MRP / Trib. Tom Stewart bump on Prestia - 4 weeks to freshen up

[standupand]

Pretty sure i never said he intended to hit him in the head, i said he executed the bump poorly. But the bump was intentional, people saying it wasn't are wrong, get it wrong this is the outcome.

Intentional means the player intended to commit the offence. I.e. intended to hit him in the head. Careless means the conduct breached the duty of care that players owe to one another (i.e. didn't intend to hit him in the head but nonetheless the act was dangerous).

 

[standupand]

You can’t do it mate.

Do you know why soccer and rugby league can function with one less player on the ground?

There are a few reasons.
In soccer, the presence of a goalkeeper and the nature of the scoring - a small, low target means that by having a good goalkeeper, and parking the majority of your players in defence, combined with the fact that the team with the extra man can simply make 1 mistake and lose (due to the low but more impactful scoring system) means that a contest is not inherently destroyed when a player gets sent off.

In rugby league, being a smaller field and a side to side then forward game, means that the effected team can guard space a little better, not commit as many players to the tackle, deploy players to the ‘gap’ easier. 4 players in any given side DONT do a lot aerobically: the wingers and centres can rest routinely.

Additionally, because when you aren’t launching trick players like banana kicks or chip and chases, a defending side can ALWAYS see WHERE a league side is trying to attack. There is only ever one point of attack, which may have a couple of options and bodies but it’s always going to one small segment of the field. It’s defendable.

In afl:

• you can’t park the bus in the back 50 because a) it makes it very tough to attack and b) the opposition can still kick a winning score from 50m out
• you can’t try and assign resources to cover the gap on the field anywhere near as easily because the field is twice as wide as a soccer or league field, and nearly twice as long. Yes you have more players on the field but the area is three times the size of those fields. The MCG is 20,000 square metres. A rugby league field is from memory 6700. So three times the space but only an extra 5 players to guard it.
• you can’t focus your already undermanned defence on one area of the field. Yes only one player has the ball at a time but that player has at any given time, half a dozen points of attack to focus on, all of which may be 25-40 metres apart.

Essentially by removing a player, even though it’s only one out of 18, you’re ensuring one team cannot win. It’s unfortunately for the victim’s team when they are exited from a game but they can still field 18 on the field and there’s no logistical reason they can’t compete.

I get that the games are different, but it's not for me a reason to not have a send-off rule. It just seems a fundamental principle of sport that the umpire or the ref has the ability to send a player off. Maybe you play with one less on the bench if it's too much of a head-spin to imagine a game of AFL of 17 v 18. This idea that somehow it's too risky to give that much power to an umpire is bogus. I know that umpires make mistakes. Fwiw, the MRO has a far worse record. And I know that an umpire can't pick up on every offence committed in a game (that's where video footage can come into it). But if an umpire sees a player engage in conduct that is a) against the rules, and b) seriously injures or is likely to serious injure another player, they should just send that player off. The game would go on. There wouldn't be this constant speculation about "is he or isn't he in hot water" that is just pointless and frustrating for any reasonable person.

 

[PhatBoy]

I get that the games are different, but it's not for me a reason to not have a send-off rule. It just seems a fundamental principle of sport that the umpire or the ref has the ability to send a player off. Maybe you play with one less on the bench if it's too much of a head-spin to imagine a game of AFL of 17 v 18. This idea that somehow it's too risky to give that much power to an umpire is bogus. I know that umpires make mistakes. Fwiw, the MRO has a far worse record. And I know that an umpire can't pick up on every offence committed in a game (that's where video footage can come into it). But if an umpire sees a player engage in conduct that is a) against the rules, and b) seriously injures or is likely to serious injure another player, they should just send that player off. The game would go on. There wouldn't be this constant speculation about "is he or isn't he in hot water" that is just pointless and frustrating for any reasonable person.

One less on the bench I could cop

 

[David the Cat]

And right on cue, my stalker.

I have a differing opinion on this incident and am classified a fuc*ing troll!
Sick of this s**t.

Haven't even called for him to get time. I want him off as that is our top 4 hopes crushed if he's out for the month. But I am observing the incident and making an opinion how I see it. It was not a well timed bump at all. It was bloody clumsy and the fact he even elected to bump when you know you are gone if you get it wrong . . . . that's what does my head in. How can any Geelong supporter possibly justify that?

If you're sick of it, perhaps not post inflammatory content...best thing for you is have a rest.

 

[Spearman]

I get that the games are different, but it's not for me a reason to not have a send-off rule. It just seems a fundamental principle of sport that the umpire or the ref has the ability to send a player off. Maybe you play with one less on the bench if it's too much of a head-spin to imagine a game of AFL of 17 v 18. This idea that somehow it's too risky to give that much power to an umpire is bogus. I know that umpires make mistakes. Fwiw, the MRO has a far worse record. And I know that an umpire can't pick up on every offence committed in a game (that's where video footage can come into it). But if an umpire sees a player engage in conduct that is a) against the rules, and b) seriously injures or is likely to serious injure another player, they should just send that player off. The game would go on. There wouldn't be this constant speculation about "is he or isn't he in hot water" that is just pointless and frustrating for any reasonable person.

It would have to be manifestly unsportsmanlike or far out of play. Walker pushed one of our guys into a wing marking contest from behind and he got hurt, left the game IIRC. Looked like a dirty bit of play. Should he had been carded? Parsons elbow to Hodge looked snipish as but Hodge didn't leave so ok?

I can see ejections for outright fighting - Barry Hall, intent to injure like the soccer player trying to break a leg, but not for essentially making a mistake in a footy play. Its bad luck somebody gets subbed out. But that's why the sub is there. Also so subjective.
As opined by Phatboy, maybe an ejection of a player, but can be subbed.

 

[standupand]

It would have to be manifestly unsportsmanlike or far out of play. Walker pushed one of our guys into a wing marking contest from behind and he got hurt, left the game IIRC. Looked like a dirty bit of play. Should he had been carded? Parsons elbow to Hodge looked snipish as but Hodge didn't leave so ok?

I can see ejections for outright fighting - Barry Hall, intent to injure like the soccer player trying to break a leg, but not for essentially making a mistake in a footy play. Its bad luck somebody gets subbed out. But that's why the sub is there. Also so subjective.
As opined by Phatboy, maybe an ejection of a player, but can be subbed.

I guess my point is that it's ok to give some power to the umps. They're not just there to oversee who is the winner and who is the loser. They have a responsibility to officiate a game played within the rules and with the safety of all players in mind. In soccer, different referees may have different interpretations of what's a yellow and what's a red. That's ok. It can't be 100% objective. A ref has those cards in their pocket to ensure that they can exercise some control over the game. In that sport a well-timed yellow to a player pushing the boundaries can make a world of difference to way the game is played. If there were no send-off, a player like Messi would have been a cripple by his early twenties. I have big fears for players like Selwood who have taken so many head knocks.

 

[Stab Pass]

I get that the games are different, but it's not for me a reason to not have a send-off rule. It just seems a fundamental principle of sport that the umpire or the ref has the ability to send a player off. Maybe you play with one less on the bench if it's too much of a head-spin to imagine a game of AFL of 17 v 18. This idea that somehow it's too risky to give that much power to an umpire is bogus. I know that umpires make mistakes. Fwiw, the MRO has a far worse record. And I know that an umpire can't pick up on every offence committed in a game (that's where video footage can come into it). But if an umpire sees a player engage in conduct that is a) against the rules, and b) seriously injures or is likely to serious injure another player, they should just send that player off. The game would go on. There wouldn't be this constant speculation about "is he or isn't he in hot water" that is just pointless and frustrating for any reasonable person.

Red Card would be a disaster. So there is something that happens off the ball, no umpire sees it. Do they red card on what they think happened or do they let it pass? Do we go to an ARC style system and wait for 10 mins will we have what would amount to a mini tribunal? There's what looks like a bad incident, guy doesn't move and is assisted off. Red Card to the offender. 10 mins later the guy who was lying prone "recovers" and is back on the field seemingly fine but the Red Card guy is now out of the game. The game has survived 150 years without a send off rule and there is a tiny fraction of the bad stuff that used to happen. As for last night, yep Prestia went off and took no further part and it brought Soldo on at which stage the game changed. Two rucks got on top of Stanley and Blitz and Soldo on the ground meant Nank drifted back into the hole at CHB and caused all sort of trouble. The sub was brought in to make the game "fairer" and most clubs have abused it. Red Card would be 100 times worse.

 

[you pick one]

It's about time players realized that tackling a player without the ball is the far preferred option these days. It's 1 free kick in a game with 40 of them, versus 4 weeks or more off. Simple decision, and the same thought process Danger should have had last year as well.

I thought the contest was the best I've witnessed in some years,it's shame about Prestia but lets not over react here and sanitise the game any further,sure it was poor judgment from Stewart and a bit careless but lets face it if you are going to place 36 combatants in a confined space at the pace this game is played there is every chance someone will or could be hurt,we have to except that.

 

[standupand]

Red Card would be a disaster. So there is something that happens off the ball, no umpire sees it. Do they red card on what they think happened or do they let it pass? Do we go to an ARC style system and wait for 10 mins will we have what would amount to a mini tribunal? There's what looks like a bad incident, guy doesn't move and is assisted off. Red Card to the offender. 10 mins later the guy who was lying prone "recovers" and is back on the field seemingly fine but the Red Card guy is now out of the game. The game has survived 150 years without a send off rule and there is a tiny fraction of the bad stuff that used to happen. As for last night, yep Prestia went off and took no further part and it brought Soldo on at which stage the game changed. Two rucks got on top of Stanley and Blitz and Soldo on the ground meant Nank drifted back into the hole at CHB and caused all sort of trouble. The sub was brought in to make the game "fairer" and most clubs have abused it. Red Card would be 100 times worse.

Something off the ball? - that's where the many other umpires on the field help out. If no-one saw it, then ok there can be video review after the game and a suspension. Someone who's hit recovers and keeps playing? - great, all the better for them. It's not about somehow squaring the ledger. It's about the fact you can't engage in an inherently dangerous act on the field and expect to stay on the field.

 

[Cataholic]

Red Card would be a disaster. So there is something that happens off the ball, no umpire sees it. Do they red card on what they think happened or do they let it pass? Do we go to an ARC style system and wait for 10 mins will we have what would amount to a mini tribunal? There's what looks like a bad incident, guy doesn't move and is assisted off. Red Card to the offender. 10 mins later the guy who was lying prone "recovers" and is back on the field seemingly fine but the Red Card guy is now out of the game. The game has survived 150 years without a send off rule and there is a tiny fraction of the bad stuff that used to happen. As for last night, yep Prestia went off and took no further part and it brought Soldo on at which stage the game changed. Two rucks got on top of Stanley and Blitz and Soldo on the ground meant Nank drifted back into the hole at CHB and caused all sort of trouble. The sub was brought in to make the game "fairer" and most clubs have abused it. Red Card would be 100 times worse.

They can't even use the score review wisely, or interpret the basic rules of the game with any consistency, so I have no idea how they'd cope with the power of a Red Card.

 

[catempire]

When does the MRO call come out?

 

[Romeoh1]

Red Card would be a disaster. So there is something that happens off the ball, no umpire sees it. Do they red card on what they think happened or do they let it pass? Do we go to an ARC style system and wait for 10 mins will we have what would amount to a mini tribunal? There's what looks like a bad incident, guy doesn't move and is assisted off. Red Card to the offender. 10 mins later the guy who was lying prone "recovers" and is back on the field seemingly fine but the Red Card guy is now out of the game. The game has survived 150 years without a send off rule and there is a tiny fraction of the bad stuff that used to happen. As for last night, yep Prestia went off and took no further part and it brought Soldo on at which stage the game changed. Two rucks got on top of Stanley and Blitz and Soldo on the ground meant Nank drifted back into the hole at CHB and caused all sort of trouble. The sub was brought in to make the game "fairer" and most clubs have abused it. Red Card would be 100 times worse.

Yep- am an absolute no on red cards in AFL. I’ve no doubt they will never bring it in.

 

[foxdog50]

See the Richmond board has got a thread going on about. " How many weeks for this dog act" with a poll etc..
They are very classy people

 

[Stab Pass]

Something off the ball? - that's where the many other umpires on the field help out. If no-one saw it, then ok there can be video review after the game and a suspension. Someone who's hit recovers and keeps playing? - great, all the better for them. It's not about somehow squaring the ledger. It's about the fact you can't engage in an inherently dangerous act on the field and expect to stay on the field.

So we have a Red Card but only if the umpires see the incident otherwise it's all fine and we review after the game? King hit someone behind play and you get to stay on. Potential accidental head clash in a contest and Red Card? Someone does a nice "simulation" and pretends they have been badly injured and the opposition player gets sent off and it's all good? Most things that happen on a footy ground are "inherently dangerous". Tackling, smothering, sherperding, bumping and just contesting the ball. How does an umpire in a split second work out what was intentional and what was an accident?

 

[catempire]

Any red card rule has to have video review, like other sports, and in Aussie rules should be one down on the interchange not 17 on field.

 

[standupand]

So we have a Red Card but only if the umpires see the incident otherwise it's all fine and we review after the game? King hit someone behind play and you get to stay on. Potential accidental head clash in a contest and Red Card? Someone does a nice "simulation" and pretends they have been badly injured and the opposition player gets sent off and it's all good? Most things that happen on a footy ground are "inherently dangerous". Tackling, smothering, sherperding, bumping and just contesting the ball. How does an umpire in a split second work out what was intentional and what was an accident?

I mean reportable offences. If an umpire can decide if someone's pushed in the back, or deliberately put the ball out of play, or whatever, they can decide if someone's intentionally elbowed or bumped someone in the head.

 

[Turbocat]

I am a definite NO on Red Card type situations.... that has the potential to go a lot further than what they introduce it for. I remember the introduction of video after Mathews.. and now where are we.



I aslo agree that suspension fundementally give no justice to those infringed.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

I think the correct penalty is 4 weeks - i dont think 3 weeks is enough for that incident

Like back in the day - the 60s - 4 weeks was the standard penalty right across the board ( Johnny Devine got a few of them - youd pick up the paper every now and again - and Devine had copped 4 weeks - hah ) for punching/striking or hitting someone with a forearm to the head . And kicking was really frowned upon - that would cop 6-8 weeks - and a couple went for that

So i think the correct penalty is 4 weeks - however i think the AFL will give him 5 weeks - simply because of the concern re head knocks - and the long term affects - eg Shaun Smith

 

[Strange Cat]

Any red card rule has to have video review, like other sports, and in Aussie rules should be one down on the interchange not 17 on field.

Do we really want more changes to the game , the red card system makes it extremely unfair for the team and would be used as a systematic tactic by the coaches like with any other rule/changes

It sucks but it was more accidental that an intentional hit like the common occurancea in the 80’s

 

[catempire]

Do we really want more changes to the game , the red card system makes it extremely unfair for the team and would be used as a systematically tactic by the coaches like with any other rule/changes

It sucks but it was more accidental that an intentional hit like the common occurancea in the 80’s

Not sure what you mean. Unfair how?

 

[Strange Cat]

Not sure what you mean. Unfair how?

You have a umpire that will determine a player to sit out the game …they have enough trouble calling out incorrect penalties or not being in position to observe a infringement….it would have a lot of unintended consequences just imagine an incorrect call in a Grand final resulting in the side losing the game

 

[catempire]

You have a umpire that will determine a player to sit out the game …they have enough trouble calling out incorrect penalties or not being in position to observe a infringement….it would have a lot of unintended consequences just imagine an incorrect call in a Grand final resulting in the side losing the game

Hence the video review.

 

[winty]

Just heard on the 11 o click news the AFL are looking at not counting the goal that was kicked while Prestia lay injured as the game should not of continued while he was knocked could loose four points



Can't tackle a bloke who hasn't got the ball knock his head off was his only option

Heard a rumour in order to get him cleared of the charge, the club are thinking about changing Tom's surname by deed poll to Lynch.

 

[Strange Cat]

Hence the video review.

They can barely incorporate the video reviews of the goals consistently tbh

 

[Strange Cat]

Heard a rumour in order to get him cleared of the charge, the club are thinking about changing Tom's surname by deed poll to Lynch.

Honestly the defence may be that he was careless and late and factoring that Prestia was falling down to the ground which resulted in him being hit high accidentally as Stewart stated in the ground with no intent to hit him high

He should of went for the tackle or moved out the way and I think he knows that he will plead guilty