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

[Wojcinski]

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.

Was Stewarts intention to bump Prestia in the head?

Everything a player does is intentional. The outcome of the action is not always what was intended and that is what careless means in this regard. If the MRO/Tribunal can reasonably determine that Stewart intended to take Prestia high, then it gets graded intentional. If they think he made a mess of the bump, it gets graded careless.

 

[Stottzy]

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]

Well yes. If he was going for the ball and he doesn't time it well and hit the player, then it's clumsy. Again, I'm all good for players getting suspended for being clumsy, I just won't accept that it's a dog act.

 

[Stephen Reynoldson]

It reminds me of roughy’s bump in the gf, which was roundly praised and rightly so. Trying to fly the flag and put some heat on the oppo in a big game.

One perfectly timed, one badly

 

[Tony Harrison]

It reminds me of roughy’s bump in the gf, which was roundly praised and rightly so. Trying to fly the flag and put some heat on the oppo in a big game.

One perfectly timed, one badly

Roughy took him while the ball was there in his hands and went low?
And was more of a tackle than a bump.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Geez that is disgusting by Milburn. Could've killed him

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

How’s Hutchy, the starstruck flog. Milburn was in no danger and deserved every bit of the abuse coming his way, and absolute coward.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

It reminds me of roughy’s bump in the gf, which was roundly praised and rightly so. Trying to fly the flag and put some heat on the oppo in a big game.

One perfectly timed, one badly

Perfectly timed and executed tackle ona player with the ball vs a late, crude snipe mikes off? Happy for people to defend his character, I’ve no doubt he’s a nice bloke, but that was as sh*thouse a thing as you’ll see these days

 

[perplexed]

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.

I was intending to use jest to make the point that Stewart performance after the incident showed a clear lack of remorse for his actions.
In court when a defendant carries on after committing a crime as if nothing happened it is considered evidence of either premeditation or indifference. Somehow commentators and some Geelong supporters are spinning Stewart's performance as evidence of his stoicism. It isn't, it is evidence that he couldn't care less about what he did to Prestia except from the point of view of how it affects his reputation and wallet.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

One of the first posts I’ve seen that wishes Dion well - thanks

Hey I'm no better during the game: moving the magnets around in my head, "we should be able to get on top in the middle", "Stewart's gone for that, we better bloody win now" etc. But if your heart doesn't go out to the felled opponent and his loved ones once the dust has settled, you really need to revaluate things.

At the end of the day, these are human beings with families who are pushing their bodies to the limit and getting smashed for our entertainment.

It's why I'll defend Jerry Maguire to the death: that scene where Cuba Gooding's extended family is at someone's house watching him getting absolutely pulverised every time he touches the ball and his wife and son telling each other that 'it always looks worse on TV'. And then he gets hit and doesn't get back up. So we see about eight replays of it and then they go to a commercial break. Gut wrenching stuff. Gets me every time.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I was intending to use jest to make the point that Stewart performance after the incident showed a clear lack of remorse for his actions.
In court when a defendant carries on after committing a crime as if nothing happened it is considered evidence of either premeditation or indifference. Somehow commentators and some Geelong supporters are spinning Stewart's performance as evidence of his stoicism. It isn't, it is evidence that he couldn't care less about what he did to Prestia except from the point of view of how it affects his reputation and wallet.

That's one take, I guess.

The other take, I'd suggest is that he'd seriously let down his team with that incident and that he owed them big time. Players are trained to put everything behind them during a game, especially when things go wrong. That's done, focus on the next contest, the next involvement, the next time you need to execute a skill.

I've heard Emma Murray (Richmond's mindfulness coach) talk about it both in the professional world and through coping with her own personal tragedy: she likens it to a miner's helmet, where you can only effectively focus on one thing at a time and as soon as you let your mind be clouded by all these other thoughts is when you make mistakes.

 

[Spearman]

you literallg had an ex richmond player on the tribunal for twenty years. Brad scott has never had any links to geelong.

things like facts don't exist for simple minded conspiracists

OK lets play the game, from now on there shall be no more AFL employees or officials, including umpires that have played for, or worked for any AFL or their affiliated clubs.
Oh all country clubs will have to included in that ban too I'm afraid. You know, because there might be a tenuous connection with the player, like his great grand uncle once had a kick with them.

FFS some people need to devote their mental energy to things that benefit society.

 

[BF Tiger]

It’s happening…

 

[kingswood71]

Was Stewarts intention to bump Prestia in the head?

Everything a player does is intentional. The outcome of the action is not always what was intended and that is what careless means in this regard. If the MRO/Tribunal can reasonably determine that Stewart intended to take Prestia high, then it gets graded intentional. If they think he made a mess of the bump, it gets graded careless.

Will be an interesting call careless v intentional.
The Guidelines also say "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."
The more I watch it, the more I think he intended to clean him up. Probably not to knock him out, but the intent was there to hit him hard. Taking that as the "act", was the consequence inevitable and obvious? very probably...."the evidence that the act provides may be so strong as to compel an inference of what his intent was"

 

[Micksy]

Nothing in it. It was a footballing act and he's such a nice bloke.

 

[Micksy]

Blah, blah, blah

Did Stewart bump?

Yes.

Did he intend to bump?

Yes. He admitted he made this choice.

Therefore it HAS to be intentional.

So, if you tackle someone and they do their knee, is that intentional?

 

[perplexed]

Blah, blah, blah

So, if you tackle someone and they do their knee, is that intentional?

In the grading system 'intentional' doesn't relate to impact it relates to the contact.

Stewart clearly intended to bump Prestia, that makes it intentional. He bumped him to the head, that makes the contact high. He knocked him out, that classifies the impact as severe. None of these things can be seriously disputed.

 

[Wojcinski]

In the grading system 'intentional' doesn't relate to impact it relates to the contact.

Stewart clearly intended to bump Prestia, that makes it intentional. He bumped him to the head, that makes the contact high. He knocked him out, that classifies the impact as severe. None of these things can be seriously disputed.

so if I decide to tackle someone, then it is intentional, they do their knee because of my tackle, that makes the contact low and impact severe right?

 

[Sterge]

things like facts don't exist for simple minded conspiracists

OK lets play the game, from now on there shall be no more AFL employees or officials, including umpires that have played for, or worked for any AFL or their affiliated clubs.
Oh all country clubs will have to included in that ban too I'm afraid. You know, because there might be a tenuous connection with the player, like his great grand uncle once had a kick with them.

FFS some people need to devote their mental energy to things that benefit society.

There is more than 1 person on the tribunal, correct me if im wrong here but how many cases involving richmond did dunne actually sit on the panel for?

 

[Grockadoc]

In the grading system 'intentional' doesn't relate to impact it relates to the contact.

Stewart clearly intended to bump Prestia, that makes it intentional. He bumped him to the head, that makes the contact high. He knocked him out, that classifies the impact as severe. None of these things can be seriously disputed.

Exactly. From the tribunal guidelines below:

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. For example, a strike will be regarded as Intentional where a Player delivers a blow to an opponent with the intention of striking him.

Hard to argue that it wasn't Stewart's intention to bump when he admitted he CHOSE to bump. This shows intent to bump. He chose to bump. He delivered the bump. He got a player high, despite knowing that he could potentially get Prestia high.

Hard to argue anything other than intentional when a player admits to choosing an action, it meant there were alternatives in the first place.

 

[Grockadoc]

so if I decide to tackle someone, then it is intentional, they do their knee because of my tackle, that makes the contact low and impact severe right?

You seriously cannot be comparing a tackle to a head high bump... One is legal, the other is not.

If you and I were having an argument and I chose to punch you in the face rather than to walk away, you get knocked out and suffer a concussion, is my punch careless because I never intended to cause you a concussion? No. the punch was still intentional because I made the conscious choice to throw it.

Same goes here.

Stewart chose to bump, out of several options. That shows it was an intentional act that led to unintentional outcomes. But the outcome is not what intent is judged on. It is the conduct. And his conduct was intentional.

 

[Spearman]

There is more than 1 person on the tribunal, correct me if im wrong here but how many cases involving richmond did dunne actually sit on the panel for?

It doesn't matter. He's there, it's a potential CONFLICT of INTEREST!!!!!

 

[Wojcinski]

You seriously cannot be comparing a tackle to a head high bump... One is legal, the other is not.

If you and I were having an argument and I chose to punch you in the face rather than to walk away, you get knocked out and suffer a concussion, is my punch careless because I never intended to cause you a concussion? No. the punch was still intentional because I made the conscious choice to throw it.

Same goes here.

Stewart chose to bump, out of several options. That shows it was an intentional act that led to unintentional outcomes. But the outcome is not what intent is judged on. It is the conduct. And his conduct was intentional.

Bumping on its own is a legal part of the game lol - how do you still not understand this? It's like talking to a door frame.

Anyway we both know I'm right and I'll be proven right when the MRO gives their findings.

 

[Grockadoc]

Bumping on its own is a legal part of the game lol - how do you still not understand this? It's like talking to a door frame.

Anyway we both know I'm right and I'll be proven right when the MRO gives their findings.

Bumping is legal. Bumping and getting them high is not. Do you understand that a bump to the head is illegal?

 

[Wojcinski]

Bumping is legal. Bumping and getting them high is not. Do you understand that a bump to the head is illegal?

Oh my ******* god you are seriously painful mate. Of course I know getting them high is illegal, your whole arguement has been what is intentional vs careless. Choosing to bump someone and accidentally getting them high would be illegal and classed as careless via the MRO. How hard is this to understand?

 

[Oscarman]

It will be 4 weeks. On conflicts of interest, banning Luke Darcy from calling Bulldogs games is my #1 request. Then Derwayne calling any.

 

[Grockadoc]

Oh my ******* god you are seriously painful mate. Of course I know getting them high is illegal, your whole arguement has been what is intentional vs careless. Choosing to bump someone and accidentally getting them high would be illegal and classed as careless via the MRO. How hard is this to understand?

I look forward to it coming back intentional and seeing the egg on your face.