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

[EconomicDecline]

He hit another player high with his shoulder and concussed him. That is always going to lead to a suspension.

You must get up pretty early and practice to be this ******* stupid

The entire community knows he’ll get weeks. You’re the one who is cooked

Oops. I missed “won’t” in that. Sleep deprivation from a newborn. He’s gone for 4+ weeks.

 

[sherb]

It takes two to tango, so Cunningham has no responsibility?

I'd think the lion's share of the responsibility should lie with the player not going for the ball, as opposed to the player who is.

 

[HairyO]

I'd think the lion's share of the responsibility should lie with the player not going for the ball, as opposed to the player who is.

This is so obvious its staggering that it needs to be said.

 

[Get_The_Gaff]

How was this possibly like Maynard’s? Completely different situations.

Both left the ground and both chose to tuck in and bump the on coming opponent when they could have in wrights case contested the mark and Maynard's case put his hands out to brace the contact.

You can't tell me if it was one of Maynard's team mates he was coming down on he would have turned his shoulder in like he did ?

 

[ashep]

Shows how stupid you are if that's what you think.

What did Harry do wrong? I mean he's the one who ran the red light in your little fantasy right?

 

[demondavey]

Can't see how anybody can argue he was protecting himself. Consider this scenario:

You're going for a run on the footpath. A kid runs out from behind a fence chasing a ball. You have a split second to react. Do you:

1) Tuck your shoulder in to protect yourself.
2) Put your hands out and try to cushion the impact.

Nobody is going to mow the kid over using their shoulder.

Depends if the kid has a Collingwood jumper on

 

[Chaisa]

Live it looked a genuine dog act though admittedly that was possibly bias/passion showing.

On replay it wasn't.

That said, I still think he's likely to cop a whack. In the current climate I don't think arguing that it was a marking contest is going to be enough even though not that long ago it might've been.

 

[demondavey]

This has to be a troll

How? Seriously? What’s Wright got to argue here? He was contesting the mark? No. Was there going to be impact and he had to protect himself? Yes. So we then look at the widely publicised Maynard incident. Maynard leapt from the ground to smother, smother didn’t occur so he argued the the had to brace and protect. In doing so he knocked out Brayshaw.

Just because he wasn’t smothering doesn’t mean the act was to protect himself, however, in protecting himself he has flattened a bloke just like Maynard did. The AFL have reviewed that post Maynard and said anything of this nature is going to be punished.

The thing you need to do these days is let the opposition take the mark in case you smash them. Thats what the AFL wants.

 

[sherb]

This is so obvious its staggering that it needs to be said.

Yes, I'm not sure how you could lay any of the responsibility for this onto the bloke who was actually going for the ball........

 

[demondavey]

It takes two to tango, so Cunningham has no responsibility?

Oh yeah, Cunningham has so much responsibility here trying to mark a ball.

Seriously, an Essendon fan? Wright knocked him out. Cunningham didn’t even see him.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Yeah trying to take a chest mark

By tucking his arm in at the side as he jumped? There's no way that he was going for a mark or spoil, even by the time he left the ground.
A few years ago maybe "bracing for impact" could be argued, that does not seem to be the case any more. All the rhetoric has been about upping the duty of care, even a big (or NSW) club player will struggle to get let off unless also a big name.

Careless, high contact, medium-high impact : expect 1-2 weeks; unless graded "severe impact" in which case maybe 4
https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...509b31d77ed8/2024-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

 

[demondavey]

This is so obvious its staggering that it needs to be said.

Some people need things spelled out for them

 

[10571z]

How? Seriously? What’s Wright got to argue here? He was contesting the mark? No. Was there going to be impact and he had to protect himself? Yes. So we then look at the widely publicised Maynard incident. Maynard leapt from the ground to smother, smother didn’t occur so he argued the the had to brace and protect. In doing so he knocked out Brayshaw.

Just because he wasn’t smothering doesn’t mean the act was to protect himself, however, in protecting himself he has flattened a bloke just like Maynard did. The AFL have reviewed that post Maynard and said anything of this nature is going to be punished.

The thing you need to do these days is let the opposition take the mark in case you smash them. Thats what the AFL wants.

Gee I’m not sure I should bother wasting my time stepping you through this.

Wright sticks his fist out and could have easily punched the ball away, no one gets Koed and the game goes on. Wright just decides to bump and smash Cunningham into next century.

 

[citizen-erased]

By tucking his arm in at the side as he jumped? There's no way that he was going for a mark or spoil, even by the time he left the ground.
A few years ago maybe "bracing for impact" could be argued, that does not seem to be the case any more. All the rhetoric has been about upping the duty of care, even a big (or NSW) club player will struggle to get let off unless also a big name.

Careless, high contact, medium-high impact : expect 1-2 weeks; unless graded "severe impact" in which case maybe 4
https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...509b31d77ed8/2024-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

View attachment 1937860

About right.
The tuck will be the undoing.
Was going the chest mark but got there second.

it'll be careless, high and either high or severe impact. So 2-3.

 

[demondavey]

Just like the Maynard thread, there are supporters in here of the team the culprit represents and are arguing in a way reflective of total bias. Logical people here will explain the rules and try and reiterate the messages the AFL is trying to push. That will get ignored by dogged Bombers fans making up excuses. This will go round and round and round until the verdict is in to then another storm of biased diatribe.

Summary; he will get a penalty and that’s that.

 

[Jeff76]

Neutral supporter here so don’t really care too much but Wright tucking in to protect himself will cost him and I think the AFL are all over the head knocks this year so he’ll get a few games for it, even Maynard would get a few this year.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[gPhonque]

Are people not getting it? How could you suggest zero weeks.

We need to get these sort of impacts out of the game. He could have spoiled or marked.

We play a game in which you can kick and run in ANY direction at high speed, and not only that, the AFL have also gone out of their way the past 20 odd years to make the game even faster.

These sort of impacts are ALWAYS going to happen.

This is what the AFL (and all the nuffies in this thread) simply don’t seem to understand.

In this particular example, Wright ran for 15 meters to mark a ball - kicked to HIM on the lead - with his eyes on the ball the ENTIRE time. At the last split second, a stupid (but courageous, sure) Cunningham appears, and Wright sees/senses him and protects himself… which anyone would do. (even the nuffies in this thread saying he should get rubbed out)

An unfortunate incident in a sport that actually encourages these types of incidents in every possible way.

Why?

Well, if either player pulls out of that contest, they get branded soft. (I mean, nuffies in this thread are already branding Wright as soft for protecting himself! Give me a f****** break.)

So of course they both contest. And then someone inevitably gets hurt. And then we need to blame the guy who didn’t get hurt. It’s ridiculous.

All this talk of “duty of care.”

Well, where was Cunningham’s?

If someone blindly walks in front of a train, we don’t blame the f****** train.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Oh yeah, Cunningham has so much responsibility here trying to mark a ball.

Seriously, an Essendon fan? Wright knocked him out. Cunningham didn’t even see him.

Of course Cunningham has responsibility for his own actions, unless you're a determinist in which case I can't help you. Also, Wright was going for the ball also.

 

[keithrichards]

Wright was already starting to brace before he leapt off the ground.

So at that point, he’d made the decision not to mark the ball. So why did he jump?

 

[keithrichards]

I find it a bit strange that Wright protected himself with his right shoulder, given Cunningham was coming from his left side.

He turned his body towards Cunninghams contact, as opposed to turning away and protecting himself with his left shoulder/back.

 

[sherb]

Of course Cunningham has responsibility for his own actions, unless you're a determinist in which case I can't help you. Also, Wright was going for the ball also.

No, he wasn't.

 

[Beerfish]

Just glad Pete didn't end up with broken ribs which would have seen him out for longer than whatever chook lotto comes up with.

 

[Freddy Swift]

I don’t think the AFL want players to brace for contact anymore. If the players collide and both go down then they can just say it was an unfortunate accident.

Remember the Mansell/Aish incident last season. Both running to the ball, get there at the same time, Mansell braces, Aish doesn’t and unfortunately goes down injured.

At the tribunal Mansell says he had to brace to protect himself. Woman on the panel says if he had time to brace, he had time to pull out and should have let Aish take the ball. Mansell gets 3 weeks.

Can’t see how bracing will be a defence here for Wright especially after the Maynard farce.

 

[Beerfish]

By tucking his arm in at the side as he jumped? There's no way that he was going for a mark or spoil, even by the time he left the ground.
A few years ago maybe "bracing for impact" could be argued, that does not seem to be the case any more. All the rhetoric has been about upping the duty of care, even a big (or NSW) club player will struggle to get let off unless also a big name.

Careless, high contact, medium-high impact : expect 1-2 weeks; unless graded "severe impact" in which case maybe 4
https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...509b31d77ed8/2024-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

View attachment 1937860

That would actually be a pretty good outcome and makes sense. Presumably severe would be off to hospital/does not reappear. Careless, high and high seems fair.

 

[Buget]

We play a game in which you can kick and run in ANY direction at high speed, and not only that, the AFL have also gone out of their way the past 20 odd years to make the game even faster.

These sort of impacts are ALWAYS going to happen.

This is what the AFL (and all the nuffies in this thread) simply don’t seem to understand.

In this particular example, Wright ran for 15 meters to mark a ball - kicked to HIM on the lead - with his eyes on the ball the ENTIRE time. At the last split second, a stupid (but courageous, sure) Cunningham appears, and Wright sees/senses him and protects himself… which anyone would do. (even the nuffies in this thread saying he should get rubbed out)

An unfortunate incident in a sport that actually encourages these types of incidents in every possible way.

Why?

Well, if either player pulls out of that contest, they get branded soft. (I mean, nuffies in this thread are already branding Wright as soft for protecting himself! Give me a f****** break.)

So of course they both contest. And then someone inevitably gets hurt. And then we need to blame the guy who didn’t get hurt. It’s ridiculous.

All this talk of “duty of care.”

Well, where was Cunningham’s?

If someone blindly walks in front of a train, we don’t blame the f****** train.

Whilst I agree with you regarding these incidents will continue to happen given the nature of the sport. The AFL has put the responsibility on the player and there has been an increased focus on actions that cause concussion.

The way that the tribunal has acted so far this season, coupled with how the tribunal guide is written, Wright is in trouble.

I was at the game, and the incident was adjacent to my seats. I actual thought “football incident” in real time, but the replay of Wright tucking his shoulder will cost him.

And the defence of “personal protection” won’t stand, given that the AFL has made some clear statements that players are responsible for the out comes of their actions. Hence why it will be graded careless. It’s like manslaughter - he knocked him out, might not have meant it, but he still knocked him out.