MRP / Trib. Wellingham: How many weeks?

[76woodenspooners]

A question ...

You can hear in the video the umpire saying "I've reported him ...".

Exactly how does a player get reported these days? Once upon a time the umpire would theatrically pull out a notepad and pencil from his top pocket and go around the back of the player to get his number.

it obviously doesn't work like that anymore - but how does it work?

 

[Captivating]

A question ...

You can hear in the video the umpire saying "I've reported him ...".

Exactly how does a player get reported these days? Once upon a time the umpire would theatrically pull out a notepad and pencil from his top pocket and go around the back of the player to get his number.

it obviously doesn't work like that anymore - but how does it work?

the internet?

 

[JasRulz63]

Has anyone ever being charged with severe impact?

It didn't end up sticking after being challenged, but Lindsay Thomas was originally charged with severe impact in that slide on Gary Rohan that broke his ankle.

 

[Hva sher a]

Hardly a dog act, I thought he was just protecting himself. If he didnt then he would have gotten smashed and if he pulled out then he would have been labelled a squib. Will still get 3-4 weeks..

exactly.
is there another category outside of reckless/negligent called "extremely clumsy". I agree he should get 3 but I reckon he just changed his mind mid-air and was protecting himself.
but calls that he is a dog are a bit extreme...whatever his faults being dirty is not one of them

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

exactly.
is there another category outside of reckless/negligent called "extremely clumsy". I agree he should get 3 but I reckon he just changed his mind mid-air and was protecting himself.
but calls that he is a dog are a bit extreme...whatever his faults being dirty is not one of them

I think you must have been viewing an incident from another game. There was nothing clumsy or protective about Wellingham's contact. Rather, it was deliberate and nasty and will be appropriately penalised.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

I disagree, I was sitting in the Ponsford and a collision always appeared likely with both players on track to get to the ball at a similar time. Looking at the replay from different angles and in slow motion it doesn't look the best, but at about 0.25 seconds Wellingham dropped his eyes slightly, up until then he was looking at the ball.

Watch the replay. He never had eyes for the ball.

 

[Hva sher a]

I think you must have been viewing an incident from another game. There was nothing clumsy or protective about Wellingham's contact. Rather, it was deliberate and nasty and will be appropriately penalised.

I was there and have watched the replay on TV a few times. Will admit I'm biased but still don't think it was nasty but that's my opinion Deserves to get at least 3 though.

 

[Bay Pie]

Watch the replay. He never had eyes for the ball.

Watch the clip on the previous page. The very last camera angle where you can see Wellinghams face. He has eyes on the ball and then at the last minute looks at Simpson and collides with him

 

[Pera]

At the point of Impact though, he has no thought of going for the ball whatsoever. He intentionally tried to take Simpson out and succeeded, which means he'll miss a few weeks minimum.

It was pretty stupid. If he wanted to knock Simpson's lights out, he should have just gone the ball and gone up with the knees to get away with it. Similar to the way Harbrow did it to Lewis. Was fair, but deep down he knew he could have gone through Lewis and he did.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

High Contact
Sever Impact
Reckless

550 Activation points
No carry over and early plea

4 weeks.

All this taking into account broken jaw, knocked out and wily miss a week due to injury.

If it goes to the tribunal, then were screwed!

Plus a good record reduces it even further

 

[juzzo]

Never been more disappointed in one of our players before. Would like to see him get 6 but will probably end up with 4-5. Anyone who enjoyed it needs to have a long hard look at themselves. At least he apologised to Simpson after the game so he gets some credit for that.

 

[Magpira]

A question ...

You can hear in the video the umpire saying "I've reported him ...".

Exactly how does a player get reported these days? Once upon a time the umpire would theatrically pull out a notepad and pencil from his top pocket and go around the back of the player to get his number.

it obviously doesn't work like that anymore - but how does it work?

LOL GOLD

 

[DThomas]

3 weeks minimum. Bloody dog act.
Plus he's overrated by Collingwood supporters anyway.
Hate to see that done to one of our players.

Would a "dog" do this after the match?

I may be biased, but it didn't look like he did it on purpose to me. He will definitely get suspended though. Lucky we have Pendles ready to go.

 

[Malifice]

Would a "dog" do this after the match?

I may be biased, but it didn't look like he did it on purpose to me. He will definitely get suspended though. Lucky we have Pendles ready to go.

I'd argue that picture says more about Simpson character than Wellinghams. Couldnt have lined up a nicer bloke.

Also its confirmed that Simpson has a broken jaw and will miss 4-6 - his 150 odd consecutive game streak has just been ended

As for punishment, 'High' contact is not debateable, 'Severe' impact looks like a lock as well (broken jaw, played no further part in the match, KO'd etc)

The question is was it 'intentional' or 'reckless'.

As discussed if deemed reckless he gets @ 550 points, reduced for a good record + early plea = 3 weeks.

If intentional (which I think it is - he clearly and for whatever reason elects to jump from the ground, tucks in his arm and intentionally aims for Simspons head without making any effort whatsoever to mark or spoil the footy) he gets 9 activation points and it goes straight to the tribunal (where they may very well throw the book at him).

Watching the replay its pretty clear that Simpsons intent was the footy. Its equally clear that Wellinghams intent was crunching Simpson.

 

[Bay Pie]

Dude your missing the tribunals definition of intentional. An intentional hit is defined as a punch to the face. A deliberate act to cause harm. Charging someone in a marking contest with your elbow tucked in is reckless, not intentional by definition.

Incidents like this have occurred before and I cannot recall any classed as severe impact. Too many have got caught up in the media hysteria which happens with most heavy hits. Crameri brokers a blokes jaw recently, it was also graded as high impact.

There is no doubt it was a nasty hit but we want to see the punishment fit the crime. A 4 week ban is about right. The AFL made rules to look after infrequent offenders and therefore provide discounts for a clean record and then additionally for an early plea.

The 4 week ban will be reduced because Wellingham has otherwise been a ball player and has a clean record. What did you think of Judd splitting Pavlichs eye open with an elbow going unpunished? Glasshouses?

 

[dubber]

I'd argue that picture says more about Simpson character than Wellinghams. Couldnt have lined up a nicer bloke.

Also its confirmed that Simpson has a broken jaw and will miss 4-6 - his 150 odd consecutive game streak has just been ended

As for punishment, 'High' contact is not debateable, 'Severe' impact looks like a lock as well (broken jaw, played no further part in the match, KO'd etc)

The question is was it 'intentional' or 'reckless'.

As discussed if deemed reckless he gets @ 550 points, reduced for a good record + early plea = 3 weeks.

If intentional (which I think it is - he clearly and for whatever reason elects to jump from the ground, tucks in his arm and intentionally aims for Simspons head without making any effort whatsoever to mark or spoil the footy) he gets 9 activation points and it goes straight to the tribunal (where they may very well throw the book at him).

Watching the replay its pretty clear that Simpsons intent was the footy. Its equally clear that Wellinghams intent was crunching Simpson.

So wellingham who has never been suspended meant to break Kade's jaw? Yes it's high, severe but I'm not so sure it was intentional. He was committed to bump and what happened after was unfortunate but Kade doesn't play netball for Carlton so kudos to him for playing 150 straight but it's a contact sport and sooner or later you end up missing a few. I'm sure he will get over it and so should you.
As for wellingham he should get punished for that 100%

 

[Malifice]

Dude your missing the tribunals definition of intentional. An intentional hit is defined as a punch to the face. A deliberate act to cause harm. Charging someone in a marking contest with your elbow tucked in is reckless, not intentional by definition.

Let me ask you, in your opinion what was Wellinghams intent when he lept into the air with a raised shoulder aimed at Simpson?

From the AFL tribunal rules:

Definition of ‘intentional’ – A player intentionally commits a reportable offence if the player engages in the conduct constituting the reportable offence with the intention of committing that offence. An intention is a state of mind. Intention may be formed on the spur of the moment. The issue is whether it existed at the time at which the player engaged in the conduct.

He may have ran to the contest with the intent of contesting the ball in the contest, but clearly his intent changed 'on the spur of the moment' to 'iron out Simpson'.

Incidents like this have occurred before and I cannot recall any classed as severe impact. Too many have got caught up in the media hysteria which happens with most heavy hits. Crameri brokers a blokes jaw recently, it was also graded as high impact.

Not only was the injury high (broken bones, concussion, did not play any further part in the match), the potential for injury was high, and he increased the force of the impact by leaping into the air and tucking his shoulder in to hit Simpson:



There are four categories of impact – severe, high, medium and low. Low impact requires more than just negligible impact. Most reportable offences require at least low impact and a collision or incident involving negligible force will not ordinarily result in a charge. In determining the level of impact, regard will be had to the extent of force and in particular, any injury sustained by the player who was offended against. Regard will also be had to the potential to cause injury.

In addition to the effect on the victim player, the body language of the offending player in terms of flexing, turning, raising or positioning the body to either increase or reduce the force of impact, will be taken into account. The absence of injury does not preclude the classification of impact as severe.

What did you think of Judd splitting Pavlichs eye open with an elbow going unpunished?

I thought the Judd call on Pav was a joke of a decision by the MRP (as would any sensible person).

I assessed that one as reckless (elbow thrown back), high contact (head) and low impact.

 

[Malifice]

So wellingham who has never been suspended meant to break Kade's jaw?

The question is not whether he intended to break Kades jaw, the question is whether he intended to engage in rough conduct.

Yes it's high, severe but I'm not so sure it was intentional.

I think there is room for argument against intentionality. I lean towards intentional, but I can see the arguments against it.

IMO the MRP should charge him with intentionality (with reckless in the alternative) and let him plead his case at the Tribunal

 

[morgoth]

Some guys deserve to be labelled a dog but Wellingham is actually the exact opposite. He is almost too nice to the opposition, how many times do you see him help an opponent up, give them a tap etc. All that happened last night was he went for a marking contest, got there late and self preservation kicked in so he covered up to protect himself with the consequence being he took out Simpson.

It looks terrible but there was no intent, he just stuffed up his run at the ball. He deserves a good spell but he does not deserve to be labelled a dog.

 

[morgoth]

Let me ask you, in your opinion what was Wellinghams intent when he lept into the air with a raised shoulder aimed at Simpson?

From the AFL tribunal rules:

Definition of ‘intentional’ – A player intentionally commits a reportable offence if the player engages in the conduct constituting the reportable offence with the intention of committing that offence. An intention is a state of mind. Intention may be formed on the spur of the moment. The issue is whether it existed at the time at which the player engaged in the conduct.

He may have ran to the contest with the intent of contesting the ball in the contest, but clearly his intent changed 'on the spur of the moment' to 'iron out Simpson'.



Not only was the injury high (broken bones, concussion, did not play any further part in the match), the potential for injury was high, and he increased the force of the impact by leaping into the air and tucking his shoulder in to hit Simpson:



There are four categories of impact – severe, high, medium and low. Low impact requires more than just negligible impact. Most reportable offences require at least low impact and a collision or incident involving negligible force will not ordinarily result in a charge. In determining the level of impact, regard will be had to the extent of force and in particular, any injury sustained by the player who was offended against. Regard will also be had to the potential to cause injury.

In addition to the effect on the victim player, the body language of the offending player in terms of flexing, turning, raising or positioning the body to either increase or reduce the force of impact, will be taken into account. The absence of injury does not preclude the classification of impact as severe.




I thought the Judd call on Pav was a joke of a decision by the MRP (as would any sensible person).

I assessed that one as reckless (elbow thrown back), high contact (head) and low impact.

And you were wrong there and you will be wrong again. If you ever bothered to play the game above U9's you would know exactly what happened. Wellingham has no history of these sort of acts, one of the fairest players in our team. So **** off with your pompous shit, he will get weeks but there was no intent other than self preservation.

Harden up soft ****.

 

[Malifice]

And you were wrong there and you will be wrong again. If you ever bothered to play the game above U9's you would know exactly what happened. Wellingham has no history of these sort of acts, one of the fairest players in our team. So **** off with your pompous shit, he will get weeks but there was no intent other than self preservation.

Harden up soft ****.

FIrstly, charming.

Secondly, if you think Wellinghams only intent was 'self preservation' then you would have to be pretty biased.

Im not suggesting he intended to break Kades jaw, I am suggesting that he intended to engage in rough conduct (the offence that he has been charged with).

He fairly clearly makes a split second decision, changes his mind at the last second, and then lines Simpson up.

If thats the view of the MRP (and bearing in mind intentionality is always a hard one to prove so he may get the benefit of the doubt) then he gets 9 activation points and faces the tribunal (and the option of throwing the book at him).

I reckon they may charge him with 'Rough conduct' (Severe, High, Intentional), but leave open the option of downgrading to 'reckless' at tribunal, but he may very well get the benefit of the doubt.

Reckless high and severe, and he would take it and run.

 

[morgoth]

FIrstly, charming.

Secondly, if you think Wellinghams only intent was 'self preservation' then you would have to be pretty biased.

Im not suggesting he intended to break Kades jaw, I am suggesting that he intended to engage in rough conduct (the offence that he has been charged with).

He fairly clearly makes a split second decision, changes his mind at the last second, and then lines Simpson up.

If thats the view of the MRP (and bearing in mind intentionality is always a hard one to prove so he may get the benefit of the doubt) then he gets 9 activation points and faces the tribunal (and the option of throwing the book at him).

I reckon they may charge him with 'Rough conduct' (Severe, High, Intentional), but leave open the option of downgrading to 'reckless' at tribunal, but he may very well get the benefit of the doubt.

Reckless high and severe, and he would take it and run.

No I know my teams players, I know who can be a bit dirty and who is clean. He is the cleanest in our side. Wellers takes marks like that all the time, all he did was mistime his run. If you had bothered to play the game you would know it happens. And when it does self preservation kicks on or would you leave yourself wide open.

 

[absy]

Agree with you morgoth, it was so obvious that was the case at the ground. He really wanted to impact that contest but was far to late, he'll get a few weeks but hardly a dog... maybe a bit stupid

 

[Baltimore Jack]

IMO, it will be classified as Reckless

 

[Malifice]

No I know my teams players, I know who can be a bit dirty and who is clean. He is the cleanest in our side. Wellers takes marks like that all the time, all he did was mistime his run. If you had bothered to play the game you would know it happens. And when it does self preservation kicks on or would you leave yourself wide open.

Where did I say he was 'dirty' or a 'dog'?

My point is that its open to debate whether his conduct can be assessed as 'reckless' (i.e. his actions during the contesting of the mark were reckless) or whether he intended to engage in rough conduct by changing his mind at the last minute to instead intending to iron out Simpson.

The other two elements (severity and impact) are not really in debate.

Personally he may get the benefit of the doubt and get stitched up with reckless, but I wouldnt be surprised if they go the intentional route.

Note again I'm not suggesting for a minute the incident was premeditated; or that he intended to break Simpsons jaw - I'm only suggesting that it may very well be open to the MRP to put forward a case that at the time of the offence, that he intended to engage in rough conduct.