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

 

[kozi]

Careless? Spare me.

The conversation starts at 4 weeks here. 3 or under should see a manifestly inadequate appeal.

 

[Grockadoc]

If he gets three, I'd love Houli to take legal action against the AFL. Not that it would ever happen.

 

[Dunger]

Slobbo's take on the incident. And of course after these comments I make no change to my opinion that he is as useless a human that has ever existed.

View attachment 1434349

Why did I expect more from that idiot?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Piss off Robbo. If this happened in a grand final to Dangerfield or Selwood or Buddy or any other player sucked off by the media, and that team loses by less than a goal, everyone would be up in arms about it. Why should a team benefit from thuggery and ill discipline?

They should be off for as long as the other player is off. Simple.

One reasonable way to do this I think would be if the action was sufficient to justify a red card, that instead of the offending player being sent off, a player of the opposition club’s choosing sits out the remainder of the game and the game carries on 18 v 18 with both subs activated. Or some variation of that system, like 2 players of the opponent’s choosing are out of the match and only 3 on the bench, but onfield remains 18 v 18 at all times.

That would vastly reduce the possibility of a team deliberately targetting a key opposition player right at the start of the game.

By coincidence, the two Richmond players Geelong have knocked out of big matches within the last 2 years were right at the start of the game.

 

[Tiger2709]

The AFL is a Disgrace game wasn't stopped and they gave him 3 weeks

cost us the game and potentially top four

I cant believe they allowed play to go on over the top of a player with a head injury, disgraceful, not too mention the Cats scored while we were one player down and the perp/thug ended up best on ground.

 

[kozi]

If he gets three, I'd love Houli to take legal action against the AFL. Not that it would ever happen.

You can bank on it being 3. They'll wheel out Hocking for a character reference and get the good bloke discount.

Does volunteer work for the poor and needy. Specifically Italian migrants.. has helped descendants of the Prestia family in the past.

 

[DickieKnee]

You can bank on it being 3. They'll wheel out Hocking for a character reference and get the good bloke discount.

Does volunteer work for the poor and needy. Specifically Italian migrants.. has helped descendants of the Prestia family in the past.

Yeah my feeling is he'll get 3, thats why they rated it careless not intentional. The fix is in.

 

[_RT_]

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.

IIRC the AFL counsel themself dictates how the case is tried once it goes to the tribunal.

 

[kozi]

Yeah my feeling is he'll get 3, thats why they rated it careless not intentional. The fix is in.

Corruption at its finest isn't it.

We have preferred weeks dictating a bogus grading instead of a true grading dictating the proper number of weeks.

 

[max250295]

They obviously wanted to target Prestia, I don't think he wanted to hurt Prestia, but the intent was deliberate, so the punishment suit suit. There must be consequences for taking out the opositions top player, other wise it might become more prevelant, surprised it doesn't happen more often. Theoretically, what's stopping any club in big games having a less important player taking out a player having a blinder. The team that has the player taken out is at a disavantage, as what happened to us, doesn't make sense!

 

[Meteoric Rise]

IIRC the AFL counsel themself dictates how the case is tried once it goes to the tribunal.

As yet we have nothing solid to say that is how it does works. However, thinking of the DPP, they act upon a Police brief of evidence but the individual prosecutor I guess decides how he conducts the case, what penalty he wants etc. Here, the MRO, effectively Brad Scott, would seem to be in the position of the Police, compiling the brief of evidence for the AFL Counsel. Do you think that seems about right?

What doesn’t make sense is that in cases like the Dangerfield bump on Kelly, the AFL Counsel effectively limits the suspension by arguing for 3 weeks, the minimum possible given guilt is admitted.

 

[Bojangles17]

You know these things as fact?

And do you agree B Scott has at least played an active part in the MRO grading of the incident as careless?

I think that there is a framework in place that auto grades a bump into this category of careless rather than deliberate as most cases fundamentally that works for said reasons mentioned earlier

 

[Tiges1229]

Slobbo's take on the incident. And of course after these comments I make no change to my opinion that he is as useless a human that has ever existed.

View attachment 1434349

He’s a complete and utter ******* that bloke

 

[Bojangles17]

We are living rent free in Cats supporters heads. They have a whole thread about opposition posters and the last 5 pages is all about us.

To emphasise how big a pack of scumbags they are, I suggested to them that the reason we are so angry is because not many Geelong fans/supporters/staff or even media have thought about Prestia. Some of their responses are downright pathetic.

One such example from an absolute tosser when discussing Prestia's well wishers:




Other pearlers in that thread suggest we are so obsessed with Geelong and aggressive towards them because we are envious of their sustained success (What success? 3 flags in 60 years?), and are scared of dropping off into obscurity again.

The fact of the matter is, the only reason Geelong have been up and about in finals is because their members would abandon ship if they weren't consistently making finals. Look at 201. They don't make finals in 2015 and their membership number dropped. They need finals and "success" to keep their members coming back. They would fail and their supporters would turn on the club if they genuinely bottomed out.

Lol envious , we ve only scuttled 4 of their premiership campaign starting in 1980
2017
2019
2020
Oh but we’re envious

 

[Charlie Pannam]

I still can not understand how Robbo gets a gig on radio/TV. Seriously the bloke can’t put 2 words together. He’s as close to illiterate as you’ll come across in the media.
There’s plenty of other media personalities that are annoying- Parrot, Cornes, Gerald etc, but at least they articulate an opinion.

 

[tigs2010]

ill be honest mate, i thought we made out like bandits when houli originally was offered 2

Of course we did. He knocked him out cold with a fist to the face, he was already gone as he was falling like a limp lettuce leaf to the ground.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Lol envious , we ve only scuttled 4 of their premiership campaign starting in 1980
2017
2019
2020
Oh but we’re envious

In their whole sorry history they have outscored us in one finals series ever, 1995. We have outscored them in 10 finals series. We are running at 10:1 winning finals series against those campaigners but they think we are jealous.

 

[tigs2010]

Either way, I would have though it would be difficult for Stewart to convince anyone he was not trying to bump Prestia.

_RT_ you're not sitting on the tribunal are you?

 

[tigs2010]

We are living rent free in Cats supporters heads. They have a whole thread about opposition posters and the last 5 pages is all about us.

To emphasise how big a pack of scumbags they are, I suggested to them that the reason we are so angry is because not many Geelong fans/supporters/staff or even media have thought about Prestia. Some of their responses are downright pathetic.

One such example from an absolute tosser when discussing Prestia's well wishers:




Other pearlers in that thread suggest we are so obsessed with Geelong and aggressive towards them because we are envious of their sustained success (What success? 3 flags in 60 years?), and are scared of dropping off into obscurity again.

The fact of the matter is, the only reason Geelong have been up and about in finals is because their members would abandon ship if they weren't consistently making finals. Look at 201. They don't make finals in 2015 and their membership number dropped. They need finals and "success" to keep their members coming back. They would fail and their supporters would turn on the club if they genuinely bottomed out.

they really do themselves no favours trying to shake the ice junkie tag do they?

 

[Carnis]

Big issues here, in order of importance:
1. Prestia's short term and long term well-being.
2. Stop play while the player is out.
3. If the perpetrator is reported, into the sin bin until the injured player resumes the field (if at all).
4. Eliminating the incentive to alter a critical game's outcome through violence. With a multiplier of three. Prestia out for most of the game plus two weeks? Perpetrator out for 9 weeks. There must be deterrence against breaches of duty of care involving concussion.

 

[harimal12]

they really do themselves no favours trying to shake the ice junkie tag do they?

Moe by the sea

 

[Grockadoc]

One reasonable way to do this I think would be if the action was sufficient to justify a red card, that instead of the offending player being sent off, a player of the opposition club’s choosing sits out the remainder of the game and the game carries on 18 v 18 with both subs activated. Or some variation of that system, like 2 players of the opponent’s choosing are out of the match and only 3 on the bench, but onfield remains 18 v 18 at all times.

That would vastly reduce the possibility of a team deliberately targetting a key opposition player right at the start of the game.

By coincidence, the two Richmond players Geelong have knocked out of big matches within the last 2 years were right at the start of the game.

If it were to happen:

Red card any reportable offences.

If you get reported, it is usually due to a dodgy act (high bump, strike, sling tackle etc.).

You get reported for something and the victim goes off, you're off.

 

[Carnis]

If it were to happen:

Red card any reportable offences.

If you get reported, it is usually due to a dodgy act (high bump, strike, sling tackle etc.).

You get reported for something and the victim goes off, you're off.

You also have to prevent the incentive for a C-grade hitman to take out an A-grader.

 

[tigs2010]

If it were to happen:

Red card any reportable offences.

If you get reported, it is usually due to a dodgy act (high bump, strike, sling tackle etc.).

You get reported for something and the victim goes off, you're off.

Don’t know about that? They always balls up sling tackles

 

[Grockadoc]

You also have to prevent the incentive for a C-grade hitman to take out an A-grader.

This is where I am also of the opinion that suspensions should be X number of weeks as defined by the MRO + the number of weeks of whatever the victim is out for.

Say for example, Prestia is out for 3 weeks and Stewart gets 4, it would be 4 weeks for the act, and 3 for the result.