Tom Stewart bump on Noah Anderson

[HeHateMe]

He will probably do a Hodge, Lewis, Dunstall, Brereton or Dixon and gloss over it because it involves a member of the team he supports. There are no bigger mouthpieces on football incidents than these guys except when a Hawthorn players puts himself in the gun, then there’s nothing to see here, let’s just wait and let the AFL do their job.

Dunstall really?

Anyway I think Stewarts bump was fair and legal. Happy for 0 weeks.

I'm just interested to hear Wheatley's opinion on things since he is usually very well thought out and articulate. If he was wrong about his beliefs with the liability for head contact with the ground I'd love for him to own it and come out and say it.

 

[Tugga27]

The fact there is a post on Stewart’s legal bump on Anderson, and nothing on Jed Walter’s crude head high round arm hit on Mark O’Connor, is very telling

Didn't even get a fine.

What a disgrace the MRO is.

 

[cobra land]

I'm happy for him to get off BUT did he not run past the ball to make the bump?, that seems the only issue I have here.

It's the inconsistencies at the tribunal from week to week is what makes people frustrated, it seems that if the media want someone suspended that's what will happen!!

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

I'm happy for him to get off BUT did he not run past the ball to make the bump?, that seems the only issue I have here.

It's the inconsistencies at the tribunal from week to week is what makes people frustrated, it seems that if the media want someone suspended that's what will happen!!

Running 'past the ball' is completely allowed. Hitting someone in the head is not.
He did the former, he didn't do the latter.
Simples.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

He will probably do a Hodge, Lewis, Dunstall, Brereton or Dixon and gloss over it because it involves a member of the team he supports. There are no bigger mouthpieces on football incidents than these guys except when a Hawthorn players puts himself in the gun, then there’s nothing to see here, let’s just wait and let the AFL do their job.

Tf? The ones you mention double down and go extra hard (excluding dermott).

 

[cobra land]

Running 'past the ball' is completely allowed. Hitting someone in the head is not.
He did the former, he didn't do the latter.
Simples.

I understand that he didn't make contact to the head and FWIW I loved the bump but previously hasn't the AFL come out and said that they frown on players running past the ball to initate contact??

 

[Sttew]

I understand that he didn't make contact to the head and FWIW I loved the bump but previously hasn't the AFL come out and said that they frown on players running past the ball to initate contact??

You need to look at the bump in real time. This was NOT a case of Stewart running past the ball. As Stewart approaches Anderson it's as though Anderson sees Stewart coming and decides not to take possession of the ball which then trickles past Stewart.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I understand that he didn't make contact to the head and FWIW I loved the bump but previously hasn't the AFL come out and said that they frown on players running past the ball to initate contact??

Running past (or away from) the ball to initiate contact is precisely what a shepherd is.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

I understand that he didn't make contact to the head and FWIW I loved the bump but previously hasn't the AFL come out and said that they frown on players running past the ball to initate contact??

Yes, I think you're right - the AFL has said that, BUT it has always been (I think) in the context of a head injury.

 

[Taylor]

The AFL used to take a very dim look at players who had the opportunity to contest the footy and instead chose to contact an opposition player, they also put the full onus of the outcome on the player choosing to make contact in that circumstance. It was if you chose to bump, whatever happens is your fault, when you don't contest the footy and could have.

But rules change all the time. I remember when football writers were getting upset that players were throwing punches behind play, and then the AFL said fine, three of those and you miss a week... then a player was going to miss a week for doing it a third time and the same writers complained that the gut punch wasn't worth missing a week. Rule changed back.

So the AFL is never in a winning position.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

But rules change all the time. I remember when football writers were getting upset that players were throwing punches behind play, and then the AFL said fine, three of those and you miss a week... then a player was going to miss a week for doing it a third time and the same writers complained that the gut punch wasn't worth missing a week. Rule changed back.

There was two big level incidents that killed this rule.

The AFL's backflips in finding ways to not fine Nat Fyfe because "it would cost him a potential Brownlow". It didn't because he ended up getting himself suspended anyway.
And Trent Cotchin in the 2017 Prelim. The hit on Dylan Shiel is the kind of thing that had resulted in fines during the season. Except it would've been his third and resulted in a missed GF. So the media narrative of "you can't miss a GF for that" gave the AFL the out to not sanction him.

 

[Taylor]

There was two big level incidents that killed this rule.

The AFL's backflips in finding ways to not fine Nat Fyfe because "it would cost him a potential Brownlow". It didn't because he ended up getting himself suspended anyway.
And Trent Cotchin in the 2017 Prelim. The hit on Dylan Shiel is the kind of thing that had resulted in fines during the season. Except it would've been his third and resulted in a missed GF. So the media narrative of "you can't miss a GF for that" gave the AFL the out to not sanction him.

That one was different. Luke Hodge had three offenses in the season and was banned for a game in 2017 and Robbo was very upset that the low impact body blow to Papley resulted in a week off - he did make the argument that a player could miss a grand final for that and that it wouldn't be fair.

But that did require him to ignore the cumulative three offenses to get there.

 

[Sixpence]

Just saw the footage. Perfect bump, nothing to see here.

 

[maskmcgee]

I understand that he didn't make contact to the head and FWIW I loved the bump but previously hasn't the AFL come out and said that they frown on players running past the ball to initate contact??

If Anderson was concussed as a result of that bump he would of been suspended for 3 weeks.

 

[Sttew]

If Anderson was concussed as a result of that bump he would of been suspended for 3 weeks.

Would have!

And any suspension would probably have been successfully contested .

 

[Romeoh1]

Didn't even get a fine.

What a disgrace the MRO is.

Why would you get fined for a legal bump?

 

[Tugga27]

Why would you get fined for a legal bump?

I was talking about Jed Walters getting off.

I've already said Stewart's bump was perfect.

 

[Romeoh1]

I was talking about Jed Walters getting off.

I've already said Stewart's bump was perfect.

Oh sorry- yep I see now.

 

[HairyO]

Interesting to see how hard 3aw went on that bump, basically all saying it was totally wrong and would get weeks.

'Weeks on weeks': Libby Birch reacts to sickening Stewart bump

Libby Birch has expressed her disgust at Geelong’s Tom Stewart as he bumped Gold Coast’s Noah Anderson in the fourth quarter of their Saturday twilight clash. Anderson was helped from the field and has been sent to the hospital with precautionary checks, but Birch thinks there will be a need to...

www.3aw.com.au

Most other commentary was fairly lenient thinking it would get off or maybe a week.

Its the new commentatoe game. Fox and 7 were all-in on Meek getting at least 3 weeks. At least the AFL are being somewhat more sensible now, having gone way over the top.

We just need to stop the ridiculous 0 weeks or 3 weeks when someone is injured in a tackle.