Tex - how many weeks?

[HairyO]

Hodge got 3 for his bump on Wingard in to the Behind post, despite Wingard getting straight back up and taking the free kick and kicking a goal.

JJ took a long time to get back up after Tex shoved him in to the Goal post.

So you'd have to say at least 3 as well? Or does he get a good bloke discount?

 

[Captain Morgan]

Tex Shepherding the ball, hodge was attempted murder

 

[Oxirane]

 

[Brend81]

Ball was well past when he shoved him, will be interesting how it plays out, same as pushing someone into a fence it's dangerous and could have been very nasty

 

[ManOfClay]

Coward

 

[Sam The Doc]

zero

 

[ManOfClay]

Tex Shepherding the ball, hodge was attempted murder

Ball was gone and jj had even pulled up. Just a cheap shot from tex

 

[Randomizor]

Nothing in it. Tex couldn’t have foreseen JJ hitting the post, the bump kept him moving for a good couple of meters, he could have stumbled in any direction. Unfortunate that he hit his head.

Hodge purposefully crushed a guys head between his hip and the post. Completely different.

 

[Captain Morgan]

Watch it in real time, the ball was within 5m when contact was made - legal play.

The contact with the post was unfortunate, unrelated consequence. Filed under bad luck. No way can it be said he tried to shove him into the post.

 

[Andrew Mc]

Zero.

 

[Leigh Lowther]

Dog move but its nothing worth looking at.

 

[Cruiserweight Champ]

Nothing in it. Tex couldn’t have foreseen JJ hitting the post, the bump kept him moving for a good couple of meters, he could have stumbled in any direction. Unfortunate that he hit his head.

Hodge purposefully crushed a guys head between his hip and the post. Completely different.

Nothing in it?

okay--we all agree contact was made by Tex using hands/body to push/shepherd JJ, and blind freddy can see contact was to the back.

Now--if there was nothing in it, as you say, then you believe the contact to be a fair shepherd to allow the ball to go through for a goal.

If there was nothing in it---why did Tex immediately, as all CH7 commentators seem to say, apologies to JJ? Cos he knew he was immediately in trouble.

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

One. Crude bump off of the ball.

Hodge on Wingard was quite a bit worse.

 

[Fluro Boots]

0

 

[Cruiserweight Champ]

Watch it in real time, the ball was within 5m when contact was made - legal play.

The contact with the post was unfortunate, unrelated consequence. Filed under bad luck. No way can it be said he tried to shove him into the post.

Legal yes---if it was not in the back--and it was--goal disallowed free kick back for illegal shepherd.

Dahlhous barely touches around back of the neck Talia and he gets a 50m---softest 50 ive seen in a long time.

 

[Cruiserweight Champ]

I want to make it clear he doesnt deserve weeks---but a free should have been paid.

 

[G-Mo77]

Won't get rubbed out but a really weak act from Tex. He knew it too. He'd play it differently if he had is time over.

 

[matthew_s]

I have no idea how no free was paid!!

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

It's an interesting one - direct comparison to Hodge is obvious given the interaction with the post.

In the Hodge case impact was low (Wingard played on unaffected), and intention was deemed careless - yet somehow Hodge came out with a 3 weeks penalty. There was a media campaign against Hodge and a carryover for the Swallow incident earlier in the year (which was also massively overblown). In essence he served 6 weeks for two incidents which "looked bad" but didn't have a great deal of effect. You have to ignore the Hawthorn bias generated in the media to give Walker a fair hearing.

Tex chose to bump which is his right (if ball within 5m which it arguably was), but must accept the outcome being JJ hitting the post with his face. The impact was enough to force JJ from the ground in the hands of trainers, though he returned soon after, so low impact (pending Bulldogs medical report). Clearly not intentional, so could well get away with a fine, or "2 down to 1" pending the determination of impact.

 

[StevenwellerHFC]

0, I enjoyed it

 

[jim b]

Careless - low impact - high. $1500


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Spectore]

Looked like a legal shepherd to me. Nothing in it.

 

[replicant]

Should go for a week but won't.

For all the people saying he was shepherding it through and the ball was within 5m, sure it was. But Tex didn't know that, because he had no eyes on the ball, was just lining up JJ into the post.

Absolutely dirty attempt to hurt JJ. Deliberate as Hodge's one on Wingard.

 

[ZingerB]

There is probably just enough in it to give the MRP something to think about and given their ineptitude, I wouldn't have a clue. The comparison with the Hodge incident ends with the fact that their was a goalpost involved, Hodge's was far more malicious. Hodge's was an intentional bump to the head when the goalpost was about 6 inches away and the play was dead. Hawthorn supporter's tried to argue then that it wasn't intentional to put Wingard into the post which is pretty much inarguable given how close they were to the post and Hodge's reaction afterward. It seems unlikely that Walker intended to put JJ into the post, even moreso given his reaction afterward. It would take a level of clairvoyance into Walker's intention that the MRP has previously been conservative on to conclude it was intentional. It seemed to be a 'legal' Sheppard in the sense of being within 5 metres, but to me the play was dead, and it was unnecessary and I thought pretty unreasonable with how hard he was bumped. In that respect I think it was intentional to rough him up a bit and in the right circumstances that is enough for a suspension (e.g you can get weeks for bumping in a marking contest for charging or just general rough conduct where it is unreasonable). If the MRP look at it that way, there is the potential for a number of weeks. Whilst I don't think it is worth 3-4 weeks, I think with intentional acts it is perfectly reasonable to consider the flow on effects that weren't intentional. For instance, I have no problem with giving a fine for an intentional trip, and giving 6-8 weeks for the same intentional trip where the player does a ACL. I know that is a hot topic on BF, but if you don't want to get suspended don't intentionally infringe other players. The MRP has taken that route on a few occasions where players have seemingly not done a lot wrong, but got several weeks because the other player was seriously injured.

That is of course one route they could take. My money is on the MRP copping out. Either they will send it straight to the tribunal because they have the right to where the incident doesn't fit neatly into their calculations. In that instance, the tribunal could give it anything and due to the appeal last week, they might be a bit tougher this week (could be 3-4 weeks). Alternatively, they could do something like they tried to do with the Jack Viney hit on Tom Lynch a few years ago and have a each way bet. In that instance the only sensible outcomes were 0 or 6 weeks, instead they graded it medium impact for breaking a guy's jaw in 3 places which lead to Lynch missing half the season. I can see them giving it a week with some dubious classifications just so they can avoid letting him off altogether or dropping the hammer on Walker and keeping all parties semi content. The 0-1 week option seems the most likely to me, but with unusual incidents like this you never know what the MRP will toss up.

 

[Plugger35]

He shouldn't get suspended for that, maybe should've been a free kick for in the back but that's about it, it wasn't as bad as the Hodge piledriver on Wingard.