Watch the vision. Runs past the ball, aims, and connects.
Ryan in hot water after brutal bump on young Dee
Liam Ryan makes high contact with Jake Bowey
www.afl.com.au
MRP / Trib. Tom Stewart - Result 4 week match suspension
- Thread starter hawkman
- Start date
- Tagged users None
www.afl.com.au
- Oct 19, 2020
- 22,157
- 31,996
- AFL Club
- Richmond
What's your point?Watch the vision. Runs past the ball, aims, and connects.
Ryan in hot water after brutal bump on young Dee
Liam Ryan makes high contact with Jake Bowey
Expected 3, 4 on the strong side, but not unreasonable.
Kudas to Stewart for taking responsibility at every stage.
Kudas to Stewart for taking responsibility at every stage.
On one hand you're saying it's all about the health and well-being of the players (CTE etc), and those are good points to make. I applaud that view.
But on the other hand, you're making all these points right now, and not at the many other times well-being of the players has been a talking point. I showed you a similar action from earlier this year that could have resulted in a similar outcome. You dismiss it because the similar action (shoulder to head) resulted in a less serious outcome for the player.
Could it be that there's some degree of emotional irrationality at play here? Maybe we all need to step back and take a breath.
- Mar 26, 2015
- 11,873
- 21,963
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melbourne Tigers, Bendigo Braves, OKC
So you're saying Houli wasn't a top bloke?
- Mar 26, 2015
- 11,873
- 21,963
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melbourne Tigers, Bendigo Braves, OKC
What incident are you guys talking about?
I know it's not the Stewart one, because his elbow was tucked in the whole time and he never left the ground.
Wojcinski
Brownlow Medallist
lol what an absoloute ******* lie, Hawkins wasn't remonstrating with an umpire, he was remonstrating with another player when the umpire put his hand up to Tom who pushed it away.
A bit surprised, only 4, thought it would've been 5/6
Yes, if you miscalculate a traffic light, go through on a red and have a collision, nobody's interested in "miscalculation". I think 4 matches is about right.
Jonas got 5 for similar
- Mar 26, 2015
- 11,873
- 21,963
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melbourne Tigers, Bendigo Braves, OKC
Um, what?!?
Richmond supporters have really embarrassed themselves in here, but this is next level and might go a long way to explaining a few things.
Most people thought Cochin was right to play?
Out of 505 votes, 338 thought that it should have resulted in a punishment that meant he would miss at least one game.
Last time I checked, 33% was not most people.
- Mar 26, 2015
- 11,873
- 21,963
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melbourne Tigers, Bendigo Braves, OKC
Jesus mate! And you're telling others to get their eyes checked.Sick burn, at least you gave it the ol’ college try I guess?!
He intentionally raised his elbow and followed through into Dion Prestias head, after the ball had clearly left the area.
I'm assuming you can show us this raised elbow?
His elbow is tucked in the whole time. There's pics in this thread that show that. It was a poorly executed bump and the ball was still within 5m, so it was in play.
Even the Chinese government doesn't rewrite history that much.
Grockadoc
Brownlow Medallist
- Jul 25, 2008
- 25,234
- 48,148
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Fighting Furies, Man Utd, Cavaliers
Lol. What an absolute ******* lie.
He's clearly remonstrating with an opposition player here and not an umpire...
- Mar 26, 2015
- 11,873
- 21,963
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melbourne Tigers, Bendigo Braves, OKC
People do seem to get confused with the intentional grading. It's not whether his intention was to bump. It's whether his intention was to injure.
A bump is still a legal move in AFL, but it can be executed poorly, carelessly or recklessly, creating illegal contact. Much the same as a tackle.
If a player gets reported from a dangerous tackle, they don't ask if the player intentionally tackled.
No way cotchin should've played, was a Barry Hall type decision that, every man and his dog knew they should've been rubbed out
You were throwing around pretty strong adjectives about Stewart so I just wanted to see if your views were consistent when it came to your own players. Obviously not!
Why is that relevant at all?
- Oct 19, 2020
- 22,157
- 31,996
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Lynch has concussed anyone.
Why make stuff up?
It is nothing to do with intending to injure. It is whether he intended to commit the offence he was reported for, ie bumping to the head. It is clear as day in the Tribunal guidelines. Intention to injure doesn’t come into it., see below.
What I think is very disappointing here is there is no exploration of this question of intent at the Tribunal. Why? One very loose end in all of this is that the person who made the grading of careless the AFL used at the Tribunal was…….Chris Scott’s twin brother Brad Scott. Do you think that is acceptable?
Intentional conduct
A Player intentionally commits a Classifiable Offence if the Player engages in the conduct constituting the Reportable Offence with the intention of committing that offence. An intention is a state of mind. Intention may be formed on the spur of the moment. The issue is whether it existed at the time at which the Player engaged in the conduct.
Whether or not a Player intentionally commits a Reportable Offence depends upon the state of mind of the Player when he does the act with which he is charged. What the Player did is often the best evidence of the purpose he had in mind. In some cases, the evidence that the act provides may be so strong as to compel an inference of what his intent was, no matter what he may say about it afterwards. If the immediate consequence of an act is obvious and inevitable, the deliberate doing of the act carries with it evidence of an intention to produce the consequence.
For example, a strike will be regarded as Intentional where a Player delivers a blow to an opponent with the intention of striking him.
The state of a Player’s mind is an objective fact and has to be proved in the same way as other objective facts. The whole of the relevant evidence has to be considered. If the matter is heard by the Tribunal, the Tribunal will weigh the evidence of the Player as to what his intentions were along with whatever inference as to his intentions can be drawn from his conduct or other relevant facts. The Player may or may not be believed by the Tribunal. Notwithstanding what the Player says, the Tribunal may be able to conclude from the whole of the evidence that he intentionally committed the act constituting the Reportable Offence.
Especially since they were supposedly "Happy and proud of the result despite losing" and "Home and Away wins mean nothing".
Imagine if it was a game that meant something and they're weren't happy about losing.
Over 60% thought Cotchin’s actions were worth nothing or just a fine. Under 40% thought his actions actually deserved a suspension.
The week off that Cotchin would have served if he’d been found guilty was for it being a third offence for the year, not for the actual offence committed.
Last edited:
for consistency sakes. So you want to make up new harsh rules now just for geelong and ignore precedent.
Your player wasnt unconscious either.
Jonas connected with an elbow. Not a bump.
Similar threads
- Poll
