Pearce V DBJ collision

[El_Scorcho]

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.

It's certainly not full no contact, you can make contact if you've only got eyes for the ball and you're reasonably contesting the ball.

 

[BomberManU]

I'll only use him as an example for obvious reasons, but where does the Peter Wright decision sit now? 4 weeks - 0 weeks is a big discrepancy, for a split second. (I think they came to the right decision, this time)

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

Very, very lucky to get off!

 

[astrowizzle]

Simple question though after looking at the video multiple times....did Pearce have any other option?
Its quite evident from the video that his eyes were 100% on the ball until just immediately prior to the contact.
What was he to do? Stop? Not try to turn at the last millisecond to brace for contact? Quick Ninja Back flip?

Did Wright?

 

[astrowizzle]

Wouldn't have minded some of these posters here when Wright got slaughtered by the MRO and the press and social media for a pretty similar incident. Consistency is all that is asked for and at the moment there is none.

 

[The Lobbster]

Wouldn't have minded some of these posters here when Wright got slaughtered by the MRO and the press and social media for a pretty similar incident. Consistency is all that is asked for and at the moment there is none.

Peter Wright and Essendon plead guilty to his charge of careless conduct, high contact and severe impact. They argued that Wright should receive the minimum charge of three weeks not the elevated charge of four weeks that he was given.

The AFL argued that because Wright had jumped, turned and tucked his action was inherently dangerous and that argument was accepted and the charge upheld.

Basically Wright did not contest the charge as Pearce did.

 

[BarbieITFC]

Peter Wright and Essendon plead guilty to his charge of careless conduct, high contact and severe impact. They argued that Wright should receive the minimum charge of three weeks not the elevated charge of four weeks that he was given.

The AFL argued that because Wright had jumped, turned and tucked his action was inherently dangerous and that argument was accepted and the charge upheld.

Basically Wright did not contest the charge as Pearce did.

If I recall, Wright's was classed as a bump. In the ruling last night the tribunal determined that it was a marking contest. Yes, there are some similarities but the core actions were deemed to be different.

 

[astrowizzle]

My problem with all this is why should you have to be saying it was a jump or a bump or one had eyes on the ball or the opposite l player for .,002 seconds longer

Fwiw I sign l don't think either should have been suspended is just the inconsistent outcome

Look at incident assess incident
Fwiw Essendon have some pretty crap lawyers. They take it as gospel what the AFL cite the incident as and get done for it because the put themselves into a position where they cannot get the player of before they go guilty first

But Wright was far more scrutinised by the press especially the NSW press where I live. Collingwood would have been issued a formal apology by the AFL and gifted some boxes of chocolates for raising a question against one of their players character

 

[BigTacoBandit]

It's certainly not full no contact, you can make contact if you've only got eyes for the ball and you're reasonably contesting the ball.

Which is what the tribunal agreed Pearce was doing. He didn't need to have eyes for the ball.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Freo fans getting all up and about because their Captain gets to join in the illustrious group of 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

and Brayden Maynard

4

Brayden Maynard

Age

29

Ht

189cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.4

4star

K

11.6

4star

HB

5.9

4star

M

3.9

4star

T

3.6

5star

MG

327.8

4star

D

20.7

5star

K

14.0

5star

HB

6.7

4star

M

3.9

4star

T

3.0

4star

MG

417.4

5star

D

13.8

4star

K

8.6

4star

HB

5.2

4star

M

2.8

3star

T

3.6

5star

MG

205.8

4star

.

Whats even more hilarious is the Essendon fans trying to argue that Peter Wright should've gotten off for jumping up and bumping an opponent in the head. He got off soft with just the four weeks for his actions.

 

[HairyO]

Didn't though, gave away a free.

Which is a terrible call. A player running at the ball to mark it has always had right of way over a player running with the flight of the ball.

Its why front-on contact is a free kick to the player running at the ball.

Pearce was committed to the ball and at the last instant realised he wasnt going to get there and braced.

And the tribunal rightly agreed with all of this.

 

[Orange crush]

Which is a terrible call. A player running at the ball to mark it has always had right of way over a player running with the flight of the ball.

Its why front-on contact is a free kick to the player running at the ball.

Pearce was committed to the ball and at the last instant realised he wasnt going to get there and braced.

And the tribunal rightly agreed with all of this.

Yep .... ump paid that free kick coz it looked bad, not because they knew what had happened

 

[El_Scorcho]

Which is what the tribunal agreed Pearce was doing. He didn't need to have eyes for the ball.

That post was in the context of players going back with the flight and any front on contact always being a free, which isn't the case.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Yep .... ump paid that free kick coz it looked bad, not because they knew what had happened

Also, he got him high. It was a free kick. The bar for a free kick is a low lower than the bar for a suspension.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Which is a terrible call. A player running at the ball to mark it has always had right of way over a player running with the flight of the ball.

Its why front-on contact is a free kick to the player running at the ball.

Pearce was committed to the ball and at the last instant realised he wasnt going to get there and braced.

And the tribunal rightly agreed with all of this.

No, it's the correct call. You're allowed to take a mark running back with the flight. You're allowed to attempt a mark running back with the flight.

What you're not allowed to do is make front on contact that affects your opponent's ability to mark the ball when you're not making a reasonable play on the ball yourself. DBJ was looking back at the ball the whole time and got to it first. Are you arguing it should have been a free kick against him?

 

[Orange crush]

Also, he got him high. It was a free kick. The bar for a free kick is a low lower than the bar for a suspension.

Did he? If so, yeah. The footgae isn't clear to me

 

[JackFlash]

I was probably premature in saying "sanity prevails". How on earth did Liam
Baker get away with that elbow to the head to a player who was defenceless and had his back turned on the ground? That was 2 or 3 weeks right there, but somehow he plays again this week? Crazy.

 

[HairyO]

That post was in the context of players going back with the flight and any front on contact always being a free, which isn't the case.

Sure but its FAR more common than penalising the player running at the ball if they arent swinging fists or elbows.

The AFL now just jumps at shadows over what looks bad or risks losing all the lawsuits. Common sense doesnt exist.

 

[masai tu]

Did he? If so, yeah. The footgae isn't clear to me

Didn't get him high, the concussion was caused by contact with the ground / whiplash. It has been shown that the head was not collected in the bump.

Two chaps going flat at the ball.

 

[masai tu]

I was probably premature in saying "sanity prevails". How on earth did Leon Baker get away with that elbow to the head to a player who was defenceless and had his back turned on the ground? That was 2 or 3 weeks right there, but somehow he plays again this week? Crazy.

Geez dredging Leon's name through the mud. A South Bunbury, Black Ducks & Essendon legend. He was too good, to need to resort "thug" tactics. He allowed Roo & Solin to enforce.

Yes, Baker from WCE was not undertaking "gentlemanly" acts. The AFL community has noted it, wonder if the MRP will catch some off the ball incidents, this weekend.

 

[Purple Suit]

Wouldn't have minded some of these posters here when Wright got slaughtered by the MRO and the press and social media for a pretty similar incident. Consistency is all that is asked for and at the moment there is none.

There is a subtle difference between Wright and Pearce, Pearce didn't shape to bump. He still cannoned into him but was probably closer to the drop of the ball and tried to lessen the impact rather than just protect himself.

These spit second incidents are tough on players but there is a line and Pearce just landed over the other side of it compared to Wright.

 

[JackFlash]

Geez dredging Leon's name through the mud. A South Bunbury, Black Ducks & Essendon legend. He was too good, to need to resort "thug" tactics. He allowed Roo & Solin to enforce.

Yes, Baker from WCE was not undertaking "gentlemanly" acts. The AFL community has noted it, wonder if the MRP will catch some off the ball incidents, this weekend.

A typo, LIAM Baker, apologies for being human. Baker should've copped 2 - 3 weeks!

 

[Purple Suit]

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?

It was the smallest margins of being late and he had his eyes on the ball.

Evans (i think) ran very fast at a ball in between him and Simpson, they both tried to collect it the same way by turning their bodies. Simpson ended up with a shoulder injury and is now out for 10 weeks. Do we need to suspend Evans for running too hard into the contest or are some collisions just the nature of the sport and are accidental?

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

I must be watching a different incident

In big trouble imo

Free to play.
Absolutely mind blowing

 

[voorhees]

Very, very lucky to get off!

goes to show the AFL make it up as it goes along..