MRP / Trib. Tom Stewart - Result 4 week match suspension

[MC Extra Dollop]

Stewart was a big reason why Geelong won yesterday. Not sure it is tenable for a player to remain in the game when they have caused such a significant injury.

How would it work? He wasn't reported during the game, or at least it wasn't obvious and it hasn't been mentioned anywhere that I've seen, including the official match report. Surely that would have to be the first criteria for a send off rule, that the umpires on the day deem it serious and blatant enough to report it on the spot.

 

[Heisenberg_]

Lynch intent and action was worse in some of those incidents. he just had bad aim that didnt connect.

You’re a clown

 

[My Third Nipple]

Reminded me more of dean Solomon cleaning up Ling. He got 8 weeks for that.

Though Ling really milked it. Went down like he was shot by a sniper and his medical report said he was nearly decapitated.

Ling really Milked a compressed fracture to his cheekbone, requiring surgery.
Cmon man.
He played 3 weeks later not 2.
Stewart has his shoulder and elbow tucked in, Solomon’s elbow is away from his body and flushed Ling in the face.
Stewart will receive 4-6 weeks and rightly so.

The character assassination from some people is unwarranted. It was a shocking execution of a football act and will be dealt with accordingly. As stated from a few Geelong players interviews this morning, thoughts are with Dion and his family, he’s a gun player and having a super year. Hope he recovers quickly and we get to see him back to his best asap.

 

[mrposhman]

How would it work? He wasn't reported during the game, or at least it wasn't obvious and it hasn't been mentioned anywhere that I've seen, including the official match report. Surely that would have to be the first criteria for a send off rule, that the umpires on the day deem it serious and blatant enough to report it on the spot.

He was reported immediately. You hear the commentators say it when the free is paid to Graham.

 

[Frank Grimes]

Spot on. It will come down to that grading. Is the impact of a forearm to the head that concusses a player only high impact? If so, what would severe entail? It should be graded severe, but it’s Christian so it’s chook lotto really.

I think if a player loses consciousness then it should definitely be severe imo. Prestia was knocked out cold for a fair amount of time and appeared to look confused and didn't know where he was when came to. If that isn't severe impact then I don't know what is.

 

[sherb]

Great for Coach Scott to step up and tell us what a great player Tom was and how he regrets it. It was a shame he didn’t mention the welfare of Prestia either. Tom didn’t go up to Dion at the end of the game to see how he was either. But yeah, let’s all wrap our arms around Tom.

Yes, Tom is the true victim in this to some it would seem

 

[sherb]

I reckon Richmond started this whole good bloke at the tribunal stuff anyway. Remember ******* Waleed Aly coming in to defend Houli for punching a guy by saying he does good stuff? Who gives a *, it's football, you break the rules you suffer the punishment regardless if your surname is Gandhi.

And remember the outrage amongst Richmond supporters when Houli's sentence got upgraded to something realistic?

 

[Stephen Reynoldson]

Long time ago but from memory, Dean Solomon copped 8 weeks for his flying elbow in the Cameron Lings face that broke his cheek.

Yes eerily similar incidents…

 

[sherb]

Always amusing to see BF posters trying to use criminal slang - 'dog' - when they get hysterical.

It would be used by Geelong supporters here if it were one of their players on the receiving end and not Prestia.

I'd have thought you've been around BF long enough to know how things work here.

 

[tenderwarrior]

Get your facts straight before posting bulls*** lmao

No drama, settle down - I have already acknowledged my error. If everybody "got their facts straight" before posting the site would be called 'Tiny Footy'

 

[FourthTimeAround]

Always amusing to see BF posters trying to use criminal slang - 'dog' - when they get hysterical.

It's a bump that got a player high.

Always amusing to see BF posters trying to use generic language when they try to downplay a serious incident.

 

[sherb]

In the current age Milburn would not have done what he did.

Players play to the rules of the era they play in.

What Milburn did wasn't within the rules of that era either.

 

[Altum Volantes]

Yes eerily similar incidents…

That was such a snipe.

 

[sherb]

There was a free kick? What are you on about? And the fact there wasn't a stop in play is actually part of the discussion, play should have been stopped as the ball went over a clearly concussed players head.

Further, in this send off rule type thing, I imagine these incidents would be reviewed and dog shotting someone in the head would have seen Stewart sent off in review. I doubt umpires would be given the right to straight up send players off without review.

That's the only way I think the send-off would work in the AFL too, ie following video review.

Certainly I agree, Stewart would have been sent off after review if that process existed.

 

[Roachy8]

How would it work? He wasn't reported during the game, or at least it wasn't obvious and it hasn't been mentioned anywhere that I've seen, including the official match report. Surely that would have to be the first criteria for a send off rule, that the umpires on the day deem it serious and blatant enough to report it on the spot.

He was reported immediately. You hear the commentators say it when the free is paid to Graham.

Yes - reported instantly, and free kick was paid to Richmond.
Taken by Jack Graham because Dion was not able - he was too busy dreaming about pink unicorns and bunny rabbits after getting his lights knocked out...

 

[sherb]

How would it work? He wasn't reported during the game, or at least it wasn't obvious and it hasn't been mentioned anywhere that I've seen, including the official match report. Surely that would have to be the first criteria for a send off rule, that the umpires on the day deem it serious and blatant enough to report it on the spot.

Have a listen.

 

[Dirty_banchez]

How would it work? He wasn't reported during the game, or at least it wasn't obvious and it hasn't been mentioned anywhere that I've seen, including the official match report. Surely that would have to be the first criteria for a send off rule, that the umpires on the day deem it serious and blatant enough to report it on the spot.

It's pretty ******* easy. Bunker stops the game, they tell the umpires to send Stewart off.

* out of here with this "too hard" bullshit. Anybody who watched the replay knew Stewart was in trouble.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

It's pretty ******* easy. Bunker stops the game, they tell the umpires to send Stewart off.

* out of here with this "too hard" bullshit. Anybody who watched the replay knew Stewart was in trouble.

This one was pretty obvious. Elbow in or not, he had no intent to spoil.
It's going to be a massive can of worms in contested situations though, when 2 players have made genuine attempts, and one is taken high

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

It's pretty ******* easy. Bunker stops the game, they tell the umpires to send Stewart off.

* out of here with this "too hard" bullshit. Anybody who watched the replay knew Stewart was in trouble.

Yeah OK. Let's see how everyone likes it when they stop the game for three minutes and decide it's inconclusive, or they send a player off and then he's cleared at the tribunal a couple of days later. It's easy when you're looking at an isolated example.

 

[tiger_tough]

I reckon Richmond started this whole good bloke at the tribunal stuff anyway. Remember ******* Waleed Aly coming in to defend Houli for punching a guy by saying he does good stuff? Who gives a *, it's football, you break the rules you suffer the punishment regardless if your surname is Gandhi.

Ah yes, we were the first club to make buses of a character reference

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Have a listen.

Fair enough, thanks for clearing it up.

 

[sherb]

Yeah OK. Let's see how everyone likes it when they stop the game for three minutes and decide it's inconclusive, or they send a player off and then he's cleared at the tribunal a couple of days later. It's easy when you're looking at an isolated example.

You can see the point though surely?

Stewart takes opposition player out of game early on and then goes on to play a significant role in a very close win.

There is certainly an argument to be made that the offending player shouldn't have the benefit of staying on the field in those circumstances.

What you are essentially arguing against is the send off rule itself (regardless of how it is implemented) because with the rule there is always a chance that the umpire/referee gets it wrong.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Reminds me of the time I intentionally ran over one of the apprentices with the forklift and then had the courage to put it out of my mind and finish the shift.

You can make light of it if you want, but when something like that happens in the first quarter of a game there's always going to be the question of how the instigator will respond. If Stewart checked out of the game from that point - probably Geelong's biggest game of the season to date - and with a big spell on the sidelines to come, it would have been a disaster for Geelong.

 

[Roachy8]

You can make light of it if you want, but when something like that happens in the first quarter of a game there's always going to be the question of how the instigator will respond. If Stewart checked out of the game from that point - probably Geelong's biggest game of the season to date - and with a big spell on the sidelines to come, it would have been a disaster for Geelong.

Yes - and the fact that Prestia had zero opportunity to respond/contribute beyond half way through the first qtr in probably Richmond's biggest game of the season sucks bigger eggs.
It was a disaster for Richmond yes?

 

[JackFlash]

Dog act - an action seen as treacherous, cowardly or unacceptable.

Seems pretty fitting in this instance to me.

No such thing as a Dog act in AFL football and none of those descriptions fit Tom Stewart. He has an impeccable record, by all accounts he's a pretty good bloke. He's made a mistake and he will cop a penalty. Irrational thoughts by Richmond fans is understandable, the trial by media is not. He will plead guilty and cop 4 weeks maybe 3 due to media hysteria? It's a contact sport and this was not a deliberate action, he chose to bump the smaller guy and got him high, it's an unfortunate error made by Stewart, who doesn't make many. He made a mistake playing a high-octane game with split-second decisions, he's just made a bad one and that's all. 3 or 4 weeks.