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

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

The penalty may or may not be wrong here(I personally think it is the minimum acceptable but a match or two light on a fair outcome) but the process is a corruption inviting shambles.

The AFL have:

- used Brad Scottā€™s careless conduct grading to form the basis of their position at the Tribunal. Brad Scott as the twin brother of GFC coach Chris Scott has a clear conflict of interest

- not explored beyond B Scottā€™s desk the very arguable grading of intentional conduct.

The hearing should have been about intentional v careless and all the arguments should have been around that. If those arguments fell in favour of careless then fair enough, 4 weeks. But if they fell the other way, 5, 6 or more was well in play.

A system where the prosecutor argues for the minimum feasible punishment is not right. This flaw is not specific to this case. But this case highlights that it needs fixing.
 
With what we know about cte and the leagues increased focus on proctections this really should have been 5-6. Concussion is still taken too lightly by the afl

Least itā€™s taken more seriously than some acts. We have had De Goey and Smith get slap on the wrists in the last few weeks
 
How is the Houli incident not even close to a good analogy?
Houli intentionally hit Lamb, he obviously didnā€™t intend to hurt him as bad as he did but he intentionally hit him.
If you run a red light your not intending to hit a car.
Log off and touch some grass.
Edited for accuracy.

The Houli incident, while different, is very similar in a lot of ways.

Stewart is viewed by most reasonable neutral supporters as a class act. A fair but tough player, who pretty much always plays the ball.
The Stewart incident was on ball, in play. Prestia had just tapped it less than a second before the bump. The ball was maybe 5m away. A bump 5m off the ball is a fair play, a football act. Stewart took 2 steps between Prestia tapping the ball and contact. If Prestia had taken possession of the ball instead of tapping, Stewart's timing would've been perfect to give him a hip and shoulder that might have caused the ball to spill free. Prestia's arms might have been tucked in closer to his body, leaving him in a less vulnerable position, and the bump might have just been a normal bump.

The calls of this being a deliberate dog act and the worst thing since Hall hit Staker, are just ludicrous and quite frankly, insulting to Jed Lamb.

Houli was viewed by most reasonable neutral supporters as a class act. A fair but tough player, who pretty much always plays the ball.
The Houli incident was off the ball, out of play. Admittedly, Lamb was scragging Houli and trying to check his run. It perhaps could've, or should've been a holding free. That kind of stuff happens hundreds of times a weekend and misses being called almost just as often. Rarely does a player lash out like Houli did with a swinging arm at head height, nor does a missed free deserve such reaction.
If you rewatch that incident, as I have today, after putting his arms out to try and draw the umpire's attention to the free, Houli does a headcheck in Lamb's direction, before letting loose with a backwards swinging armbar at head height. At the point of impact, Houli is looking directly at Lamb. A swinging arm to the head, 15m+ off the ball is NOT a football act. It is also not an accident.
Houli isn't a thug, but his actions on that day were a thug act. I have no doubt that Houli didn't want to break Lamb's jaw, or give him concussion, but he most certainly intended to hit him.

Now compare the reactions in here of Richmond supporters to both incidents. It is massively disproportionate.
Houli is a great bloke who does amazing things in the community, who was justified for accidentally hitting someone who was holding him.
Stewart is a thug who committed a dog act and left Prestia dead on the ground (I wish I was making that last bit up, but it was actually said).
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lol. He was so emotionally upset he got best man on the ground.

Credit to him for putting it behind him. 4 weeks is about right. Honestly he wasnā€™t getting 6+ so what did you expect? 5 weeks? Thatā€™s what Iā€™d have given but 4 isnā€™t too low
 
I stand by what I said, youā€™re absolutely embarrassing yourself with your attempts to sound intelligent and reasonable.
In any case, even if itā€™s legal which it is, he still intentionally hit him and stuffed it up. It wasnā€™t a accidental careless hit.
I think you've misinterpreted the AFL's use of the word intentional.
The purpose isn't intended to decide if he intentionally decided to make a bump. It's whether it was an intentional action to harm, or an intentional non-football act.
 
Credit to him for putting it behind him. 4 weeks is about right. Honestly he wasnā€™t getting 6+ so what did you expect? 5 weeks? Thatā€™s what Iā€™d have given but 4 isnā€™t too low
Things have changed regarding concussion with all the new evidence and the AFL/Brad Scott/Geelong are delaying serious changes to help Stewart.
It was time to set a precedent but they failed to.
If I hear one more time that Stewart is a top bloke I'll spew up.
The truth is he is a dirty sniper who knocked out a little bloke off the ball.
 
So now we know that in 20 years since byron pickett, we've gone 50% backwards.

Either pickett got a penalty for being aboriginal, Stewart got a discount for being from geelong, or Stewart got a discount for hitting a Richmond player. All 3 are likely.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top