Suspensions tied to injurys?

[Outback Footy]

Watching the fall out from last nights NRL State of Origin got me thinking about suspensions handed out for injuries incurred. Greg Inglis looks like getting a two week suspension for breaking a NSW players jaw. Youd think the NSW player would be out for the rest of the season, shouldn't Inglis? Looking at the vision it wasn't accidental, shoulder charging a bloke after he kicked the pill.

Obviously if its accidental that needs to be considered and current rules applied, but if a Barry Hall (naughty Swans Barry, not the good Bulldogs Barry) type brain explosion breaks another blokes jaw should the culprit be required to sit out his victims rehabilitation/recuperation?

And I know, it doesn't happen often in our game and the NRL is full of thugs but it did get me thinking....

 

[KissKiss]

No the punishment should be determined by the intent of the act not by the outcome.

 

[FreoMonocle]

I'd actually like to see some penalties related to injuries inflicted - where found that it was deliberate (not accident).

Puncture someone lung for a late bump and they sit on the pine for 2 months, your team has stuffed that other team beyond game day - and the player has probably lost 2 months of match day payments.

I'd suggest that you keep the status quo for sanctions on intent, the incident type etc, but with a loading for the injury. Concuss someone, break a bone etc on a deliberate act that is against the rules and load it up with 2 weeks for the concussion, 6 weeks for the broken bone or something along those lines.

Maybe your salary is hit with compensation for the other players match day entitlements which they've now lost. Has to have some limits, 6 weeks of match day payments for a broken leg, somewhat of a too bad if they don't get on the park for 12 months. If the person get's back on the park and plays before the penalty has expired, the loading get's reduced accordingly - so if they only sit one game out for concussion instead of 2, the loading goes from 2 to down to 1.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

No the punishment should be determined by the intent of the act not by the outcome.

So much this. I don't like the idea of the outcome being used to determine whether a player gets suspended in the first place.

It gets kind of old when almost every suspension dished out is due to the outcome and the intent isn't really taken in to account. So many jumper punches and stray elbows have gone unpunished because a player doesn't bleed or get hurt, yet players get rubbed out for head clashes and accidental head high contact because the other player gets injured

 

[FreoMonocle]

So much this. I don't like the idea of the outcome being used to determine whether a player gets suspended in the first place.

It gets kind of old when almost every suspension dished out is due to the outcome and the intent isn't really taken in to account. So many jumper punches and stray elbows have gone unpunished because a player doesn't bleed or get hurt, yet players get rubbed out for head clashes and accidental head high contact because the other player gets injured

Take the outcome out of the determination, an act is against the rules or it isn't. Just factor in the outcome to the penalty.

Edit: Hmmm... Forgot, it's the AFL, they'd lose the ability to make life easier on their revenue raising, crowd pleasing favourites.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Take the outcome out of the determination, an act is against the rules or it isn't. Just factor in the outcome to the penalty.

Edit: Hmmm... Forgot, it's the AFL, they'd lose the ability to make life easier on their revenue raising, crowd pleasing favourites.

Haha yeah

Ideally:

Action should determine whether a player gets suspended or not; Outcome should determine severity of the punishment (i.e. you hit a guy in the face deliberately - automatic 2 weeks off and then if you KO him it gets added on, you break a jaw it gets added on etc.)

Right now the MRP:

Outcome determines whether a player gets punished, action determines outcome of punishment (or action not considered at all)

 

[Outback Footy]

Haha yeah

Ideally:

Action should determine whether a player gets suspended or not; Outcome should determine severity of the punishment (i.e. you hit a guy in the face deliberately - automatic 2 weeks off and then if you KO him it gets added on, you break a jaw it gets added on etc.)

Right now the MRP:

Outcome determines whether a player gets punished, action determines outcome of punishment (or action not considered at all)

This is where I was headed, the outcome doesn't determine guilt, just has an impact on the level of penalty. What got me going was the NRL where you can deliberately break a blokes jaw (it was a snipers tackle), see him out of the game for months, and you get two weeks.

 

[Topkent]

This is where I was headed, the outcome doesn't determine guilt, just has an impact on the level of penalty. What got me going was the NRL where you can deliberately break a blokes jaw (it was a snipers tackle), see him out of the game for months, and you get two weeks.

So watching another sport makes you want to change our rules ... * sake

 

[Boxhead_31]

Will be interesting to see if Cyril cops any punishment for going past the ball to bump and making contact with Oliver's head given Oliver did stay down.

 

[Hawk Dork]

Nankervis nearly breaks Fishers jaw with a forearm and gets let off
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-on-st-kildas-sam-fisher-20160815-gqt0x9.html

 

[HairyO]

Nankervis nearly breaks Fishers jaw with a forearm and gets let off
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-on-st-kildas-sam-fisher-20160815-gqt0x9.html

Protected.

Based on Hodge getting 5 weeks last year despite not hurting anyone, it is safe to assume he would have got at least 6 weeks for breaking someone's jaw.