceptable, when the only allowance in any other workplace is zero - anything stronger than a papercut merits a workplace investigation.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

No, I didn't, someone earlier in the thread did.



Yes, you can, Pearce himself does it all the time, as does every other player in the league. If it had been a 50/50 marking contest, DBJ wouldn't have had time to get hands to it and clearly drop it before contact.

Yes, if Pearce kept going 100% without moderating his approach there would have been 2 concussions. We just need him to moderate it a little further to get that number of concussions all the way down to 0. That's been the expectation of players for at least a decade.

I like Pearce, he's a fair player, I don't see this incident as a snipe, just a misjudgement. Please don't take this as a crack at him personally.

Sorry, yes someone else did mention the term. I just saw your comment that's its now the expectation to "squib". Shoulda recognized you were paraphrasing someone else.

Don't you see how having 2 concussions is the opposite of what the rules are trying to achieve? Pearce only had 4 options:
1. "Squib"
2. Go 100% and risk 2 concussions
3. Accept contact and lessen impact.
4. Go into bump position and iron out BJ

I think he chose number 3 which was reasonable in the circumstances.

If Pearce isn't allowed to 100% go for a mark to get those concussions down to 0, Shouldn't BJ have also moderated his approach to get those concussions down to 0 too?

Yes, I agree it was a misjudgement but I think Pearce's conduct was not unreasonable in the circumstances. If Pearce tucked his elbow in and went into the bump position, then yes guilty. But he didn't, he opened himself up and tried to soften the blow once he knew it was inevitable.

No one likes to see players get injured and I know youve got nothing against Pearce, I'm just using the tribunals own words to argue he took all reasonable steps.

 

[SC_Power]

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".

I assume you would apply the same analysis if DBJ was facing the ball and backtracking because the ball was kicked over his head, and Pearce doesn’t see a player in front of him and gets there late and turns in exactly the same manner and executes the same collision which results in the same injury.
Football incident right? It’s DBJ’s fault for running backwards trying to take a mark. He should know that he’s about to get hit; so he shouldn’t go.

Maybe tell me how this scenario is different, and why running backwards to take an overhead mark shouldn’t be treated the same.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

I assume you would apply the same analysis if DBJ was facing the ball and backtracking because the ball was kicked over his head, and Pearce doesn’t see a player in front of him and gets there late and turns in exactly the same manner and executes the same collision which results in the same injury.
Football incident right? It’s DBJ’s fault for running backwards trying to take a mark. He should know that he’s about to get hit; so he shouldn’t go.

Maybe tell me how this scenario is different, and why running backwards to take an overhead mark shouldn’t be treated the same.

I don't think I would use the fault but yes, football incident.

There's a reason commentators call it "brave" to run back - it's because they're in a vulnerable state and can be legally injured.

Collisions happen in football and we don't have to suspend someone every time there's a concussion. If both players behave reasonably in the circumstances, then it's just an unfortunate accident.

 

[Purple Suit]

I assume you would apply the same analysis if DBJ was facing the ball and backtracking because the ball was kicked over his head, and Pearce doesn’t see a player in front of him and gets there late and turns in exactly the same manner and executes the same collision which results in the same injury.
Football incident right? It’s DBJ’s fault for running backwards trying to take a mark. He should know that he’s about to get hit; so he shouldn’t go.

Maybe tell me how this scenario is different, and why running backwards to take an overhead mark shouldn’t be treated the same.

When you’re running back with the flight, you’re looking over your shoulder at the ball so it’s impossible to see what is coming with your peripheral vision and takes longer to glance at the direction you are travelling. Hence why Pearce knew in the last few milli seconds when DBJ touched the ball but DBJ didn’t seem to react to the oncoming collision.

It’s not DBJ’s fault though, he had no other option either.

 

[eastfreo75]

Mills gets 1 and Pearce 3.AFL corruption

 

[tropicaltiger]

both players done exactly what you would want them to do if it was a grand final

the AFL at the stuffed up the game

 

[matthew_s]

both players done exactly what you would want them to do if it was a grand final

the AFL at the stuffed up the game

What choice do they AFL have? They will be the ones defending against and paying out lawsuits.

 

[JackFlash]

Freo must challenge this, 3 weeks is a joke and once again highlights the idiocy at the MRP level, it was clearly two blokes running for the ball and there was a collision in a body contact sport. 3 weeks is ridiculous. Freo have a big chance here. IMO anybody who has never seen a game played in the 80s or 90s has any idea what this game really is?

 

[kickazz]

Unpopular opinion perhaps but we need to have a conversation about players going back with the flight being reckless.

Does the leading forward own that space? If DBJ gets no ball there it is a free against for front on contact.

 

[WA ROO]

No point trying to appeal this
As soon as it was known that the player was concussed. Three weeks was automatic
The AFL is terrified of the inevitable lawsuits that are coming

 

[Cam Payne]

The AFL make decisions on the run. Ginbey not getting sanctioned led to someone getting weeks for doing exactly the same thing. AP is going to miss three weeks for something someone else won't get a fine for in the exact same circumstance. So it is written, so is it done.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

This will be a real test for the AFL. Pearce clearly tries to reduce the impact of the collision. If the tribunal maintains a “needed to do more to protect the other player” then they are essentially telling players to avoid potential 50:50’s.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[Bicco]

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 see how this view, if correct and enforced by the AFL, would become a tactic exploited by players and coaches?
Rather than kicking to a leading forward (or any player), teams will start to kick the ball over their team mates head, he will then run with the flight of the ball, watching it at all times, with full knowledge that he will not get any body contact in the contest.
The player moving towards the ball ( in this case Pearce) will be forever more be unable to mark the ball, because if they do, and collide with the player running with the flight, they will be suspended. The player running towards the ball can only spoil, by somehow jumping sideways to avoid any contact.
To me, this situation has parallels to that of players ducking their head to get a free kick, that is deliberately putting yourself into a contactable, and risky, situation to get a free kick. We don't and shouldn't pay these free kicks.
The same applies here. DBJ should 100% be expecting someone coming the other way. And should act accordingly (that is, look) to protect himself and others.
Finally, if Pearce had lined DBJ up, jumped into him with a braced arm and hit him in the head with a shoulder, he should 100% be suspended (google Danny Southern/Brett Heady). But he hasn't. He had eyes on the ball and almost hit him front on. DBJ needs to protect himself as much as Pearce needs to protect DBJ otherwise players will absolutely exploit the ruling and just run with the flight for everything.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

I recall that In his book “A Shaw thing” about the 1990 flag Tony Shaw wrote (or told Darryl Timms) that he didn’t trust Michael Christian because his kit bag always had a can of hair spray in it.

Amazing that a man who ran face first into a tree while running a marathon could have such foresight.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[Piggy Smalls]

I'm struggling to reconcile the fact that we have rules around front on contact and tunnelling, yet in a marking contest where both players can reasonably consider themselves a chance of marking the ball, the space implicitly only belongs to the guy running back.
My prediction is that the AFL uphold the suspension, Freo appeal, and he ultimately gets off. It's all for optics to protect the AFL against litigation.

 

[Cam Payne]

Pearce getting off will be considered antisemitism. /s.

 

[Whiskers]

Not even the AFL arguing against Pearce will believe anything they have to say tonight.
I want to hear what Pearce could have done and than laugh at how ridiculous they will sound.
I hate the way the game and the way the world is at the moment. Muppets everywhere!

 

[SC_Power]

Unpopular opinion perhaps but we need to have a conversation about players going back with the flight being reckless.

Does the leading forward own that space? If DBJ gets no ball there it is a free against for front on contact.

So players not going for the ball despite being able to get to a contested ball before an opponent? We do it now with diving at a ball amongst legs but that’s more for the safety of the player standing.

Forward owning space will certainly eliminate such incidents agreed, also the defensive flood, as any forward running towards the ball has priority on that space.

Would it still apply in this case where we have a “leading” defender rather than a forward? How would it work if DBJ was backtracking towards the same spot and got hit and concussed? Or standing still and jumping? I have no idea….

I won’t rehash my thoughts on this incident again, enough said.