MRP / Trib. Shane McAdam Bump on Jacob Wehr

[HirdsTheWord]

Yeah but pretty much every bump is intentional. I don’t see how you would differentiate them. I don’t think Franklin had any intention of bumping Collins in the head, or even bumping for that matter. Whereas I thought pickett and macadam both wanted to bump, but neither would have intentionally hit the head either.

when you choose to bump instead of tackling or taking possession of the ball you should lose the ability to argue intent.

Pickett jumped and bumped him after the ball was disposed. 100% intentional.
Franklin runs over the ball and doesn't take possession and chooses to bump instead. 100% intentional.

 

[Brian McGee]

when you choose to bump instead of tackling or taking possession of the ball you should lose the ability to argue intent.

Pickett jumped and bumped him after the ball was disposed. 100% intentional.
Franklin runs over the ball and doesn't take possession and chooses to bump instead. 100% intentional.

Franklin was actually at the ball at the same time as Collins and toe poked it away instead of bending down to pick it up. That’s the only thing that got him suspended. If he bent down instead of bracing for impact he would have been fine. I think the other two could be argued as intentional, but it opens a can of worms.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Franklin was actually at the ball at the same time as Collins and toe poked it away instead of bending down to pick it up. That’s the only thing that got him suspended. If he bent down instead of bracing for impact he would have been fine. I think the other two could be argued as intentional, but it opens a can of worms.

can of worms is worthwhile when the AFL is getting sued by 50 x past players.

I'm happy for them to hit players harder in terms of punishment and then have the players appeal and justify it if they feel hard done by.

 

[sigur]

You think an AFL player should take possession of the ball and without looking expect a violent hip and shoulder to his front section + head (yes he hit the head, dont try to argue otherwise), instead of a tackle? McAdams's intent was to do maximum damage to an unsuspecting player. That is the end of it. the potential for injury from that action is utterly massive, the AFL did the right thing here, had McAdams caused concussion or even worse a broken jaw, he would be sitting out for 7 + weeks.

Look at the whiplash for gods sake.

The AFL has the "potential" clause to use in exact cases like this. A bump is part of the game, but using it like McAdams did is utterly wrong and why we should be punishing the action and not just the medical result.

I am all for supporters defending their players, but you are taking the absolute piss trying to argue bullshit semantics.

McAdams deserves every day, hour and second of his 3 weeks. You are better off arguing why the other 2 weren't also given 3. That is the only thing that that's wrong here.

Who can say McAdam's intent was to 'do maximum damage to an unsuspecting player'? McAdam was running as he turned to follow the ball from the kickout, looked up and saw Wehr with the ball and was perfectly entitled to bump Wehr (who was also in a position to see the hit coming, both the ball and McAdam would be in his direct line of sight from the kickout). A bump is a better option here if he can dislodge the ball at the F50 line with a crows player next to him. A tackle just puts the ball over the boundary line.

How on earth this gets the same punishment as the Danger field one here Scroll down for Paddy , where there was actual head contact, concussion, and a broken nose is a mystery. But of course getting logic from MRO is not going to happen.

 

[Brian McGee]

Who can say McAdam's intent was to 'do maximum damage to an unsuspecting player'? McAdam was running as he turned to follow the ball from the kickout, looked up and saw Wehr with the ball and was perfectly entitled to bump Wehr (who was also in a position to see the hit coming, both the ball and McAdam would be in his direct line of sight from the kickout). A bump is a better option here if he can dislodge the ball at the F50 line with a crows player next to him. A tackle just puts the ball over the boundary line.

How on earth this gets the same punishment as the Danger field one here Scroll down for Paddy , where there was actual head contact, concussion, and a broken nose is a mystery. But of course getting logic from MRO is not going to happen.

The Dangerfield one was a head clash that was thought of as unfair at the time as well.

 

[Brasher]

You think an AFL player should take possession of the ball and without looking expect a violent hip and shoulder to his front section + head (yes he hit the head, dont try to argue otherwise), instead of a tackle? McAdams's intent was to do maximum damage to an unsuspecting player. That is the end of it. the potential for injury from that action is utterly massive, the AFL did the right thing here, had McAdams caused concussion or even worse a broken jaw, he would be sitting out for 7 + weeks.

Look at the whiplash for gods sake.

The AFL has the "potential" clause to use in exact cases like this. A bump is part of the game, but using it like McAdams did is utterly wrong and why we should be punishing the action and not just the medical result.

I am all for supporters defending their players, but you are taking the absolute piss trying to argue bullshit semantics.

McAdams deserves every day, hour and second of his 3 weeks. You are better off arguing why the other 2 weren't also given 3. That is the only thing that that's wrong here.

I think your misinterpreting my post. All I did was try to understand which part of the "potential" clause was applied to rub out McAdam....if anything it is the AFL applying semantics and the "didn't look good factor" to the punishment. It was in direct response to an earlier post quoting the guidelines and then putting a flakey misinterpretation on them in the McAdam case.

And I have already said in this thread, change the wording from potential to intention and then the rules at least reflect what the AFL is trying to accomplish.

Do I think McAdam intended to hurt the Giants player? Yes I do. On intent he deserves his suspension, but the potential clause applies liberal interpretation to make these punishments fit. That's the point....if anything the bullshit semantics were started by the AFL so once that can of worms is opened there is no other way to try and make reason of it.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Who can say McAdam's intent was to 'do maximum damage to an unsuspecting player'? McAdam was running as he turned to follow the ball from the kickout, looked up and saw Wehr with the ball and was perfectly entitled to bump Wehr (who was also in a position to see the hit coming, both the ball and McAdam would be in his direct line of sight from the kickout). A bump is a better option here if he can dislodge the ball at the F50 line with a crows player next to him. A tackle just puts the ball over the boundary line.

How on earth this gets the same punishment as the Danger field one here Scroll down for Paddy , where there was actual head contact, concussion, and a broken nose is a mystery. But of course getting logic from MRO is not going to happen.

anyone with common sense. You actually think his intent was to dislodge the ball? LOL. please. his intent was to cause damage.

RE Dangerfield, just because MRO ****ed up previously doesn't mean they should do it again.

 

[sigur]

anyone with common sense. You actually think his intent was to dislodge the ball? LOL. please. his intent was to cause damage.

RE Dangerfield, just because MRO ****ed up previously doesn't mean they should do it again.

Well, I reckon if he wanted to cause damage he would have gone for the head or the ribcage.

 

[HairyO]

Well, I reckon if he wanted to cause damage he would have gone for the head or the ribcage.

I reckon he did a cheap shot and got what he deserved.

I reckon Franklin has done what he did a dozen times over his career. 6 times at Hawthorn for 2 weeks a pop, 6 times at Sydney for 1 week a pop.

Sydney discount is real.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You think an AFL player should take possession of the ball and without looking expect a violent hip and shoulder to his front section + head (yes he hit the head, dont try to argue otherwise), instead of a tackle? McAdams's intent was to do maximum damage to an unsuspecting player. That is the end of it. the potential for injury from that action is utterly massive, the AFL did the right thing here, had McAdams caused concussion or even worse a broken jaw, he would be sitting out for 7 + weeks.

Look at the whiplash for gods sake.

The AFL has the "potential" clause to use in exact cases like this. A bump is part of the game, but using it like McAdams did is utterly wrong and why we should be punishing the action and not just the medical result.

I am all for supporters defending their players, but you are taking the absolute piss trying to argue bullshit semantics.

McAdams deserves every day, hour and second of his 3 weeks. You are better off arguing why the other 2 weren't also given 3. That is the only thing that that's wrong here.

They simply have to learn to bump much softer, these bloody AFL players going 100%. Whats the world coming to with people trying their best. Maybe they can carry a pillow around on the field to absorb some contact.

Mcadams was a text book bump. He has been suspended for 3 weeks because it was very forceful. He needs to bump much softer.

FFS the AFL need to come out and simply say a new law has been written overnight and it is now illegal to bump under any circumstance . Shoulder to should bumps everything is now illegal and will be a free kick. What are they hanging on to here?

 

[Section 5]

Picket and McAdam should have got 6 weeks each and Franklin 4 in my opinion if the AFL is intent on reducing the number of players getting concussion.
The AFL have put $25 million aside for concussion research.
A better solution that costs them nothing would be to take this style of bump out of the game.

The AFL will be paying big time soon enough with a past players class action underway and more to come.

However, as i have repeatedly said the guidelines/rules exist, the MRO & Tribunal can't ignore them.
Same as you can't ignore the road rules without consequences.

Just because it suits Adelaide supporters or other BF posters to put their unqualified 2 cents worth in, does not make it correct.

An Adelaide lawyer with vast more experience than anyone on this forum put his case forward.
They were unsuccessful because there was not much to defend in the first place.

I don't get all the angst over comparing a 1-week suspension for Buddy, 2 for Pickett and 3 for McAdam
I think the majority here on BF believe that all deserve time even if they play for your club.
At best you are just talking about 1 game difference either up or down.

The point for me is, i doubt any of those 3 will learn anything with those smallish suspensions.

 

[Brasher]

McAdam failed the the looks ugly test...and given past measurement, I'm fine with that.

Unfortunately, most of McAdam's momentum came from running to the contest, got there second, and then carried that momentum into the bump. What McAdam should have done was still use his momentum and throw his arms out in an attempt to tackle. Probably same result but then also opens both players to a head clash which could have been far worse.

I don't think McAdam is a dirty player, far from it, and the bump was probably the result of a split second in thinking between hurting the Giant's player and self preservation.

Where I struggle is how the AFL used their own guidelines to determine the outcomes over the weekend.

The bump is on life support though and will probably only remain for when the ball is genuinelly in dispute. Once possession is gained, anyone who chooses to bump the ball carrier will be sanctioned.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

They simply have to learn to bump much softer, these bloody AFL players going 100%. Whats the world coming to with people trying their best. Maybe they can carry a pillow around on the field to absorb some contact.

Mcadams was a text book bump. He has been suspended for 3 weeks because it was very forceful. He needs to bump much softer.

FFS the AFL need to come out and simply say a new law has been written overnight and it is now illegal to bump under any circumstance . Shoulder to should bumps everything is now illegal and will be a free kick. What are they hanging on to here?

There is nothing textbook about bumping someone front on so you hit their throat and head, especially at the force McAdams did it with.

There is not a situation in the game where an AFL player should expect that type of contact.

"trying their best" lol what a crock of s**t. you are taking the piss.

 

[Crow till I die]

Right outcome. As others have said, the issue is not getting it right with the other two. All three should have been 3 weeks.

I thought picketts was the worst of the lot - reckless, unnecessary and looked like a genuine attempt to KO.

totally agree yet here we are and the AFL made sure they got the 'right' decision for the crows but have not yet corrected the wrong decision for the big vic club player and the Competition star..so we as a comp are left with a shocking outcome considering the worst bump of the lot was not the most harshly dealt with

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

As an aside to this conversation as it involves one of the players, Liam Duggan

14

Liam Duggan

Age

27

Ht

186cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

15.4

4star

K

10.1

4star

HB

5.3

4star

M

4.4

4star

T

2.1

4star

MG

283.7

4star

D

16.0

4star

K

12.0

5star

HB

4.0

3star

M

5.7

5star

T

1.1

2star

MG

283.7

4star

D

13.2

4star

K

7.8

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.2

3star

lined up Wehr and broke his scapula on the weekend. He’s free to play and Wehr is out for two months.

McAdam did no damage and is out for three weeks.

Bizarro world.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

As an aside to this conversation as it involves one of the players, Liam Duggan lined up Wehr and broke his scapula on the weekend. He’s free to play and Wehr is out for two months.

McAdam did no damage and is out for three weeks.

Bizarro world.

Small difference at no stage was the head contacted. Injuries can happen that’s footy. What you can’t do is contact the head whether it be direct or whiplash

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Small difference at no stage was the head contacted. Injuries can happen that’s footy. What you can’t do is contact the head whether it be direct or whiplash

So the potential to cause injury clause needs to be changed to potential to cause head injury.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So the potential to cause injury clause needs to be changed to potential to cause head injury.

It’s always been head injury that’s more what everyone is worried about. You have only got one brain you can always fix a shoulder.