Peter Wright contact with Harry Cunningham: Pleads Guilty and Receives 4 Week Suspension

How long will Peter be in the sin bin?

  • 0 weeks

    Votes: 33 13.9%
  • 1 week

    Votes: 6 2.5%
  • 2 weeks

    Votes: 22 9.2%
  • 3 weeks

    Votes: 53 22.3%
  • 4 weeks

    Votes: 76 31.9%
  • 5 weeks

    Votes: 26 10.9%
  • 6+ weeks

    Votes: 22 9.2%

  • Total voters
    238

Remove this Banner Ad

I want to know what happens if there is a similar type incident, but where the leading player is concussed by the player backing back into the contest. Let's say by a head clash or similar. Less likely, sure; but entirely conceivable.

What is the outcome here?

I appreciate the leading player has more awareness of what's coming and likely more of an opportunity to effect the outcome, and thus perhaps a relatively higher duty of care, but what I want to know is whether there is absolutely zero duty of care required when you're backing back into a contest?

In this scenario, both players have jumped at the ball in a marking contest, and the entire reason that we laud the player going back in our game so much is that they know they are putting themselves in harms way so it's not really accurate to say they don't know that there's a potential clash. It seems to me that if you extrapolate the current rules then surely the player going back gets suspended?

What if both players are concussed? Could there be a scenario where both are suspended for the same incident?

I am genuinely interested in this question, by the way. I would have posted this in the Greene thread but ****ed if I can find it (with minimal looking)
 
I want to know what happens if there is a similar type incident, but where the leading player is concussed by the player backing back into the contest. Let's say by a head clash or similar. Less likely, sure; but entirely conceivable.

What is the outcome here?

I appreciate the leading player has more awareness of what's coming and likely more of an opportunity to effect the outcome, and thus perhaps a relatively higher duty of care, but what I want to know is whether there is absolutely zero duty of care required when you're backing back into a contest?

In this scenario, both players have jumped at the ball in a marking contest, and the entire reason that we laud the player going back in our game so much is that they know they are putting themselves in harms way so it's not really accurate to say they don't know that there's a potential clash. It seems to me that if you extrapolate the current rules then surely the player going back gets suspended?

What if both players are concussed? Could there be a scenario where both are suspended for the same incident?

I am genuinely interested in this question, by the way. I would have posted this in the Greene thread but ****ed if I can find it (with minimal looking)

Its all about eyes on the ball and making an attempt to mark or spoil the whole time. If you take your eyes off the ball and turn to brace, your in trouble.
 
Last edited:
Its all about eyes on the ball and making an attempt to mark or spoil the whole time. If you take your eyes off the ball and turn to brace, your in trouble.
cheers, that's a good point and I reckon that's a fair bit of it. Not inconceivable both players could brace I guess. Would love to see how that would turn out, academically speaking.

By the same token, I'd be interested in seeing whether the brace is the deciding factor. If Wright/Greene hadn't braced are they a-ok? I know most people think they are but I doubt it's that explicit in the wording of the laws
 

Log in to remove this ad.



Just so I’ve got this straight…

McKay can’t do this, and it’s a free kick ✅

BUT

If Mihocek cleaned him up and concussed him, it would still be a free kick, but Mihocek would also be suspended.


😂😂😂😂😂😂


Thats an example of one player trying to contest the ball and the other not. In no world would Mihocek be facing a suspension in that contest.

But it was nice if the umpire to penalise the bombers for a change, let a shocking tunnelling attempt go in the 1st qtr…
 


Just so I’ve got this straight…

McKay can’t do this, and it’s a free kick ✅

BUT

If Mihocek cleaned him up and concussed him, it would still be a free kick, but Mihocek would also be suspended.

The difference here is Mihocek gets the pill, which Wright and Green (well the ball hits green but after he's given up on the mark) didn't.

What I think is interesting is what happens if Mihocek can't stay upright after the contact and lands on his neck and is concussed. Does McKay own that damage because he infringed with front on contact? Would it be classified as "tunnelling"?
 


Just so I’ve got this straight…

McKay can’t do this, and it’s a free kick ✅

BUT

If Mihocek cleaned him up and concussed him, it would still be a free kick, but Mihocek would also be suspended.

Nah ya just paranoid
 
People kept saying that Wright’s crime was that he braced himself. You can’t do this… all players have to do is put their arms out, contest the ball and everybody will be fine.


Nope, once again, that’s the outcome with outstretched arms. It’s inevitable that the player will be collected in the head.

Preventing players from bracing / protecting themselves is literally pointless. Collisions and head injuries still occur.
 
People kept saying that Wright’s crime was that he braced himself. You can’t do this… all players have to do is put their arms out, contest the ball and everybody will be fine.
I think the argument was actually that he could say he was playing the ball, not that everyone would be fine. I specifically said in this thread that Cunningham probably still would have been hit hard but the spoil would have been made.
 
I think the argument was actually that he could say he was playing the ball, not that everyone would be fine. I specifically said in this thread that Cunningham probably still would have been hit hard but the spoil would have been made.

… but what’s the point overall? Charge in with arms raised so it “looks like” you’re playing the ball, KO the opponent anyway and possibly injure yourself.

The unfortunate reality, that nobody wants to confront, is that the head injuries that occur here are quite often the fault of the players going back with the ball.

If anything is “reckless” it’s throwing yourself into a spot with no idea or regard for what is there.

If the AFL genuinely want to prevent the head injuries then they have to look at this. Not be petrified of it because they’re desperate to retain “courage”.

Safety occurs when all players protect themselves.

We got there on ground balls, with players running into other now turning their bodies to absorb contact on the side.

Wright was put out for a month because he protected himself. People were genuinely saying he should’ve just contested the ball when there was contact bearing down on him. We saw yesterday what happens when you do that - a KO anyway.

By far the safest route is for all players’ #1 duty of care to be to themselves.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

… but what’s the point overall? Charge in with arms raised so it “looks like” you’re playing the ball, KO the opponent anyway and possibly injure yourself.
I mean, there are plenty of contested marks each month where players come together at speed with arms up and out without anyone getting hurt.

In this specific case, Cunningham would still have been hit hard, but he wouldn't have gotten the Wright's shoulder to his face.
 
Back
Top