MRP / Trib. Webster KO's Simpkin - Update 7 week penalty

[Testekill]

This is not to excuse Webster at all - 7 weeks feels about right to me.

I am curious though - are there any good examples where a player has been running full tilt in an attempt to catch the player (tackle/smother etc), realised that they weren't going to get there, and found a way to avoid or change how they hit the player rather than turning the body for a bump? I'm sure there are plenty out there.

Some players, Webster included, very much are "see ball get ball" players who will never shirt a contest, and pride their game around this. Obviously he got it completely wrong, but it would be interesting to see some direction/education from the AFL showing the viable alternatives (even if it results in a free kick) than turning the body and bumping. For years players have learnt this behaviour as a way of protecting themselves but it puts the opposition player in way too much danger.

If he just plowed into Simpkin without bumping him. If he bowled Simpkin over then it's a free for a late hit but if he's not going for a bump then it's just a player getting to the contest late.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I reckon we'd all hope people in the AFL media are of strong enough character to call it out then.

The AFL media will be the ones leading the charge to let said player off. Especially if its from a club thats playing to a fairy tale year.

 

[Sumwun]

7 is ok, would have preferred 9 to 10 to truely try to stamp this stuff out of the game.

But after the Maynard bump on Bradshaw getting zero weeks, I can’t take anything the tribunal/AFL does seriously.

Two years ago the AFL gave out a Brownlow for a very similar action.
Some would call that progress (Brownlow > zero weeks > 7 weeks), I call it corruption and a protection racket.

 

[EagleMan87]

This is not to excuse Webster at all - 7 weeks feels about right to me.

I am curious though - are there any good examples where a player has been running full tilt in an attempt to catch the player (tackle/smother etc), realised that they weren't going to get there, and found a way to avoid or change how they hit the player rather than turning the body for a bump? I'm sure there are plenty out there.

Some players, Webster included, very much are "see ball get ball" players who will never shirt a contest, and pride their game around this. Obviously he got it completely wrong, but it would be interesting to see some direction/education from the AFL showing the viable alternatives (even if it results in a free kick) than turning the body and bumping. For years players have learnt this behaviour as a way of protecting themselves but it puts the opposition player in way too much danger.

He wasn't looking at the ball, he left the ground and led with his elbow.

 

[3207]

The AFL media will be the ones leading the charge to let said player off. Especially if it’s from a club thats playing to a fairy tale year.

Unless it’s Toby Greene in which case he will get the death penalty. Cause you know, Toby Tax.

 

[boncer34]

he would hope to be absent for that one or he's going to be permanently marked with the exact shape of tristan xerri's hip bone in his temple

They had 3/4 to do it. They didn't.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Two years ago the AFL gave out a Brownlow for a very similar action.
Some would call that progress (Brownlow > zero weeks > 7 weeks), I call it corruption and a protection racket.

protection racket? How, exactly?

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Punching for some reason, seems to be less frowned upon than bumping. I've always found that weird.

Because the AFL is obsessed with the outcome over the actual action.

Players do more damage with bumps. And they don't apply an extra modifier for actions that aren't poorly executed legal acts. They go into the same careless/intentional and impact level matrix.

And the fact that the AFL still has for years had stupidity like a defence of "I carelessly punched him in the head, while I was trying to intentionally punch him in the chest.".

 

[Bunk Moreland]

This is not to excuse Webster at all - 7 weeks feels about right to me.

I am curious though - are there any good examples where a player has been running full tilt in an attempt to catch the player (tackle/smother etc), realised that they weren't going to get there, and found a way to avoid or change how they hit the player rather than turning the body for a bump? I'm sure there are plenty out there.

Some players, Webster included, very much are "see ball get ball" players who will never shirt a contest, and pride their game around this. Obviously he got it completely wrong, but it would be interesting to see some direction/education from the AFL showing the viable alternatives (even if it results in a free kick) than turning the body and bumping. For years players have learnt this behaviour as a way of protecting themselves but it puts the opposition player in way too much danger.

I think the big gap is that you simply have to get low. As low as possible. You've gotta take the head out of it.

Webster actually jumped.

 

[ferball]

The AFL media will be the ones leading the charge to let said player off. Especially if its from a club thats playing to a fairy tale year.

Yeah I know. It was a sarcastic comment.

 

[Sumwun]

protection racket? How, exactly?

Protection racket for favoured players and clubs.

 

[3207]

I think the big gap is that you simply have to get low. As low as possible. You've gotta take the head out of it.

Webster actually jumped.

Yeah an action that cannons in to his ribs in this instance and he’s not missing any time.

 

[MYOB]

How can Webster get 5 weeks more than Pickett

On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[owen87]

How can Webster get 5 weeks more than Pickett

On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Start of season crackdown, because this year the AFL is serious about it.

At least until a star player does it.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Protection racket for favoured players and clubs.

The AFL is threatening violence and demanding money in exchange for their safety?!

 

[Pickitt]

How can Webster get 5 weeks more than Pickett

Severity of injury I suppose

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Start of season crackdown, because this year the AFL is serious about it.

At least until a star player does it.

I wonder how many times the AFL read this before they go, you know what, its true, we have zero credibility and its about time we restore it when it matters.

 

[Testekill]

How can Webster get 5 weeks more than Pickett

On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Because Pickett didn't injure Smith. That's all there is to it, AFL heavily weighs outcome over intent.

 

[3207]

I wonder how many times the AFL read this before they go, you know what, its true, we have zero credibility and its about time we restore it when it matters.

Reckon they’ve got interns reading Big Footy?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Because the AFL is obsessed with the outcome over the actual action.

Players do more damage with bumps. And they don't apply an extra modifier for actions that aren't poorly executed legal acts. They go into the same careless/intentional and impact level matrix.

And the fact that the AFL still has for years had stupidity like a defence of "I carelessly punched him in the head, while I was trying to intentionally punch him in the chest.".

I always felt that I expected to be bumped whilst playing footy, as it was part of the game. As I expected it, and I instinctively protected myself, or at least bra ed for the impact. You knew it was coming. Even if you went a few weeks without being cleaned up with a bump, you still expected it to come at some point.

But I never expected to get punched.

So personally, I've always considered a punch or an elbow or whatever to be a more serious offence than a bump.

 

[3207]

I always felt that I expected to be bumped whilst playing footy, as it was part of the game. As I expected it, and I instinctively protected myself, or at least bra ed for the impact. You knew it was coming. Even if you went a few weeks without being cleaned up with a bump, you still expected it to come at some point.

But I never expected to get punched.

So personally, I've always considered a punch or an elbow or whatever to be a more serious offence than a bump.

Do you honestly think Simpkin could brace for this impact? To his head?

 

[Brezsa]

The most important thing now is that we have our range, a bump that has circumstances out of the offenders hand (such as being spun by another player) it’s 4 weeks. Leaving ground is 7 weeks. You feel that 90% of the bumps we see this year will fall within these 2 in terms of the incident.

All we can ask now is the AFL Tribunal remain consistent on that, right up until the end of September

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Do you honestly think Simpkin could brace for this impact? To his head?

Yes.

Players are too brave these days. Partly because we shame them when they do brace for contact, avoid contact or protect themselves - but also because these days they aren't expecting it.

 

[3207]

Yes.

Players are too brave these days. Partly because we shame them when they do brace for contact, avoid contact or protect themselves - but also because these days they aren't expecting it.

But he was blindsided ? Or have I seen that wrong ?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

But he was blindsided ? Or have I seen that wrong ?

I guess what I'm saying is, when I played 20 years ago, I always pretty much assumed that someone would polaxe me after I kicked the ball.

So I either jibbed it, protected myself and/or braced for the contact.

I mean, there were obviously times when none of that mattered and you got crunched anyway. But generally speaking, I was less worried about being seriously hurt from a bump than I was from getting punched.