Pearce V DBJ collision

[Art Vandelay_]

Surprised but not surprised.

Ruck free kicks at the tribunal system are both soon the wheel potluck.

Something similar to this will be a ban next time.

 

[Piggy Smalls]

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.



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.

I'm glad you're not running the game Karen. I can guarantee you that if Moose had his time again he'd go even harder so he got there first this time.

 

[JackFlash]

Sanity prevails! It was a rubbish decision in the first place.

 

[ubiquitous226]

Sanity prevails! It was a rubbish decision in the first place.

I don't think it was a terrible thing for the MRO to go conservative, but sanity has prevailed.

 

[Whiskers]

Imaging writing paragraphs of text and being completely wrong.

Obvious, right decision has now been made.

My god they were annoying

 

[SC_Power]

My god they were annoying

**** yes!!!

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

Imaging writing paragraphs of text and being completely wrong.

Obvious, right decision has now been made.

Yep, all of us were wrong and were all annoying because the AFL Tribunal decided you were right. The same tribunal that you complain about when you disagree, of course. Maynard anyone? Cripps anyone? Etc etc.

I can accept the decision even though its line ball, but I am concerned that the view is now that the player who actually gets to the ball in a completely legal manner isn’t being protected.

I’ll wait for the next Tribunal finding to come to a completely opposite decision for a similar contest.

 

[Randomizor]

Yep, all of us were wrong and were all annoying because the AFL Tribunal decided you were right. The same tribunal that you complain about when you disagree, of course. Maynard anyone? Cripps anyone? Etc etc.

I can accept the decision even though its line ball, but I am concerned that the view is now that the player who actually gets to the ball in a completely legal manner isn’t being protected.

I’ll wait for the next Tribunal finding to come to a completely opposite decision for a similar contest.

Just try to apply common sense next time and you’ll be alright!

 

[LOLchie Schultz]

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.



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.

Who exactly was reckless, AP for running towards the oncoming football or DBJ running with the flight of the ball not knowing what is coming towards him?

Netball seems to be your kind of sport, but be careful, ive seen some crazy collisions in that game too!

 

[LOLchie Schultz]

Yep, all of us were wrong and were all annoying because the AFL Tribunal decided you were right. The same tribunal that you complain about when you disagree, of course. Maynard anyone? Cripps anyone? Etc etc.

I can accept the decision even though its line ball, but I am concerned that the view is now that the player who actually gets to the ball in a completely legal manner isn’t being protected.

I’ll wait for the next Tribunal finding to come to a completely opposite decision for a similar contest.

What was it that Pearce did wrong?

 

[LongSerong]

Yep, all of us were wrong and were all annoying because the AFL Tribunal decided you were right. The same tribunal that you complain about when you disagree, of course. Maynard anyone? Cripps anyone? Etc etc.

I can accept the decision even though its line ball, but I am concerned that the view is now that the player who actually gets to the ball in a completely legal manner isn’t being protected.

I’ll wait for the next Tribunal finding to come to a completely opposite decision for a similar contest.

They both got to the ball in a legal manner though. Just one came off second best. That's really the crux of it. No intent to bump, minimised his damage to the player when he "lost" the contest. I don't think it's going to set any precedents going forward because unfortunately the tribunal doesn't work that way anymore.
It's just nice to see a genuine contest of the ball not go suspended for once just because a player has been hurt (yes, I'm bias)

 

[El_Scorcho]

They both got to the ball in a legal manner though.

Didn't though, gave away a free.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Who exactly was reckless, AP for running towards the oncoming football or DBJ running with the flight of the ball not knowing what is coming towards him?

Netball seems to be your kind of sport, but be careful, ive seen some crazy collisions in that game too!

Players are allowed to run back with the flight to mark a footy. This is such a weird argument. It's reasonable that a player can contest the footy without someone cannoning into their head. This sort of collision happens very rarely because players take steps to avoid a heavy contact with opponents. That's the AFL expectation, that if you're going into a contest you need to take reasonable steps to protect everyone there.

And this is exactly how Pearce has gotten off, arguing that didn't know he was entering a marking contest or that contact was imminent, so he didn't know to take those reasonable steps that he would take going into every other contest. That he didn't know DBJ was there until the last second, which is laughable given human beings have peripheral vision, but that's the argument that was made and accepted.

If he'd argued that actually it was DBJ who was being reckless and it's not his responsibility to protect him, he'd be on a 3 week holiday, and rightfully so. Nobody wants to see players getting concussed, except you apparently?

 

[El_Scorcho]

Yep, all of us were wrong and were all annoying because the AFL Tribunal decided you were right. The same tribunal that you complain about when you disagree, of course. Maynard anyone? Cripps anyone? Etc etc.

I can accept the decision even though its line ball, but I am concerned that the view is now that the player who actually gets to the ball in a completely legal manner isn’t being protected.

I’ll wait for the next Tribunal finding to come to a completely opposite decision for a similar contest.

I look forward to some of the people in this thread coming back to the board the next time a Freo player gets knocked out and blaming the Freo player for trying to mark a footy. Should be fun.

 

[LongSerong]

Didn't though, gave away a free.

You're really using an umpires call in the game as a argument to hold you hat on after everything I said? Heck we've had players (Sicily) suspended when they've WON a free kick.

He may have given away a free kick but the approach to the ball and the contest was legal by both parties, one just got there a fraction of a second early.

 

[SC_Power]

What was it that Pearce did wrong?

It doesn’t matter what I think, obviously I’m wrong.

 

[El_Scorcho]

You're really using an umpires call in the game as a argument to hold you hat on after everything I said? Heck we've had players (Sicily) suspended when they've WON a free kick.

He may have given away a free kick but the approach to the ball and the contest was legal by both parties, one just got there a fraction of a second early.

If one player was "early", he was actually on time and the other one was late, surely? If you arrive at a contest late, and hit a guy in the head, is that not an illegal way to contest?

If you're arguing that Pearce is allowed to run towards and compete for the ball, that's fine, but when he arrives at that contest he needs to do so safely. Are we now arguing that it shouldn't have been a free kick either?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Are we now arguing that it shouldn't have been a free kick either?

Yes, I wouldn't have given that a free kick.

 

[LongSerong]

If one player was "early", he was actually on time and the other one was late, surely? If you arrive at a contest late, and hit a guy in the head, is that not an illegal way to contest?

If you're arguing that Pearce is allowed to run towards and compete for the ball, that's fine, but when he arrives at that contest he needs to do so safely. Are we now arguing that it shouldn't have been a free kick either?

If you want to be extremely pedantic and technical over 1/10th of a second in terms of being late/early to a contest, then sure. Point is that when the contest is that close both players had equal right to contest the ball fully. Completely different to a 'late' hit that cleans someone up. Pearce made a perfectly legitimate play on the ball and when he saw that contact was unavoidable he actually put himself in a dangerous position to try and mitigate contact.



This thread just seems to be Port supporters having their goggles on in a pitchfork witchhunt where they want to argue the point to death even though the great majority of the fanbase doesn't want this to be a suspension. Arguing over semantics when I think everyone can agree that if we want these types of incidents as a suspension then our game is quickly moving to a contact free/less physical and tough sport. Pearce did everything that he could in the situation to not absolutely rinse DBJ but it's still not good enough for a certain few Power fans.

 

[SC_Power]

Players are allowed to run back with the flight to mark a footy. This is such a weird argument. It's reasonable that a player can contest the footy without someone cannoning into their head. This sort of collision happens very rarely because players take steps to avoid a heavy contact with opponents. That's the AFL expectation, that if you're going into a contest you need to take reasonable steps to protect everyone there.

And this is exactly how Pearce has gotten off, arguing that didn't know he was entering a marking contest or that contact was imminent, so he didn't know to take those reasonable steps that he would take going into every other contest. That he didn't know DBJ was there until the last second, which is laughable given human beings have peripheral vision, but that's the argument that was made and accepted.

If he'd argued that actually it was DBJ who was being reckless and it's not his responsibility to protect him, he'd be on a 3 week holiday, and rightfully so. Nobody wants to see players getting concussed, except you apparently?

The AFL decision clearly defines the contest as not being reckless but a in-play football incident and thus has cleared Pearce to play. Fair enough, their call. Everyone seems happy.

The bolded highlight in your post is the bit I still query though. Pearce and Fremantle’s argument is almost the exact opposite of what just about every person defending Pearce beforehand has argued. Refer below from the AFL website.

Pearce said he sprinted at full speed to close the space between himself and Byrne-Jones and ideally take a chest mark.
"I'm aware that there is going to be a collision between the two of us," he said.
"At that point, I drop my (left) arm and brace for the impact ... to limit the impact as much as possible.

Saw his opponent, ran full speed, braced for impact with the shoulder, high glancing contact. Add marginally late to the contest and that the subsequent concussion from Byrne Jones’ head hitting the ground was as a direct outcome of the collision. A football incident it is, again I understand and accept the decision…. until the next time.

 

[LongSerong]

The AFL decision clearly defines the contest as not being reckless but a in-play football incident and thus has cleared Pearce to play. Fair enough, their call. Everyone seems happy.

The bolded highlight in your post is the bit I still query though. Pearce and Fremantle’s argument is almost the exact opposite of what just about every person defending Pearce beforehand has argued. Refer below from the AFL website.

Pearce said he sprinted at full speed to close the space between himself and Byrne-Jones and ideally take a chest mark.
"I'm aware that there is going to be a collision between the two of us," he said.
"At that point, I drop my (left) arm and brace for the impact ... to limit the impact as much as possible.

Saw his opponent, ran full speed, braced for impact with the shoulder, high glancing contact. Add marginally late to the contest and that the subsequent concussion from Byrne Jones’ head hitting the ground was as a direct outcome of the collision. A football incident it is, again I understand and accept the decision…. until the next time.

I think the way it's worded has warped the way you've interpreted it and AP is speaking with hindsight in this bolded quote. I think he's saying that he made a play for the ball and then ONCE he see's DBJ and that contact was inevitable he then tries to mitigate it. It reads weird but the second bolded part kinda proves that.

ran full speed, approached the contest, saw his opponent, braced for impact with the shoulder, high glancing contact.

I also think that 'bracing for contact' here is a bit different then most other cases where players tuck in and lead with their side which inevitably cleans people up.

 

[SC_Power]

This thread just seems to be Port supporters having their goggles on in a pitchfork witchhunt where they want to argue the point to death even though the great majority of the fanbase doesn't want this to be a suspension. Arguing over semantics when I think everyone can agree that if we want these types of incidents as a suspension then our game is quickly moving to a contact free/less physical and tough sport. Pearce did everything that he could in the situation to not absolutely rinse DBJ but it's still not good enough for a certain few Power fans.

I know you won’t believe me but it’s actually little to do that it’s a Port player being on the receiving end. When it’s was Curtis getting 3 weeks for his tackle on Josh Sinn a couple of weeks back, I and many others were looking at the AFL with “WTF?”. You might notice it more when it’s one of our players involved of course, but we can opinions on lots of issues not at our club.

 

[LongSerong]

I know you won’t believe me but it’s actually little to do that it’s a Port player being on the receiving end. When it’s was Curtis getting 3 weeks for his tackle on Josh Sinn a couple of weeks back, I and many others were looking at the AFL with “WTF?”. You might notice it more when it’s one of our players involved of course, but we can opinions on lots of issues not at our club.

Yeah I agree with you, I had the same reaction to the Curtis suspension.

More the point than rather than the WTF reaction that we all had to Curtis, the Port fans here seem to be pro-suspension which in my opinion is a bit odd and tribal (which I can understand to an extent).

Anyway, I'm glad he got off obviously and think it's a win for football. Enough said

 

[SellarStardom]

Leigh Matthews is spot on that the grading system of reckless, intententional etc is distorting the penalties.

On the Pearce hit, the arguments that a player has the right to be protected when going for the ball would be OK in a sport that is non contact. Aussie rules isn't that sport

For once the AFL has looked at the action not the outcome, more of this please. More suspensions for actions that could do harm rather than suspensions for football acts that are ok but unfortunately lead to injury.

 

[Spook]

Players are allowed to run back with the flight to mark a footy. This is such a weird argument. It's reasonable that a player can contest the footy without someone cannoning into their head. This sort of collision happens very rarely because players take steps to avoid a heavy contact with opponents. That's the AFL expectation, that if you're going into a contest you need to take reasonable steps to protect everyone there.

And this is exactly how Pearce has gotten off, arguing that didn't know he was entering a marking contest or that contact was imminent, so he didn't know to take those reasonable steps that he would take going into every other contest. That he didn't know DBJ was there until the last second, which is laughable given human beings have peripheral vision, but that's the argument that was made and accepted.

If he'd argued that actually it was DBJ who was being reckless and it's not his responsibility to protect him, he'd be on a 3 week holiday, and rightfully so. Nobody wants to see players getting concussed, except you apparently?

Yes they can, BUT not if they make front on contact with someone coming straight at the ball attempting to mark it. So only if no contact.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Yeah I agree with you, I had the same reaction to the Curtis suspension.

More the point than rather than the WTF reaction that we all had to Curtis, the Port fans here seem to be pro-suspension which in my opinion is a bit odd and tribal (which I can understand to an extent).

Anyway, I'm glad he got off obviously and think it's a win for football. Enough said

I feel like every forum thread and comments section everywhere is generally too anti-suspension. Players need to be suspended when they do dangerous shit, especially surrounding concussions. Speak to any of the plethora of current and former players living with concussion symptoms about it. It's ****ed. It ruins people's lives.

As i've said previously, I really like Pearce and he's a fair player, I don't think this was a snipe at all, far from it, just a split second error in judgement. If someone is going to be on the right side of a fortunate tribunal outcome, great that it's him. I don't know his report history but it wouldn't shock me to learn that this was his first ever report.

What I don't like is the general argument that you see in these threads that someone who has concussed a vulnerable opponent was "just contesting the footy." It's a footy collision. What's he supposed to do? His only other option was to squib and then he'd get dropped by his coach. He didn't have a choice etc etc etc.

As i've been saying all thread (and in several other similar threads over the years), players make decisions at every contest to moderate their attack on the footy to avoid giving away free kicks and to avoid hurting opponents. It's not unusual, it's not unreasonable, it's something that's constantly happening at every contest in every game. Sometimes a player goes a bit too hard into a contest, loses a bit of control of their body and hurts someone. It's something that can absolutely be avoided, players avoid doing it all the time. The Maynard one was a perfect example of someone who didn't take adequate care going into a contest, lost control of his body, smashed into a vulnerable player and ultimately ended a player's career. Lots of people hailed that bullshit tribunal decision as a win for football as well.