Pearce V DBJ collision

[El_Scorcho]

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.

This has been the interpretation for at least a decade and what you're describing is too specific to be a viable tactic. Intercept markers are too good at making good decisions and the window to execute such a kick is too small. Players would rather spot up a target every time if that option is available to them.

In every single game, at almost every contest, players make decisions to slow down or avoid contact to avoid hurting their opponents and giving away a free. People in this thread make it sound like players have no option other than to smash into each other. Ridiculous. Players avoid hurting each other constantly at every contest.

If Pearce had lined DBJ up and tried to hurt him, it would have been wildly out of character for Pearce, and he would have ended up withh 6-7-8 weeks. He got 3 because it was careless split second error of judgement and not intentional.

The reason the onus is on Pearce here is because he's approaching the contest with full view of the ball and his opponent. DBJ doesn't know where Pearce is. I can assure you that we don't want a situation where players running back with the flight are allowed to be poleaxed by an opponent. The responsibility to keep other players safe trumps getting the ball, always, for every player, and it has to be like that or the AFL will get sued to oblivion and we'll have a lot of guys getting serious injuries.

 

[El_Scorcho]

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.

What's the alternative though?

Every player on the field has to play in a way that prioritises the safety of themselves and opponents. The nature of the game means that players have to run back with the flight sometimes, they have to reasonably be able to contest the footy. Very rarely is a player running back with the flight going to brace or shape to bump, because they don't know when the contact will come and they're positioning their arms to mark.

This incident wasn't rare, similar things happen in every game, we just don't talk about them because the player approaching the contest slows down or positions themselves in a way that avoids heavy contact.

 

[Bicco]

This has been the interpretation for at least a decade and what you're describing is too specific to be a viable tactic. Intercept markers are too good at making good decisions and the window to execute such a kick is too small. Players would rather spot up a target every time if that option is available to them.

In every single game, at almost every contest, players make decisions to slow down or avoid contact to avoid hurting their opponents and giving away a free. People in this thread make it sound like players have no option other than to smash into each other. Ridiculous. Players avoid hurting each other constantly at every contest.

If Pearce had lined DBJ up and tried to hurt him, it would have been wildly out of character for Pearce, and he would have ended up withh 6-7-8 weeks. He got 3 because it was careless split second error of judgement and not intentional.

The reason the onus is on Pearce here is because he's approaching the contest with full view of the ball and his opponent. DBJ doesn't know where Pearce is. I can assure you that we don't want a situation where players running back with the flight are allowed to be poleaxed by an opponent. The responsibility to keep other players safe trumps getting the ball, always, for every player, and it has to be like that or the AFL will get sued to oblivion and we'll have a lot of guys getting serious injuries.

I disagree with most of what you've written.
1st paragraph I won't go into because it's not really the point of the discussion.
2nd paragraph is so wildly incorrect it makes me wonder if you've ever seen a game before? Players 'slow down to not hurt each other'? At almost every contest?? Cooper Simspon is out for the season with an AC injury when two players made the decision TO RUN INTO EACH OTHER! This happens in nearly every contest in an AFL match. Players go for the ball, if there's someone in their or a team mates way they will physically stop the opponent from getting the ball. Physical contest where peoget hurt occur 100's of times across a round of football.
I don't think you mean what you've written surely?
I also disagree with the onus point. DBJ doesn't have to look where he's going purely because he's running with the flight? He's got eyes, he can look. Why does Pearce have to take his eyes off of the ball but DBJ doesn't? Again, only because he's running with the flight? This is a football collision pure and simple. It's unfortunate DBJ was injured. I broke my hand playing football. Injuries will happen. It wasn't deliberate, it was an accident. We can't legislate injuries out of the game. There has to be an element of risk which is acknowledged by those that play. This goes for every sport.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Justice prevails!

 

[kingswood71]

Commonsense prevails!

 

[Randomizor]

Imaging writing paragraphs of text and being completely wrong.

Obvious, right decision has now been made.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Huzzah

 

[VolgaBoatman]

Imaging writing paragraphs of text and being completely wrong.

Obvious, right decision has now been made.

I feel like that's Bigfooty and other forums most days though !

Go the Moose !

 

[MadMundy]

Damn that must be the first time a Fremantle player has actually been treated fairly at the tribunal, common sense prevails.

 

[CakeEater]

Well at least we won something ln Victoria this year.

A Chook lotto!

 

[Spirit Level]

**** yes!!!

That's for all the dumb campaigners who thought he deserved to be suspended

 

[Maddo11]

This charge of rough conduct arises in the context of a marking contest.

Alex Pearce

25

Alex Pearce

Age

30

Ht

201cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.6

3star

K

5.2

2star

HB

5.4

4star

M

3.4

3star

T

1.8

4star

MG

106.3

2star

No current season stats available

D

11.0

3star

K

5.0

2star

HB

6.0

4star

M

4.4

4star

T

0.8

3star

MG

103.2

2star

has been charged with rough conduct as a result of a collateral with Darcy Byrne-Jones

33

Darcy Byrne-jones

Age

30

Ht

181cm

Wt

77kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.0

4star

K

11.8

4star

HB

6.2

4star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.8

4star

G

0.1

2star

D

25.0

5star

K

16.0

5star

HB

9.0

4star

M

5.0

5star

T

1.0

2star

G

0.0

1star

D

19.8

5star

K

10.4

4star

HB

9.4

5star

M

3.0

3star

T

2.2

4star

G

0.4

3star

at Port Adelaide.

The circumstances were as follows.

Byrne-Jones was loose on the forward flank and leading towards the boundary.

It was raining at the time, and the kick was misdirected.

Byrne-Jones had to change course and head back inwards and towards the goal with the flight of the ball.

Pearce, whose evidence was given thoughtfully and with an obvious endeavour to answer truthfully, said that he was aware that Byrne-Jones was loose, and that when he saw the kick, he thought he was a reasonable chance to mark the ball. He headed off at full pace.

Byrne-Jones ran back with the flight of the ball. The kick was fairly high, and the players arrived at the ball in roughly opposite directions at almost precisely the same time.

That last point is critical.

Pearce’s attempt to mark was entirely realistic.

He had his arms out to attempt to take a chest mark, and if not for Byrne-Jones entering the contest from the opposite direction, would likely have taken the mark.

Pearce said that he didn't deviate from his line to the ball and the vision supports that evidence.

Pearce said that his eyes never left the ball until the last split second when he glanced down to Byrne-Jones and it was too late to pull out of the contest. The vision supports that evidence.

Pearce said that he dropped his arms further at the last moment so as to attempt to minimise the harm to Byrne-Jones. The vision supports that evidence.

It follows that we do not find that this was rough conduct.

It’s important to highlight two matters.

First, the AFL quite properly conceded that if, contrary to their submissions, Pearce had a realistic chance of marking the ball until the last moment, this was not rough conduct.

This concession was made in circumstances where it was not suggested that Pearce’s method of attempting the mark was itself inherently dangerous, and where it was not suggested that Pearce’s eyes had left the ball until the last split second.

Secondly, it it is not and never has been the position of the tribunal, or as far as we can ascertain, the MRO that an outcome of concussion inevitably results in a finding of at least careless conduct.

Every incident must be and is examined and determined on its own facts.

If a collision results in a concussion to a player, but that collision was not caused or contributed to by a failure by the reported player to take reasonable care, there is no reportable offense

Here, from numerous angles, it appeared that this incident might have involved a bump that constituted rough conduct.

However, when all of the vision was closely examined and the evidence of Pearce was taken into account, it was clear that:

A) he intended to mark the ball.

B) He was a realistic chance to mark the ball

C) His eyes never left the ball until it was too late

D) He did what he could at the last minute to minimise impact to the oncoming player

E) This was not in fact a bump

The AFL properly and expressly stated that it did not rely on the rough conduct high bump provision, but only the rough conduct general provision.

Evidence showed that what Pearce did was not to bump Byrne-Jones, rather, to move in a way to attempt not to bump him.

The charge is dismissed.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I obviously think Pearce is lucky here given how these are normally adjudicated but if someone was going to get off for one of these, a long term fair player from a non-Vic team is a a great result.

 

[TW Sherrin]

so it appears footy acts can cause players to be knocked out.

wonder if Adrew Brayshaw is outraged like he was when his brother was ko'd.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I disagree with most of what you've written.
1st paragraph I won't go into because it's not really the point of the discussion.
2nd paragraph is so wildly incorrect it makes me wonder if you've ever seen a game before? Players 'slow down to not hurt each other'? At almost every contest?? Cooper Simspon is out for the season with an AC injury when two players made the decision TO RUN INTO EACH OTHER! This happens in nearly every contest in an AFL match. Players go for the ball, if there's someone in their or a team mates way they will physically stop the opponent from getting the ball. Physical contest where peoget hurt occur 100's of times across a round of football.
I don't think you mean what you've written surely?

You're just wrong here. Players do make contact all the time, but players will do their best to ensure they aren't reckless with how they attack contests to ensure they don't give away frees or injure people.

If everyone charged at recklessly 100% speed into every contest, we'd have a dozen players getting knocked out every game.

I also disagree with the onus point. DBJ doesn't have to look where he's going purely because he's running with the flight? He's got eyes, he can look. Why does Pearce have to take his eyes off of the ball but DBJ doesn't? Again, only because he's running with the flight? This is a football collision pure and simple. It's unfortunate DBJ was injured. I broke my hand playing football. Injuries will happen. It wasn't deliberate, it was an accident. We can't legislate injuries out of the game. There has to be an element of risk which is acknowledged by those that play. This goes for every sport.

Every player has a duty of care to everyone else on the field. Here, Pearce had a much better view of the contest. DBJ is in a vulnerable position looking behind him for the ball. I think if Pearce could have his time back he'd attack the contest differently to better protect DBJ, as players do at every contest, every game.

We really don't want a competition where vulnerable players are fair game to be ironed out. The laws of the game have to prevent it.

 

[RonnieRaven]

so it appears footy acts can cause players to be knocked out.

wonder if Adrew Brayshaw is outraged like he was when his brother was ko'd.

He wasn’t knocked out
What are you talking about?
He was winded jogged off and failed a concussion test.
I’ve suffered both and being knocked out is a lot worse in the moment and in the recovery.

 

[TY24]

so it appears footy acts can cause players to be knocked out.

wonder if Adrew Brayshaw is outraged like he was when his brother was ko'd.

You can always count on a Collingwood fan to find a way to make it all about Collingwood when it has nothing to do with them

 

[TY24]

Nice to see common sense prevail here. It does have a ‘spin the wheel’ feel about it though.

Outcome is more important than the action, until it isn’t.

The MRO/Tribunal is a blight on the sport at the moment.

 

[RonnieRaven]

Nice to see common sense prevail here. It does have a ‘spin the wheel’ feel about it though.

Outcome is more important than the action, until it isn’t.

The MRO/Tribunal is a blight on the sport at the moment.

He jogged off and failed a concussion test.
Suffering a concussion and getting knocked out are completely different degrees of an outcome.

 

[Bluish]

It’s the right call, but it just makes me more incensed about the Curtis ban.

 

[Purple Suit]

so it appears footy acts can cause players to be knocked out.

wonder if Adrew Brayshaw is outraged like he was when his brother was ko'd.

The difference in the two scenarios is that Maynard bumped him instead of trying to lessen the impact. He’d be lucky to only get three weeks if he did it this year.

 

[Piggy Smalls]

**** yes!!!

That's for all the dumb campaigners who thought he deserved to be suspended

Especially that fat-headed nepo ****wit Xander Maguire who tried to set the narrative early.

 

[Simon Whitlock]

He jogged off and failed a concussion test.
Suffering a concussion and getting knocked out are completely different degrees of an outcome.

Who/what are you responding to? What's this got to do with the quoted post, which is entirely correct

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Every player has a duty of care to everyone else on the field. Here, Pearce had a much better view of the contest. DBJ is in a vulnerable position looking behind him for the ball. I think if Pearce could have his time back he'd attack the contest differently to better protect DBJ, as players do at every contest, every game.

We really don't want a competition where vulnerable players are fair game to be ironed out. The laws of the game have to prevent it.

BJ also had a duty of care to himself (and his team) once he put himself in a vulnerable position. If BJ had his time again he'd attack the contest differently to better protect his long term health and not put his team a player down.

We don't really want a competition where players make themselves vulnerable to injury.

 

[TY24]

He jogged off and failed a concussion test.
Suffering a concussion and getting knocked out are completely different degrees of an outcome.

I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make here