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

[Grockadoc]

Patrick Dangerfield's late bump on Jake Kelly in Round 1 2021.

Dangerfield made a deliberate late bump on Kelly after disposal got his head and Kelly was stretchered off.

MRO classified the bump as careless, high contact with severe impact. Dangerfield got 3 weeks.

I think there's a lot of people here that don't seem to understand what Intentional actually means in the context of Rough Conduct charges. The AFL would have to show that Stewart intentionally committed a reportable offence. In that he meant to hit Prestia high, but there's nothing here that indicates that. No raised elbow, no jumping into Prestia to get him higher. The bar for intentional in rough conduct is ridiculously high and results in just about all instances getting classified as careless. Also why we're hearing all about how out of character it is for Stewart, how he's a scrupulously fair player.

And we're potentially not even going to get to severe impact with Prestia not stretchered off, able to walk down to the room under his own power.

Now you're starting to look at careless, high contact, high impact which is 2 weeks.

Even if it stays with the severe rating, it'll be careless, high contact and severe impact, which is direct to the Tribunal with a 3+ min. And the Tribunal isn't going to go above the minimum.


Poorly executed bump means classified as careless. And thats 2 weeks.

Other than the fact that Scotty stated that Stewart told he he "chose" to bump. By choosing to bump, he intended to make contact with Prestia. The action was intentional. Hard to see it being graded as careless when Stewart already stated he made a choice.

 

[Tony Harrison]

Geelong will do the same tactic as the eagles when they got rioli off for cleaning up Rowell (which was ridiculous). They’ll say he was committed, wasn’t intentional etc etc.

Chris Scott has put it on record that he said, “I ran past the ball and chose to bump”.
Stewart will accept what they hand down.

 

[Grockadoc]

Do you think Tom will call in a character reference?

No need. Scotty did it for him last night in his presser.

 

[Belnakor]

Chris Scott has put it on record that he said, “I ran past the ball and chose to bump”.
Stewart will accept what they hand down.

Lol mate.

They will be cooking up every excuse under the sun.

Remember the gaff hit ? He is still claiming he didn’t mean to hit him. Meant to hit his collarbone or some s**t.

WCE also claimed they were good mates off the field and played golf together. Which was a complete fabrication.

I’m not saying geelong are as immoral as WCE (who challenged riolis text book high bump the same week a former player said his concussion issues are life altering) but just wait until we get there. They already building a narrative.

 

[Mantastic]

you must be on some of the Geelong meth to come up with that ...

 

[mrposhman]

How clever. Yeah because Houli coward punching Jed Lamb is just so much better...seriously the tribalism with you guys is hysterical sometimes.

Coward punched? Are you serious!! It was nothing like the Gaff punch that was a coward punch. Houli had no idea where Lambs head was, he swung his arm back (recklessly) and collected his head when he was trying to break Lambs hold on him (he was scragging him).

It was rightly punished as the swinging arm was reckless and knocked the guy out, and for what its worth it deserved more than the 2 weeks he was initially given but calling it a coward punch is a massive overstatement (ironic to bring up Richmond tribalism and then over react the other way). Geelong fans complaining about the term "dog act" of Stewarts hit and then want to re-write history on what Houli did. It was reckless and a dangerous swinging arm, but certainly not a coward pucnh. Coward punch infers there was intent to hit him in the head which there wasn't.

 

[Stottzy]

It wasn't a legal bump though. Even if he got him square in the sholuder, if the ball is long gone, as it was, that is a downfield free by the rules.

The action is legal though. It's not like he raised a elbow or threw a punch. I'm not saying it didn't deserve a free, or a report. But it was a clumsy execution. Just the way the media are going on in the last 24 hours, you'd think this was the worst thing since Matthews hit on Bruns.

 

[sherb]

Coward punched? Are you serious!! It was nothing like the Gaff punch that was a coward punch. Houli had no idea where Lambs head was, he swung his arm back (recklessly) and collected his head when he was trying to break Lambs hold on him (he was scragging him).

It was rightly punished as the swinging arm was reckless and knocked the guy out, and for what its worth it deserved more than the 2 weeks he was initially given but calling it a coward punch is a massive overstatement (ironic to bring up Richmond tribalism and then over react the other way). Geelong fans complaining about the term "dog act" of Stewarts hit and then want to re-write history on what Houli did. It was reckless and a dangerous swinging arm, but certainly not a coward pucnh. Coward punch infers there was intent to hit him in the head which there wasn't.

Lol, where did he think it was - affixed to his waist?

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

Coward punched? Are you serious!! It was nothing like the Gaff punch that was a coward punch. Houli had no idea where Lambs head was, he swung his arm back (recklessly) and collected his head when he was trying to break Lambs hold on him (he was scragging him).

It was rightly punished as the swinging arm was reckless and knocked the guy out, and for what its worth it deserved more than the 2 weeks he was initially given but calling it a coward punch is a massive overstatement (ironic to bring up Richmond tribalism and then over react the other way). Geelong fans complaining about the term "dog act" of Stewarts hit and then want to re-write history on what Houli did. It was reckless and a dangerous swinging arm, but certainly not a coward pucnh. Coward punch infers there was intent to hit him in the head which there wasn't.

No need to rewrite history. It is what it is.

Richmond fans wanting blood as if their players are clean.
Stones and glass houses.

 

[one eyedtiger]

How clever. Yeah because Houli coward punching Jed Lamb is just so much better...seriously the tribalism with you guys is hysterical sometimes.

I mean since bringing up past incidents is apparently relevant to this one




I guess that means Geelong fans can't have an opinion on this either? Using your logic of course, you have no leg to stand on. Your club has been doing this for years.

It's a bad hit and he'll go for 3+, but you bringing up Houli, KB, Jack Dyer and Jesus is as relevant as me bringing up Milburn. It's not and it's deflecting from this incident, which is probably your intention.

 

[Grockadoc]

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 bad one and that's all. 3 or 4 weeks.

No such thing as dog acts in football huh? Try telling that to Geelong Supporters and their thoughts on Matthews, Solomon, Lynch, Cotchin etc...

 

[Shadow89]

Coward punched? Are you serious!! It was nothing like the Gaff punch that was a coward punch. Houli had no idea where Lambs head was, he swung his arm back (recklessly) and collected his head when he was trying to break Lambs hold on him (he was scragging him).

It was rightly punished as the swinging arm was reckless and knocked the guy out, and for what its worth it deserved more than the 2 weeks he was initially given but calling it a coward punch is a massive overstatement (ironic to bring up Richmond tribalism and then over react the other way). Geelong fans complaining about the term "dog act" of Stewarts hit and then want to re-write history on what Houli did. It was reckless and a dangerous swinging arm, but certainly not a coward pucnh. Coward punch infers there was intent to hit him in the head which there wasn't.

This is exactly the tribalism I'm talking about. To act like Houli's act was unintentional and just a bit reckless, while Stewart's was 100% intentional and designed to take out Prestia.

I know it's hard, but maybe, just maybe you guys aren't always the patron victimized saints you guys always think you are.

 

[Grockadoc]

This is exactly the tribalism I'm talking about. To act like Houli's act was unintentional and just a bit reckless, while Stewart's was 100% intentional and designed to take out Prestia.

I know it's hard, but maybe, just maybe you guys aren't always the patron victimized saints you guys always think you are.

It wasn't designed to take out Prestia, but the bump was 100% intentional.

Intentional action with an unintentional outcome.

 

[Shadow89]

I mean since bringing up past incidents is apparently relevant to this one




I guess that means Geelong fans can't have an opinion on this either? Using your logic of course, you have no leg to stand on. Your club has been doing this for years.

It's a bad hit and he'll go for 3+, but you bringing up Houli, KB, Jack Dyer and Jesus is as relevant as me bringing up Milburn. It's not and it's deflecting from this incident, which is probably your intention.

Lol no, it's actually not. It's designed to expose exactly how you guys behave when confronted with similar acts committed by your own players.

I'm simply saying, that if posters want to call Stewart- a previously squeaky clean and fair player - a dog, for a severe error in technique and judgement that is unacceptable and deserves at least a month off, then the same applies to swinging elbows and punches, the likes of which Houli, Vlastuin and Lynch have all undertaken.

You always act like you're the victims and 'trial by media' when one of your own does something s**t, but the minute another player does it from an oppo club - especially against one of your own - then all your previous stances go out the window.

That's tribalism.

 

[Roachy8]

No need to rewrite history. It is what it is.

Richmond fans wanting blood as if their players are clean.
Stones and glass houses.

I don’t want blood, I really don’t care too much how many weeks Stewart gets to be honest.
I’m sure next time we play Cats he will be back anyway so that won’t impact us.

What I do want is Dion given the opportunity to play a full game yesterday and hopefully contribute to a win for the Tigers in a very important game.

Oh well - sucked in us I guess.

 

[Wojcinski]

It wasn't designed to take out Prestia, but the bump was 100% intentional.

Intentional action with an unintentional outcome.

Which grades it as careless

 

[Grockadoc]

Lol no, it's actually not. It's designed to expose exactly how you guys behave when confronted with similar acts committed by your own players.

I'm simply saying, that if posters want to call Stewart- a previously squeaky clean and fair player - a dog, for a severe error in technique and judgement that is unacceptable and deserves at least a month off, then the same applies to swinging elbows and punches, the likes of which Houli, Vlastuin and Lynch have all undertaken.

You always act like you're the victims and 'trial by media' when one of your own does something s**t, but the minute another player does it from an oppo club - especially against one of your own - then all your previous stances go out the window.

That's tribalism.

Difference between being a dog and committing a Dog act. Houli is an example. Geelong supporters are calling it a king hit which is a dog act. But ask anyone who knows or has met him, he is the loveliest, most gentle person you could ever meet.

Acts generally don't define a person unless they are repetitive.

 

[mrposhman]

This is exactly the tribalism I'm talking about. To act like Houli's act was unintentional and just a bit reckless, while Stewart's was 100% intentional and designed to take out Prestia.

I know it's hard, but maybe, just maybe you guys aren't always the patron victimized saints you guys always think you are.

Have I ever said that I think Stewarts was designed to intentionally take out Prestia?? Nope. It was a poor act but I know that it was poorly executed much like Houlis was. Both will cop a similar punishment for it.

 

[Grockadoc]

Which grades it as careless

And this is where the system is broken. The intent SHOULD be on the action itself, not the outcome. Stewart intended to bump. Therefore it should be classed as intentional.

 

[Shadow89]

Difference between being a dog and committing a Dog act. Houli is an example. Geelong supporters are calling it a king hit which is a dog act. But ask anyone who knows or has met him, he is the loveliest, most gentle person you could ever meet.

Acts generally don't define a person unless they are repetitive.

You might want to tell that to your board - because that's exactly how most would describe Stewart as well.

 

[one eyedtiger]

Lol no, it's actually not. It's designed to expose exactly how you guys behave when confronted with similar acts committed by your own players.

I'm simply saying, that if posters want to call Stewart- a previously squeaky clean and fair player - a dog, for a severe error in technique and judgement that is unacceptable and deserves at least a month off, then the same applies to swinging elbows and punches, the likes of which Houli, Vlastuin and Lynch have all undertaken.

You always act like you're the victims and 'trial by media' when one of your own does something s**t, but the minute another player does it from an oppo club - especially against one of your own - then all your previous stances go out the window.

That's tribalism.

Agree with the bolded part, good to see you admit he should go and it's an unacceptable act. Since this topic is about Stewart and his bump, it's all I personally want to discuss. Not footy fans bias towards their own sides.

As for tribalism, I mean are you new to sport? You seem to have an issue with fans being blindly supportive of their team, then you should probably steer clear of bigfooty, it's what 90% of this place is all about. And you're just going to end up in sh1t fights, which is 90% of bigfooty. On second thought maybe you are in the right place.

 

[Wojcinski]

And this is where the system is broken. The intent SHOULD be on the action itself, not the outcome. Stewart intended to bump. Therefore it should be classed as intentional.

I would disagree, only on the grounds that his intention was to bump, not to take Prestia's head off. He ****ed it up and should cop his whack. Intential for mine, is something that would either be determined premeditated or as a 'non-football' action like gouging or punching

 

[FourthTimeAround]

The action is legal though. It's not like he raised a elbow or threw a punch. I'm not saying it didn't deserve a free, or a report. But it was a clumsy execution. Just the way the media are going on in the last 24 hours, you'd think this was the worst thing since Matthews hit on Bruns.

It’s not illegal to punch at the ball either.

But if the ball was gone for a good second of play and you still punched at where it was a second ago and there was a head there, that’s just clumsy execution, right?

[/suspendbelief]

 

[Shadow89]

Agree with the bolded part, good to see you admit he should go and it's an unacceptable act. Since this topic is about Stewart and his bump, it's all I personally want to discuss. Not footy fans bias towards their own sides.

As for tribalism, I mean are you new to sport? You seem to have an issue with fans being blindly supportive of their team, then you should probably steer clear of bigfooty, it's what 90% of this place is all about. And you're just going to end up in sh1t fights, which is 90% of bigfooty. On second thought maybe you are in the right place.

Hard to argue with any of that. I genuinely accept blanket tribalism, but the rhetoric and tribalism being thrown around ad nauseum in some of these parts, is unprecedented and straight up unhinged. That's why I'm calling out the hypocrisy, because I'm sick of some of your more logic challenged supporters acting like Stewart is the anti christ himself, because he f*cked up a bump and took out one of your best players.

It's a football game, yet some of the 'theories' I've seen surrounding this incident, are just nuts.

 

[Grockadoc]

I would disagree, only on the grounds that his intention was to bump, not to take Prestia's head off. He ducked it up and should cop his whack. Intential for mine, is something that would either be determined premeditated or as a 'non-football' action like gouging or punching

You state that his intention was to bump, but not to take Prestia high?

According to the tribunal guidelines, a reportable offence will be classed as intentional if it WAS the intent of the player to make that act.

Did Stewart bump?

Yes.

Did he intend to bump?

Yes. He admitted he made this choice.

Therefore it HAS to be intentional.