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

[jim boy]

Intentional and severe and he’s in real hot water.

Personally from my reading of it, I dont think it will make much difference the whole careless/intentional. Difference in the guidelines is a week. The whole remorseful and good character thing certainly wont get you a discount, but it will lessen the likelihood of an even longer penalty - its '4+' weeks, not just '4'. Given his good history I dont think the tribunal will find the Tom set out to hit Dion in the head, that's not to say he wont cop 'intentional' in a technical sense, but even if found 'careless' it was pretty bloody careless and they could well bump it from 3 to 4. My money is on 4 either way.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Personally from my reading of it, I dont think it will make much difference the whole careless/intentional. Difference in the guidelines is a week. The whole remorseful and good character thing certainly wont get you a discount, but it will lessen the likelihood of an even longer penalty - its '4+' weeks, not just '4'. Given his good history I dont think the tribunal will find the Tom set out to hit Dion in the head, that's not to say he wont cop 'intentional' in a technical sense, but even if found 'careless' it was pretty bloody careless and they could well bump it from 3 to 4. My money is on 4 either way.

As someone else noted this thread, the AFL will monitor media commentary and then based on that agree on a total number of weeks.

They will then retrofit the rationale to make it equal the weeks.

I'm on 4 too

 

[tigs2010]

Remember when Bachar Houli almost killed Jed Lamb, but at the time PM Malcolm Turnbull and universal undie stain Waleed Aly provided character references and got his suspension down to two weeks?

You forgot the gold photoshops like Matty Wright stealing Jed’s wallet. It’s a shame this part was forgotten in amongst the suspension

 

[hoianbulldog]

As if Brad Scott would risk his reputation and employment over something like this.

Lol......

 

[BF Tiger]

Do you really think that he was aiming to take his head, end his career, take his life and piss on his corpse? Is that how they play this game these days?

Oh I know, it was at the order of Scott and Hocking to off the Tiger superstar. Do 'something', give me a break. Any bump is there to make contact, of course. Players bump or block a player after he disposes of the ball in nearly every passage of play. They trying the impede the disposer from continuing the forward movement and possibly getting the back. Some are stronger clashes, others are not. Do you think they are trying to do 'something'? [dark menacing music]
They were closing fast, he badly miscalculated and got his shoulder bang on Prestia's chin. That's why is was ruled a footy act. He's getting a long holiday. There's no need to sinister conspiracies. It's demeaning to the entire board.

Are you seriously saying Stewart ran past the ball and drove his shoulder forcefully into Prestia just to lay a block? That’s some miscalculation!

Regardless, Stewart’s chosen action was to make contact with Prestia. Stewart had the option to “block” with less force, he had the option to “block” with less speed, he had the option to “block” in a different position. Just changing one of those might have seen Prestia play out the game and not be put at risk of permanent head trauma. Change all three… even better. All that adds up to duty of care to his fellow footballer, which actually supersedes Stewart’s need to impede Prestia’s progress, but Stewart didn’t choose that either… but you’ll have us believe poor Tom just “miscalculated” and now the top bloke that he is feels really bad about it.

 

[Spearman]

Are you seriously saying Stewart ran past the ball and drove his shoulder forcefully into Prestia just to lay a block? That’s some miscalculation!

Regardless, Stewart’s chosen action was to make contact with Prestia. Stewart had the option to “block” with less force, he had the option to “block” with less speed, he had the option to “block” in a different position. Just changing one of those might have seen Prestia play out the game and not be put at risk of permanent head trauma. Change all three… even better. All that adds up to duty of care to his fellow footballer, which actually supersedes Stewart’s need to impede Prestia’s progress, but Stewart didn’t choose that either… but you’ll have us believe poor Tom just “miscalculated” and now the top bloke that he is feels really bad about it.

Yes, as you have pointed out he miscalculated.

 

[Sttew]

Lol......

Yes, I can see how that looks. Should have said "what's left of his reputation"

 

[BF Tiger]

Yes, as you have pointed out he miscalculated.

The miscalculation is irrelevant to it being a deliberate action, of which he now has to wear the consequences.

 

[hoianbulldog]

Yes, I can see how that looks. Should have said "what's left of his reputation"

Lost his reputation when north had their first free kick paid against them when he started coaching. Dudes has got some loose wires.

 

[two blue tiger]

Am quite surprised that we've gotten to 6pm on Monday and there hasn't been the announcement made yet by the AFL of the new "Tom Stewart is a really really really awesome bloke" Award that will be given out on Brownlow Medal night...............

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

Am quite surprised that we've gotten to 6pm on Monday and there hasn't been the announcement made yet by the AFL of the new "Tom Stewart is a really really really awesome bloke" Award that will be given out on Brownlow Medal night...............

Relax mate, awards are only given to the real awesome bloke....

 

[peternorth]

the beauty of public debate, of any topic. talk about a topic lasts a moment in time, then needle moves towards prior indiscretions of the victims team, barbs thrown back at the perpetrators team, someone from another team comments, victim/perpatrator sometimes join forces to pot the other team poster...then events unrelated are thrown in. mix and serve.

Funniest call heard on 3AW with grant thomas today. Sounded like an older lady, said stewart should get zero weeks because zac toohey when he was hit by the druggie bulldogs player....he only got 2 weeks. Thomas calmly noted that that event is totally irrelevant haha.

anyway, sounded like shes a cats supporter. but then again....mightvve been someone pretending to be a cats fan.

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

At least we waited for the tribunal to bring out the prime minister. Geelong was having a crack at it immediately after the game which I think has rubbed some supporters up the wrong way

Could be worse after game commentary I guess....

"To me he's a hard, tough player. That's what we want at the Tigers. At the end of the day, sometimes you step outside the boundaries. The rules are there - we know the rules. He's a hard, tough Richmond player and that's how we like him."

Hardwick - Vickery hit on Cox - 2014.

 

[hawkman]

Could be worse after game commentary I guess....

"To me he's a hard, tough player. That's what we want at the Tigers. At the end of the day, sometimes you step outside the boundaries. The rules are there - we know the rules. He's a hard, tough Richmond player and that's how we like him."

Hardwick - Vickery hit on Cox - 2014.

That may have been Hardwick trying to encourage the tribunal to give Vickery extra weeks

 

[HairyO]

Personally from my reading of it, I dont think it will make much difference the whole careless/intentional. Difference in the guidelines is a week. The whole remorseful and good character thing certainly wont get you a discount, but it will lessen the likelihood of an even longer penalty - its '4+' weeks, not just '4'. Given his good history I dont think the tribunal will find the Tom set out to hit Dion in the head, that's not to say he wont cop 'intentional' in a technical sense, but even if found 'careless' it was pretty bloody careless and they could well bump it from 3 to 4. My money is on 4 either way.

If the AFL is truly serious about concussions they will give 4 weeks.

I think they will give 3 weeks.

 

[Jackington]

If the AFL is truly serious about concussions they will give 4 weeks.

I think they will give 3 weeks.

I think it’s locked in at 4 surely.

The only thing that saves him is that (correct me if I’m wrong) he’s never been so much as reported before.

 

[The 747]

the beauty of public debate, of any topic. talk about a topic lasts a moment in time, then needle moves towards prior indiscretions of the victims team, barbs thrown back at the perpetrators team, someone from another team comments, victim/perpatrator sometimes join forces to pot the other team poster...then events unrelated are thrown in. mix and serve.

Funniest call heard on 3AW with grant thomas today. Sounded like an older lady, said stewart should get zero weeks because zac toohey when he was hit by the druggie bulldogs player....he only got 2 weeks. Thomas calmly noted that that event is totally irrelevant haha.

anyway, sounded like shes a cats supporter. but then again....mightvve been someone pretending to be a cats fan.

I misread this as Grant Thomas's opinion. It's a measure of the man that I believed it.

 

[Blue1980]

looks at fixture

He should get minimum 3 weeks.

In all seriousness I think 4 seems about right. Incidents that people are reciting like Vickery and Houli also resulted in 4 weeks.

Chicken wing Judd was 4 weeks a decade ago too.

 

[Spearman]

The miscalculation is irrelevant to it being a deliberate action, of which he now has to wear the consequences.

Yes you got it! deliberate bump yes. Not deliberately trying to injure as some have been saying. Well done

 

[BF Tiger]

Yes you got it! deliberate bump yes. Not deliberately trying to injure as some have been saying. Well done

And you get it… a deliberate bump with deliberate consequences. Well done you.

 

[Xtreme]

Another conspiracy theory of Coach_Required - man never walked on the moon!!

As if Brad Scott would risk his reputation and employment over something like this.

LOL

The AFL are corrupt from the ground floor all the way to the top.

 

[GroggSquad]

3 is fair honestly based on past precedents. 4+ is an emotional response.

It should've been graded intentional (not careless) conduct, high (not severe) impact and high contact = 3 matches without tribunal. The severe grading should be reserved for Gaff's jaw punch and the like.

 

[Spearman]

And you get it… a deliberate bump with deliberate consequences. Well done you.

of course, been saying that from the beginning. Kumbaya

 

[brutus76]

4 for me

But if it was 6 i'd love to see the outpouring of salt from Scotty

 

[Profop]

No issue with Houli not getting sent off either.

Hmm interesting!

Never said I thought he should have been sent off?

That’s never been a part of our game and in many ways I think him missing four plus weeks generally would be better than just being sent off in the one game (if that’s how it would work)

I know Scott banged on about how it would be better for the other team but in many respects him missing that many games may see Geelong drop some they would have won which helps our season

In this case you could mount the argument that a send off rule would have seen us win a very important game but generally you’d think that wouldn’t be the case when an incident like this occurs