No Oppo Supporters Tom Stewart's targeted KO'ing of Prestia - 4 week ban

[Sterge]

Some of you need to chill out, be better than geelong supporters.

We dont need to wish injuries on anyone or hope someone evens it up.

Just be content in the fact we win when it really matters.

Also the thread is about Stewart and Prestia

 

[Grockadoc]

Ever come across an intelligent cats fans, neither have i. That's the dumbest thing I've heard because anyone with half a brain knows it was 100% severe and high.

They're all scumbags.

 

[Coach_Required]

Considering Pickett copped a week for a bump that didn't even make contact with the opponents head and was considered dangerous this POS deserves to sit out the rest of the season.

 

[rfctigerarmy]

Considering Pickett copped a week for a bump that didn't even make contact with the opponents head and was considered dangerous this POS deserves to sit out the rest of the season.

Pickett may actually get a week in the Stewart case for being on the field at the same time.

 

[_RT_]

Do you believe in the easter bunny as well...none of the drivel you've spouted is based in reality

I'm explaining how Christian would have come to the conclusion it was careless. I'm not agreeing that it should have been rated that way.

I'm sorry but you're wrong here.

We've been told for years now that if you elect to bump and you hit high then you're gone.

It can clearly be argued that Stewart intended to bump Prestia late and off the ball which increases the penalty, the fact that he hit him high makes the penalty higher, and the fact that he knocked him into next week makes it higher again. What Stewart's counsel would have to do is try to argue that his action was careless.

What the MRO has done by grading the act as 'careless' is handing Stewart's counsel an immediate win whereby they can argue that the sanction should only be 3 weeks.

Again I'm not agreeing with the grading but trying to explain how it was determined.

Have a look at the footage frame by frame and compare too those around prestia.
Only the dog had eyes on prestia and not the ball.
I'm sure the AFL advocate can very well put a case as intent.
But the grading has been set buy a corrupt MRO to make that more difficult.

Hopefully the AFL advocate does go down the path of trying to get it upgraded to intentional.

It's hard to fathom how he can come up with a careless defence.

Again I am not agreeing with the grading, but trying to explain how it was graded

 

[Tigertot]

Who would you trust to make that decision?

Nobody associated with afl headquarters is to be trusted.
I would look to external resource - someone with intelligence like the pic below

 

[Coach_Required]

Ideally I would want them to finish 5th and us 8th. They are our bunnies in finals.

and the AFL to play their home final at the G and we knock them off again.

 

[Tigertot]

Rather he gets 6 and the cats miss finals.
That would be justice.

Actions like stewarts need to penalised differently IMHO.
If prestia missed most of the geelong game (which he did) and will also miss next week then stewart should get his penalty PLUS the two weeks prestia misses.
Chances of a rule change like this are buckleys and none but we implement the stand rule - its no wonder out great game is turning into a circus.

 

[Philth]

It was out of character and he was very clearly remorseful. Just made a bad decision in the heat of the moment. He's not a dirty player. Hopefully Dion has no lingering concerns.

Gotta be at least 4, probably 5 or 6.

Agree with this 100%.
It happens.
4-6 weeks is adequate.

 

[Coach_Required]

If the AFL prosecution ask for anything less than deliberate at the tribunal then Christian should step down.

Edit: Not Christian's fault, its the conflict of interest with having Brad Scott in his current role

Protecting the players head, my arse

 

[chriso11]

Oh here we go, the apologist give me a break. It was as clear as day deliberate. He ran past the ball and could have pulled up but didn't.
I think it should be anywhere between 4-6 weeks. If AFL is fair dinkum Stewart's dog's act gets 6 weeks.

Geelong has so far rallied around Stewart, including coach Chris Scott, arguing that it was not a deliberate move and something Stewart was taking accountability for.

On Sunday, Tuohy defended the 29-year-old, highlighting the quality of his character both on and off the field.

“It was an unfortunate accident, clearly not deliberate. You get seconds to make these decisions. When you cover up a point of contact, you run the risk, and we’ll just have to wait and see what happens,” the defender said on the Sunday Footy Show.

Of course they will fly the flag. Nothing going to change what happened now. Best they can hope for is a minimal penalty

 

[tigersnag]

Barrett is an absolute low-life cretin Muppet. Arguing about why it has to go to the tribunal...

"Geelong and Stewart deserve to know now how long the suspension will be".

Excuse me moron, but the Coward and Geelong deserve absolutely nothing, zero, zilch. Less than * all.
They need to be held accountable and not just try and defend the gutless coward like Salty and the dumb as a box of rocks Irishman have.
Hope that meth head club burns to the ground.

 

[RiskingHead]

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

It would have to be assessed as off the ball so that should make the penalty higher.

 

[Bojangles17]

Just wondering if there has been any reports from the club on how Dion is feeling today?

just pull chris scott ripcord and he'll tell you how good a bloke TS is , man of the year. it says everything that this smug campaigner was more concerned with saving this scumbags scrawny neck than even a mention of dions health and well being . CS is a POS lets get that straight , he proved it

 

[Meteoric Rise]

If the AFL prosecution ask for anything less than deliberate at the tribunal then Christian should step down.

Protecting the players head, my arse

It is difficult for people to understand this readily because of the way the AFL have this extremely compromised system set up. But MRO decisions as released publicly might or might not represent Michael Christian’s view, we never know that part. In every single case however, we can be certain the MRO decision represents Brad Scott’s position. This is because Brad Scott’s role includes that he approves or alters all of Christian’s recommendations before they are made public.

In this case, given the AFL website initially reported an intentional grading then shortly after altered that to careless, you would have to suspect Christian’s view was that it was intentional, and the AFL site reported that before it was checked by Scott for some reason, and that Scott has quickly intervened to have it downgraded to careless. And ordered overdrive on the good bloke, out of character narrative for T Stewart in the media.

Access All Derrieres on the AFL website featuring Matthew Lloyd and Damien Barrett very strangely did not show the incident, did not discuss it in any detail, mentioning only he will get 3 or 4, and were at pains to praise Tom Stewart’s performance. It is not plausible that could be organic commentary on the events we witnessed Saturday. They did not raise any of the issues around the incident, play carrying on, red card required or anything like that.

But the biggest issue here that the media will never mention, is the person making the MRO grading, is the same person who instructs the AFL counsel what to argue for, and this is the same person who decides whether or not the AFL appeals the Tribunal finding. And that person is Brad Scott, twin brother of current Geelong FC Chris Scott. So he is in a completely conflicted position and should have announced from the outset due to this he can play no part in this process……but he has not made any such announcement.

It is ludicrous that with all the scrutiny of 2022 available to us this is not even mentioned in passing by anybody in the media.

 

[Bojangles17]

I'm explaining how Christian would have come to the conclusion it was careless. I'm not agreeing that it should have been rated that way.

Again I'm not agreeing with the grading but trying to explain how it was determined.

Hopefully the AFL advocate does go down the path of trying to get it upgraded to intentional.

Again I am not agreeing with the grading, but trying to explain how it was graded

may have already been said but i think from legal counsel its easier for the AFL to hold their position of Careless which is fairly arbitrary than DELIBERATE which is unequivocal , that could be challenged by a good silk , may not W but its grounds

 

[_RT_]

Of course they will fly the flag. Nothing going to change what happened now. Best they can hope for is a minimal penalty

I'd expect the exact same thing to happen if one of our players did something similar.

 

[Walt Kowalski]

Got a bit of a feeling this will really galvanise our playing group in the run to the finals. Hope so.

 

[Muddiemoose]

A lot going hard on Scott for defending Stewart, but when Houli took out Lamb a few years ago Hardwick said very similar by pointing out Houlis good record
Every single coach will defend their players

"Bachar is one of those guys, I don't think I need to say what his record is. Whatever the incident is, we'll move on."

 

[_RT_]

may have already been said but i think from legal counsel its easier for the AFL to hold their position of Careless which is fairly arbitrary than DELIBERATE which is unequivocal , that could be challenged by a good silk , may not W but its grounds

That's pretty much what I was getting at earlier. There would be another outcry if it was graded intentional and Geelong argued it down to careless. Hopefully the AFL counsel challenges the careless grading and pushes for intentional because then the minimum becomes 4 weeks. If that fails then they can push for a sentence greater than the 3 week minimum, especially if the medical report isn't favourable.

 

[DickieKnee]

A lot going hard on Scott for defending Stewart, but when Houli took out Lamb a few years ago Hardwick said very similar by pointing out Houlis good record
Every single coach will defend their players

"Bachar is one of those guys, I don't think I need to say what his record is. Whatever the incident is, we'll move on."

Difference is Scott made up bullshit. Dimmer is and always has been a straight shooter.

 

[biaseddustyfan]

Does straight to tribunal mean an automatic 3 weeks or 4 weeks? I keep hearing things from different people. I have a feeling he will only get the minimum, should be 5-6 weeks imo. Prestia looked as bad as you could get and took ages to get up.

auto 3 in this case because they said it's only careless. If they say intentional it's auto 4

 

[Muddiemoose]

Difference is Scott made up bullshit. Dimmer is and always has been a straight shooter.

Na Dimma is known to talk rubbish when he needs, even with that Lamb incident he claimed he hadn’t seen it when it was in the middle of the field and stopped play and replayed 20 times on the big screen for like 10 mins

It’s a coaches job to try and take the heat off the players, they all do it

 

[Tiges1229]

Got a bit of a feeling this will really galvanise our playing group in the run to the finals. Hope so.

Losing that match really *s our chances of top 4 , and may indeed * our making finals at all

 

[Meteoric Rise]

That's pretty much what I was getting at earlier. There would be another outcry if it was graded intentional and Geelong argued it down to careless. Hopefully the AFL counsel challenges the careless grading and pushes for intentional because then the minimum becomes 4 weeks. If that fails then they can push for a sentence greater than the 3 week minimum, especially if the medical report isn't favourable.

Do you think there is a realistic way that can happen given the AFL Counsel is instructed here by the same person who found Stewart’s action was careless and not intentional - Brad Scott? Who also happens to be the same person who would decide on any appeal against the Tribunal outcome being too light. And who also happens to be the twin brother of the current Geelong FC coach.

This is a massive flaw in the system. The GFC coach’s twin brother can effectively limit the penalty whilst making it look like the work of Michael Christian, the AFL Counsel and the Tribunal. And nobody in the media will mention the massive conflict of interest he has.

Edit: the bolded part of my post is wrong. Thanks to Not Important for pointing this out. I cannot find anything in the AFL Tribunal document that indicates who instructs the AFL Counsel in Tribunal cases.