MRP / Trib. Tom Hawkins "made an example of" - accepts 1 match suspension

[Mr Blicavs]

I disagree the primary point of contact was the jaw, but no doubt the AFL want him crucified

It's not like he wasn't warned though mate......jumper punches have been a point of discussion for a couple of weeks, then Hawkins goes and jumper punches someone.


Stoopid......and he will get a suspension.

The blame lays solely at his feet.

 

[candiehappy]

It's not like he wasn't warned though mate......jumper punches have been a point of discussion for a couple of weeks, then Hawkins goes and jumper punches someone.


Stoopid......and he will get a suspension.

The blame lays solely at his feet.

I would sacrifice the odd suspension to see a lot more of that level of aggression in his game. I would like him to be someone the opposition fear.

 

[allrighty]

He will go... hopefully for only one.

Not such a bad out come. One might say if you are going to go for a jumper punch , one may as well really wind up..jumper punches were only a technique for avoidance of a punch assessment. To stop all skirmishes is an ideal target but thats also forgetting that players are emotional beings not robots. There will be times where disagreements happen in contact sport.

To me this all happened on the end of a third hit to Selwood , it was enough is enough stuff. The "accidental" hits to Selwood probably put a certain mindset into Tom that made him forget the likely outcome.

Yep - accidental like a punch in the back of the head when you are lying on the ground under someone.

 

[Baudolino]

For those interested, Cotchin's punch to Neale's jaw that yielded a fine:

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-16/mrp-handcuffed-over-cotchin-jumper-punch-bartel

Distinction between this and Hawkins' jumper punch would seem to be that Cotchin wasn't looking at Neale when he did it, which was presumably what gave the MRP licence to grade the incident as careless rather than intentional. Hawkins on the other hand laid his punch while facing Crouch front-on and looking right at him, which makes it harder to argue it's not intentional.

 

[Mr Blicavs]

I would sacrifice the odd suspension to see a lot more of that level of aggression in his game. I would like him to be someone the opposition fear.

That's not the kind of aggression that gets you anywhere.

Aggression at the ball is a far better option

 

[ryzza11]

I would sacrifice the odd suspension to see a lot more of that level of aggression in his game. I would like him to be someone the opposition fear.

I don't think a soft jab will be striking fear into any grown man unfortunately. I believe hard tackles, knees in marking contests etc are more significant without having to be suspended.

 

[hbk_aus]

Not sure if that is official or his opinion...

 

[STPer18]

So he's been made an example of twice in 12 months now, with no one else missing a game within that entire period despite a couple being thrown every week since? Sounds fair enough.

 

[Sttew]

Obviously they want punches out of the game, whether they be regular punches or jumper punches.

Players don't deserve to miss a game for a little jumper punch, but I also understand we can't have players just giving each other little punches whenever they want without consequence.

Surely you simply raise the level of money they are fined for little punches?

Don't suspend them but instead of:
1st Offence - $1000
2nd Offence - $1500
3rd Offence - 1 week suspension
Make it:
1st Offence - $10,000
2nd Offence - $20,000
3rd Offence - 1 week suspension

Win/Win because players don't miss a game for something very small, but they also stop jumper/gut punches if being fined so much money. Also the AFL gets heaps of money if players are silly enough to do it which they'd love too because all they care about is money.

$10,000 for a jumper punch is pretty hefty. I reckon $2500 + automatic one game suspension for next similar misdemeanour

 

[bigblackboz]

AFL were always going to crack down on violence against women #weakaspisscrouch #academyawards

 

[Willo_]

So he's been made an example of twice in 12 months now, with no one else missing a game within that entire period despite a couple being thrown every week since? Sounds fair enough.

His timing is his biggest issue here... if he did it a month ago then he gets off.
Now he most likely misses a week.

And we likely won't even challenge as more often than not the risk is simply to high, which I don't like... A player should be entitled to try and defend themselves without the fear of the penalty doubling hanging over their heads

 

[Sttew]

Not sure if that is official or his opinion...

Nothing official on line yet

 

[STPer18]

His timing is his biggest issue here... if he did it a month ago then he gets off.
Now he most likely misses a week.

And we likely won't even challenge as more often than not the risk is simply to high, which I don't like... A player should be entitled to try and defend themselves without the fear of the penalty doubling hanging over their heads

If it's judged as 'careless' rather than 'intentional', as Cotchin's was, he escapes with just the fine and no week off at all. As you say, if they judge it as intentional and he goes to the tribunal to argue it as careless but they disagree, he cops 2 weeks. It really is a perfect system to ensure no one dare challenge the MRP.

 

[Willo_]

If it's judged as 'careless' rather than 'intentional', as Cotchin's was, he escapes with just the fine and no week off at all. As you say, if they judge it as intentional and he goes to the tribunal to argue it as careless but they disagree, he cops 2 weeks. It really is a perfect system to ensure no one dare challenge the MRP.

and let's be honest (and maybe slightly tin foil hatted) but the AFL don't want the MRP to be challenged, or to be seen as making the incorrect call.
So the system is designed to make it too great a risk to challenge, and then to be too ambiguous to be have many decisions overturned if they are challenged

 

[thegerman]

and let's be honest (and maybe slightly tin foil hatted) but the AFL don't want the MRP to be challenged, or to be seen as making the incorrect call.
So the system is designed to make it too great a risk to challenge, and then to be too ambiguous to be have many decisions overturned if they are challenged

Then if it's a week only, they need to challenge. Two weeks is that point of not challenging to save face.

If there's no risk to further time on the sidelines you simply have to pursue a challenge.

Especially based on other results for far worse this year

 

[Hamingja]

Not sure if that is official or his opinion...

Too early for the official verdict. Though I expect he will get a week.

 

[hbk_aus]

Nothing official on line yet

Yeah i am assuming it is his own opinion, fairly misleading though.

 

[Sticksman]

I would sacrifice the odd suspension to see a lot more of that level of aggression in his game. I would like him to be someone the opposition fear.

The problem with that is he would be missing for 3 out of every 4 games. He needs to thrown his weight around more in the contest. That's how to put fear into an opponent.

 

[ryzza11]

Distinction between this and Hawkins' jumper punch would seem to be that Cotchin wasn't looking at Neale when he did it, which was presumably what gave the MRP licence to grade the incident as careless rather than intentional. Hawkins on the other hand laid his punch while facing Crouch front-on and looking right at him, which makes it harder to argue it's not intentional.

I saw an interviewer say something along the lines of if Cotchin can nail a backwards overhead handball, he can punch someone out of the corner of his eye.
In fact I think it's even more careless to randomly throw a fist without looking.

 

[longtimecat]

Someone had to stand up for the skipper, his head was constantly being assaulted with no protection from the umpires, Good on Ya Tom!!

 

[dangerwood]

So he's been made an example of twice in 12 months now, with no one else missing a game within that entire period despite a couple being thrown every week since? Sounds fair enough.

Exactly ^

Stupid of Hawk, yes, however he could rightly feel agrieved given no one else has gone for the same incidents over the last 12 months. Club has a right to feel dirty too.

The precedent was set with Hawk last year and then they didn't follow through, it's become an issue again so now they'll reset the precedent with Hawkins again. Not fair.

 

[Grimoz]

Jesus a lot people going early on here just because Jay Clark comments, nothing has been confirmed yet so lets just wait for the official verdict then we can melt.

 

[xtatik222k]

The thing about Hawkins is that he's taller and stronger than most players, so his jumper punches land and land hard. It's annoying given the circumstances, but the players were told that jumper punches were going to be cracked down on, then Tommy goes and throws one. Stupid of him, and kinda stupid for Scott to speak about it like he did. I expect Tom will get 1 week, and that's probably fair.

 

[catempire]

As expected, he got a week.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

Tom did the crime, do the time.