SSSSSS
Brownlow Medallist
- Apr 18, 2011
- 26,353
- 66,021
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Six decades of domination
If Sicily or Greene did the same they'd be facing the firing squad.
-
AFLW 2025 - AFLW Trade and Draft - All the player moves
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Tom Stewart collision with Ollie Wines
- Thread starter Jim Cricket
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
And even when he's not in the news they froth over non-incidents trying to rev each other up. The sad thing is we'll have to put up with this for the next decade. Stewart will have retired, but the rabid Tiggies will latch onto someone else at Catland
- May 5, 2016
- 52,383
- 59,324
- AFL Club
- Geelong
It’s literally been a few months since Green had an incident where he tried to do something similar and kneed an opponent in the chest and escaped sanction.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Nobody is going to go thru all that effort to remove a fine. Nobody cares.
If anything probably not, but I doubt anyone at geelong cares about a small fine or arguing over semantics of exactly where he hit ( shoulder/beginning of neck) etc which is what would be the argument to reduce a fine. All reasonable actions were taken to avoid injury which is proven by the result ( no injury) so no arguments there
- Feb 13, 2011
- 12,408
- 15,772
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I mean you obviously care enough to go into bat for him on it. Such a weird hill to die on.
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
A roundhouse punch not intended to main??? What was it then? And he tried to flee the scene!
The fact he didn't connect was the difference between Lynch's career ending and 5 weeks, although many would say his career ended a few years ago.
You correlate with me posting on a public footy forum to the endeavor of pursuing legal action?? Dumb thing to say
Why is it that when you choose to bump then the player who is bumping has a duty of care to the player who is being bumped. However, you are allowed to jump in the air like a madman and land on a player ...no problem...and where is the duty of care then? And the commentators say when you're in the air you can't change direction. So what ..duty of care.
- May 5, 2016
- 52,383
- 59,324
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Just a disclaimer - because you don’t seem be able to even comment on any topic anymore without being accused of having a meltdown about it or ‘dying in a hill’ over it - I did say and still say I wouldn’t have had a problem with Stewart being suspended.
But this is a dumb comparison.
When you ‘choose to bump’ (add that to the annoying phrases thread) you are quite literally choosing to make physical contact with a player. You are choosing to forego the ball or at the very least, making the ball an equal target along with the body of a player. As such you have an inherent duty of care to hit the player legally.
Stewart wasn’t making an action that was aimed at making any physical contact. It wasn’t a tackle, bump or shepherd. It wasn’t an action that was GOING to make contact with someone, it was an action that in certain circumstances COULD make contact with someone and even then it would have to be almost a perfect storm for it to do damage and on top of all of that, his intent was simply to intercept a hand pass.
So yeah while I stand by him being a candidate for a suspension I don’t see how it falls under any similar duty of care mandate to bumping someone
I am speaking in general not about Stewart specifically but I would say your comment "It wasn’t a tackle, bump or shepherd. It wasn’t an action that was GOING to make contact with someone" is a joke because it did make contact.
What's the difference if a player jumps into a guy in a marking contest and hits him late he'll get games. If a player jumps into a player attempting to smother he does not have any duty of care to the other player. It's a massive anomaly.
- May 5, 2016
- 52,383
- 59,324
- AFL Club
- Geelong
When you try to intercept a hand pass a metre away from a player you don’t know that you’re going to make contact with them, do you.
When you bump them, barring an unforeseen circumstance or they actually evade you, you do.
Are they going to start including an equal duty of care for ‘electing to bump’ with aiming a hand pass now in case someone is behind you when you pull your arm back to wind up to hit the ball because you ‘could’ hit them?
At least try and avoid making an equivalency with an act like bumping, geez.
you can't fight that brand of stupid.
- May 5, 2016
- 52,383
- 59,324
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Seriously: make me a case why ‘duty of care’ would be the same for a player simply trying to spoil a handball well out in front of the player making it, as it is for a player who’s intent is SPECIFICALLY to hit (hard) an opponent. I want to hear your logic as to why they would be the same in both cases.
Definitely got him in the head. It was low impact so only a fine.
Geelong star learns fate after bump that floored rival
As Roos forward's punch results in banwww.nine.com.au
And fwiw, the top of the shoulder counts as "high".
AFL is corrupt
in other news water is wet
- May 5, 2016
- 52,383
- 59,324
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Its biggest sign of corruption is that it allows people like you unrestricted access to comment on the sport.
- Oct 19, 2020
- 31,998
- 43,700
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #118
What a disgraceful decision by the tribunal. They made a new interpretation for exactly that and they didn't follow through.
Make no mistake, Stewart knew exactly what he was doing like Maynard did. Only dirty players do that.
Make no mistake, Stewart knew exactly what he was doing like Maynard did. Only dirty players do that.
You sound like Collingwood supporters on the MB defending Daicos. This isn't about Lynch. Nowhere have I said that he isn't sometimes a dirty player as he absolutely loves the biff. This is about Stewart and how he's a dirty player, evidenced by the many indiscretions that I posted (and there would be others as I only did a quick search).
But all we hear from Geelong is how much of a good bloke he is, how these sort of actions are completely out of character for him and how he shows so much remorse (yet it keeps happening so clearly he doesn't give af). It's the same as Maynard who's also a dog.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Jim Cricket
Debutant
- Apr 28, 2025
- 70
- 95
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Thread starter
- #120
I actually believe both Stewart and Maynard should have no case to answer. My honest opinion is that both were entirely accidental. However, there was a huge outcry after Maynard's incident and the AFL changed some things afterwards.
"Smother Rule
In circumstances where a player elects to leave the ground in an attempt to smother the football, any reasonably foreseeable high contact with an opponent that is at least Low Impact will be deemed to be Careless at a minimum, unless the player has taken all reasonable steps to avoid that high contact and/or minimise the force of that high contact (for example, by adopting a body position that minimises the force of the high contact)."
Stewart at the very least contacted Wines on top of the shoulder and IMO, looking from the video taken from behind Wines, got him in the head. Most of the force went into Wines body though. I'm not really sure how it was graded low impact nor do I understand how he took all reasonable steps to avoid the high contact when he jumped straight at Wines and it was only Wines attempting to get out of Stewart's way that prevented a likely worse impact. When Lynch clocked Butts, Butts was on the ground smiling afterwards and got straight up whereas Wines was clearly shaken. Lynch's charge was severe impact.
"Stewart has been cited by the Match Review Officer for rough conduct, but the grading of careless conduct and low impact means he has escaped with a fine."
"Smother Rule
In circumstances where a player elects to leave the ground in an attempt to smother the football, any reasonably foreseeable high contact with an opponent that is at least Low Impact will be deemed to be Careless at a minimum, unless the player has taken all reasonable steps to avoid that high contact and/or minimise the force of that high contact (for example, by adopting a body position that minimises the force of the high contact)."
Stewart at the very least contacted Wines on top of the shoulder and IMO, looking from the video taken from behind Wines, got him in the head. Most of the force went into Wines body though. I'm not really sure how it was graded low impact nor do I understand how he took all reasonable steps to avoid the high contact when he jumped straight at Wines and it was only Wines attempting to get out of Stewart's way that prevented a likely worse impact. When Lynch clocked Butts, Butts was on the ground smiling afterwards and got straight up whereas Wines was clearly shaken. Lynch's charge was severe impact.
"Stewart has been cited by the Match Review Officer for rough conduct, but the grading of careless conduct and low impact means he has escaped with a fine."
I'd find it much easier to believe all this pious pontificating from Richmond fans, if exactly the same posters hadn't tied themselves in knots for weeks to defend/excuse/whitewash/downplay the actions of Lynch and Balta.
You got receipts on me downplaying Balta or Lynch?
5 weeks for "the potential to cause injury" when the oppo player was uninjured and similar actions (Curtis punching the Saints player in the throat) get 1 week and no additional potential to cause injury loading. That's not downplaying Lynch, that's just rank inconsistency from the MRO/tribunal.
- May 5, 2016
- 52,383
- 59,324
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahah
Even by your admittedly dogshit standards this is setting a new low bar for stupidity
Wojcinski
Brownlow Medallist
the fact that this thread is full of Richmond supporters sooking about Stewart while Port fans (who actually saw the incident) don't care is very telling.
- May 5, 2016
- 52,383
- 59,324
- AFL Club
- Geelong
The deliberate part is the most hilarious. Like he orchestrated the whole thing. He’s the Keyser Soze of the afl
