Webster wasn’t to contrite when Clarko gave him a serve.
Grinning, spat, and the subsequent SM posts by his family.
Confirms s**t bloke really.
Grinning, spat, and the subsequent SM posts by his family.
Confirms s**t bloke really.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think everyone is in agreeance that Clarkson is a below average hypocritical bogan campaignerWebster wasn’t to contrite when Clarko gave him a serve.
Grinning, spat, and the subsequent SM posts by his family.
Confirms s**t bloke really.
Yep, and seems like Webster and his family are cut from the same clothI think everyone is in agreeance that Clarkson is a below average hypocritical bogan campaigner
Firm disagree, with that logic you can disguise an off the ball hit with a 'bump' and do just as much damage.
Webster wasn’t to contrite when Clarko gave him a serve.
Grinning, spat, and the subsequent SM posts by his family.
Confirms s**t bloke really.
Would anyone on the planet be contrite when confronted by Alastair Clarkson, of all people?Webster wasn’t to contrite when Clarko gave him a serve.
That's true, and for bumps where there's some mitigating circumstances I agree.I understand that…but an argument can be made about “head intent” on a bump …
One may still reject that argument … and say “ he intended to bump his head! ” but equally a counter argument can be made imo.
If a player walks up and “punches” the head … Its hard to make any argument that anything else was intended other than head contact ?
I think we are past those days now. I bang on about it but part of the grading of instances should be whether or not the action taken would be "legal" if there was no head high contact.I think 7 is fair enough.
8+ stuff should be for non-footy actions ( this was still a “bump” at the end of the day…. Albeit horribly executed)
8,10 week stuff should be for “king hit” punches, elbows etc. Eg - Pugger on Caven, Barry hall right hook etc
Yeah you don't jump up to make contact with someone's shoulder unless you are Liam Baker trying to bump Sandilands.That's true, and for bumps where there's some mitigating circumstances I agree.
This isn't one though. Jimmy very clearly intended to hit Jy in the head IMO.
I reckon we'd all hope people in the AFL media are of strong enough character to call it out then.The only fall will be someone being let off Maynard style in finals, bookmark it.
Well it's set the precedent for a non football act of lining players up & charging at them whilst leaping off the ground & hitting them high after they've disposed of the ball.If this sets the precedent for the season for attacks on the head, lets see how it pans out across the whole season for all of the players each week.
The BS meter has now been calibrated.
I think 7 is fair enough.
8+ stuff should be for non-footy actions ( this was still a “bump” at the end of the day…. Albeit horribly executed)
8,10 week stuff should be for “king hit” punches, elbows etc. Eg - Pugger on Caven, Barry hall right hook etc
Not at a workplace I haven't! Wouldn't dream of it!Lance I would bet any amount of money that you have used the reported insult at some point in your life. Would also double down that you have been called it more times than you could count.
It’s a very generic insult.
100% agree the AFL leans heavily into the public opinion which is heavily swayed by media opinion. Which is exactly why your Cripps, Lynch and Maynard didn't get reprimanded. It's not they weren't intentionally trying to take someone out, like they're some absolute angels. It's that those 3 are either in the boys clubs or big names / big teams. And the media didn't go hard at them because of that, so the AFL didn't have to either. We all knew at the time if Maynard was a fringe Freo player in Round 5 he would've gotten weeks for the same action.AFL seem to ride the wave of public opinion. This one was widespread in its condemnation of Webster.
Cripps, Lynch, Maynard while all not intentional trying to take someone out - lacked duty of care and weren't suspended the last couple of years.
While there is no conspiracy - little doubt that the decision makers are heavily influenced by public opinion.
Yep- that will be the litmus test. Maynard should have missed time and didn’t and now this year, it's been ramped up. Let’s see how it goes- if they apply tough penalties consistently- most of us will be happy.Good outcome
Would be very interested to see the resultant penalty were it to be a Collingwood or Carlton player the week before or during finals
Will be the true acid test of how seriously the AFL is taking this
Would be absolutely insane in the workplace.Not at a workplace I haven't! Wouldn't dream of it!
And the problem with the gradings - they are subjective.I get the feeling the tribunal would have been happy to give more had the charge been intentional instead of careless. He got lucky there because it was definitely intentional.