Walker on Tuohy

[Kingsfoil]

Nope! It is a classic case of careless.

I think there are a lot of people who misunderstand what intentional is, which is the player intended to commit the roportable offence. I’m this case Tex would have intended to bump him high.

I don't misunderstand what intentional is, and Walker's was certainly intentional. He's lucky.

 

[Large 1]

I don't misunderstand what intentional is, and Walker's was certainly intentional. He's lucky.

So you think his sole intention was to bump Thouy in the head?

Or do you think his intention was to bump Thouy?

 

[mattpolo8]

Yeah for me, if you have zero intention of anything to do with the ball, never looking at it, then you intend to hit the player somewhere. For Walker, it was above the shoulders.

If his eyes had ventured over to the ball and hit him, maybe, just maybe I could live with careless.

 

[mattpolo8]

This was

So you think his sole intention was to bump Thouy in the head?

Or do you think his intention was to bump Thouy?

I think his intention was on taking Tuohy out of that contest. It was Walker's decision as to how he approached it and where he hit him. If he messes it up and copped him high, that's on Walker.

 

[MattyB_76]

Yeah i'm so confused by this.

Player firmly has eyes set on opposition player even though ball is in the area, slightly leaves the ground and happens to connect with the head. If that's not intentional i'm not sure where that line is..?

It's been flawed for so long that majority of the time the suspension/fine is all dependent on the outcome health wise of the player. They aren't actually judging the action, moreso the reaction.

Tuohy doesn't have the ball, Tex entitled to bump him. You're allowed to look at the player you are going to bump. Bumps and gets him a little high. It's the definition of a careless bump which got him high. As you said, "happens to connect with the head". Bumps within 5m (realistically about 1m) of the ball are always graded careless when they go high.

Or, give me an example of another one which was graded intentional.

 

[Large 1]

Yeah for me, if you have zero intention of anything to do with the ball, never looking at it, then you intend to hit the player somewhere. For Walker, it was above the shoulders.

If his eyes had ventured over to the ball and hit him, maybe, just maybe I could live with careless.

Not when bumping is still legal. You are allowed to bump a player within 5 meters of the ball. If you weren’t then it would be different, but the rules say you can.

 

[Kingsfoil]

So you think his sole intention was to bump Thouy in the head?

Or do you think his intention was to bump Thouy?

Yes, I think his sole intention was to bump 2E high.

 

[Boxhead_31]

So you think his sole intention was to bump Thouy in the head?

Or do you think his intention was to bump Thouy?

His sole intention was to bump Tuohy in the head

 

[Art Vandelay_]

So you think his sole intention was to bump Thouy in the head?

Or do you think his intention was to bump Thouy?

This is where the players QC and the AFL QC usually clash, and it often sides with the AFL.

Gleeson QC (AFL) argues often that to substantiate "intentional" they need not be satisfied the bump was intentional to the head, merely that the player intended to bump, and any illegal contact thereafter is the player's responsibility.

The tribunal is a mess and I don't have a strong opinion either way but that is how similar incidents have played out at the tribunal.

 

[Large 1]

I think his intention was on taking Tuohy out of that contest. It was Walker's decision as to how he approached it and where he hit him. If he messes it up and copped him high, that's on Walker.

Hence the reason he got a week, because he chose to bump and when that strayed heigh it moved from a legal bump to a “careless” act.

Had he raised his elbow it would have been intentional.

 

[mattpolo8]

Knowing the type of player Tex is, I wouldn't put it out of the question that a little part of him didn't want to get him high. But of course there's no way of knowing this.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Careless doesn't quite seem right but to be fair Ryan Burton got off when I reckoned he should have got a week. I thought his was the classic careless bump (he didn't jump off the ground, kept the arm tucked in but still knocked out his opponent, etc). It's at least consistent with other decisions they've made this year (as much as I reckon those previous ones were wrong).

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

Being Tex has certainly influenced someones opinion and its not the person you think.

Lol, I said Tex would get a 1 week and I was right. No doubt the flogs in here calling for 3-4 will find something else to complain about Tex.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

Yes, I think his sole intention was to bump 2E high.

So what makes you think he tried to get him high, instead of a poorly executed shirt front?

 

[Xtreme]

Lol, I said Tex would get a 1 week and I was right. No doubt the flogs in here calling for 3-4 will find something else to complain about Tex.

To be fair he was lucky he didn't cop more. I did like the aggression though

 

[Max Caddy]

Yeah i'm so confused by this.

Player firmly has eyes set on opposition player even though ball is in the area, slightly leaves the ground and happens to connect with the head. If that's not intentional i'm not sure where that line is..?

It's been flawed for so long that majority of the time the suspension/fine is all dependent on the outcome health wise of the player. They aren't actually judging the action, moreso the reaction.

He is lucky Tuohy is a hard nut otherwise he would have been looking at multiple weeks.

1 week though for an obvious hit to the head??

 

[boncer34]

Lol, I said Tex would get a 1 week and I was right.

Touhy came back on so should be a fine.

Hmm?

 

[Tex9798]

This tread summed up, people who don't know the difference between careless and intentional - something that has been reasonably consistent for years.

Walker is not obligated to go for the ball or even look at it, the ball is within 5m so Touhy can reasonably expect contact, he doesn't have the ball so Walker can't talke him, so he bumps him which is a legal manouver, unfortunately he got him high.

That's how it's careless.

If he ran past stuck an elbow out and got him high that's intentional.

Anyone who couldn't see this was always going to be Careless hasn't been paying attention.

Lindsay Thomas "dog act" was also careless for the same reason.

 

[Kingsfoil]

So what makes you think he tried to get him high, instead of a poorly executed shirt front?

Looking straight at his head while closing on him, and then got him in the head, only the blind (or one eyed) could think it wasn't intentional. Not even Tex could execute a shirt front meant for the body so poorly.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

Hmm?

there's more than 1 post genius..

Looking straight at his head while closing on him, and then got him in the head, only the blind (or one eyed) could think it wasn't intentional. Not even Tex could execute a shirt front meant for the body so poorly.

What do you mean he was looting at his head? He was looking at Touhy obviously, I don't know how you say he looking specifically at his head. Tex is taller than Touhy so would not hard for him to hit him higher than he did. Tried to for the chest but didn't get low enough and his shoulder his Touhy's chin.

Btw what do you mean by 'not even Tex'? Now we get to real point, another Tex hater, snore.

 

[Large 1]

Knowing the type of player Tex is, I wouldn't put it out of the question that a little part of him didn't want to get him high. But of course there's no way of knowing this.

Really, you know the player Tex is?

I could be wrong but I can’t remember him being suspended since 2012. That’s a pretty decent record.

 

[Beerfish]

I just went back and had a look and it seems this incident has been graded the same as the Douglas hit on Merrett in round 1 with the same penalty.

Except Merrett didn't come back on.

 

[Large 1]

Looking straight at his head while closing on him, and then got him in the head, only the blind (or one eyed) could think it wasn't intentional. Not even Tex could execute a shirt front meant for the body so poorly.

And the independent MRP.

There are a huge number of examples of bumps meant for the body that have incidentally caught players high, and they all are considered as careless, or before that reckless.

Maybe you should consider your own biases.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I just went back and had a look and it seems this incident has been graded the same as the Douglas hit on Merrett in round 1 with the same penalty.

Except Merrett didn't come back on.

Inconsistency from the tribunal system.
NEVER!

 

[Beerfish]

I think his intention was on taking Tuohy out of that contest. It was Walker's decision as to how he approached it and where he hit him. If he messes it up and copped him high, that's on Walker.

Yeah agree but I guess they just believe he didn't mean to hit him in the head, same as the Douglas hit on Merrett from round 1.

Except Merrett didn't come back on.