MRP / Trib. Wellingham: How many weeks?

[76woodenspooners]

Any board would go into meltdown if one off their players got injured due to an opposition player's recklessness, and all the more so if the culprit's penalty ends up being less than the injury term. We'd go thermonuclear, especially if it involved Carlton.

We can consider ourselves very lucky with the result - Carlton certainly got the bad end of that deal.

I'm assuming that we're pleading guilty and not going to contest it? Has that been confirmed?

If so, then all that remains to do is to sincerely wish Simpson a speedy recovery and then gently close the door on round 15.

Bring on round 16. What are people's thoughts on the Geelong game? Are we going to win this one?

 

[santa claws]

im old school i reckon there was nothing more than a free kick in that. i have no doubt he was going for the ball until the last millisecond. he hit simpson at exactly the same time the ball got there. if he hadput a hand up to spoil it should have been play on.

 

[ipswichpies]

In this day and age Sharrod is a lucky boy he is also fortunate he has no priors and yes I can understand Blues fans being angry,I was angry when Caracella had his career ended and the bloke who did it did not have a case to answer.

Good luck to Kade Simpson with his recovery because according to general consensus he is a decent bloke who did not deserve that and hopefully Sharrod learn,s a lesson.

 

[Kirby]

He got pretty much what most ppl expected.

 

[Malifice]

Intentionality was debatable, but i would love to know how the impact was not graded as severe?

What exactly do you have to do to a bloke to get the 'severe' impact grading?

Very VERY lucky.

 

[September Action]

Phew-wee!

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Reckless/severe/high

That adds up to five weeks

Absolute no brainer. The right decision. I cant see what the fuss is about.

Should have come down to four not three imo...I dont think you ever should get more than a weeks discount...but thems the rules.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Intentionality was debatable, but i would love to know how the impact was not graded as severe?

What exactly do you have to do to a bloke to get the 'severe' impact grading?

Very VERY lucky.

It was graded as severe.

Please try and get your facts right.

 

[SUNSHINE22]

It was graded as severe.

Please try and get your facts right.

Exactly. Was 4 with early plea but down to 3 for five year good record.

 

[Malifice]

It was graded as severe.

Please try and get your facts right.

I see now: Reckless/ Severe/ High = 8 activation points and a level 5 offence for 550 demerit points, reduced for 5 year good behaviour.

Shoulda charged him with intent, and let him argue recklessness.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I see now: Reckless/ Severe/ High = 8 activation points and a level 5 offence for 550 demerit points, reduced for 5 year good behaviour.

Shoulda charged him with intent, and let him argue recklessness.

If they thought it was intentional they would have done that. But they didnt, so they didnt.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Exactly. Was 4 with early plea but down to 3 for five year good record.

I reckon the AFL will abolish this double dipping on discounts....or at least moderate the consessions a bit in future. He should be gone for four.

 

[Malifice]

If they thought it was intentional they would have done that. But they didnt, so they didnt.

Its hard to draw a reasonable inference of intent from video evidence (intent being a state of mind and all).

Remember, all they need to ask themselves is 'can an inference reasonably be drawn from the available evidence that shows that Wellingham intended to engage in rough conduct?'

They obviously gave him the benefit of the doubt as I thought they might.

Very lucky boy.

Might have to get Robbo to line up Pendles next time we play, and see if you change your tune.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Its hard to draw a reasonable inference of intent from video evidence (intent being a state of mind and all).

Remember, all they need to ask themselves is 'can an inference reasonably be drawn from the available evidence that shows that Wellingham intended to engage in rough conduct?'

They obviously gave him the benefit of the doubt as I thought they might.

Very lucky boy.

Might have to get Robbo to line up Pendles next time we play, and see if you change your tune.

They inferred that because he had his eyes on the ball until they very last steps.. He only took his eyes off the ball when he realised he wasnt going to mark it and Simpson was in his path. Watch the MRP panel on the AFL site and you can see from a different camera angle that Wellingham indeed did have eyes for the ball.

Dont start making pathetic threats about your players hitting ours. It makes you look stupid. And after reading your posts in recent days you clearly arent stupid.

 

[Bay Pie]

I see now: Reckless/ Severe/ High = 8 activation points and a level 5 offence for 550 demerit points, reduced for 5 year good behaviour.

Shoulda charged him with intent, and let him argue recklessness.

Like I told you but you wouldn't listen, it was always going to be reckless. The only debate was over the impact- severe or high. You got your severe. I hope the MRP now remain consistent with the 'severe' impacts for broken jaws or similar. They didn't with Crameri or many other ones in the past. I have little doubt the MRP were influenced by the carlton claims that Simpson will miss 4 games. I'll watch that intently when he returns if it truly is 4 weeks.

It was a 5 week ban. It is Sharrods clean history that knocks it lower along with the early plea. 2 benefits that any player starting out in the AFL has at his disposal should he do the right thing.

 

[Malifice]

They inferred that because he had his eyes on the ball until they very last steps.. He only took his eyes off the ball when he realised he wasnt going to mark it and Simpson was in his path.

Are you saying that at the last moment he changed his intent from contesting the ball to ironing out Simpson?

Because thats intent.

 

[Malifice]

Like I told you but you wouldn't listen, it was always going to be reckless.

Actually I said it was probably going to be reckless/ severe/ high, but I wouldnt be surprised if he went for intentional.

Wellingham can count himsslf very lucky that the MRP could not draw an inference from the video replay that he was intentionally engaging in rough conduct.

He could argue that he was initially intending to contest the ball (which he clearly was) then changed his intent to attempting to protect himself once a collision became unavoidable.

Personally there is little doubt in my mind Sharrod changed his intent at the last minute to ironing out Simpson.

Very lucky.

 

[Bay Pie]

Its hard to draw a reasonable inference of intent from video evidence (intent being a state of mind and all.

I told you that but you continued with your rose colored glasses. Intentional has shown from MRP history be linked to striking when there can be no doubt on the intent. Going into a marking contest with your eyes on the ball for all the time up to the last split second is enough to show that his main intent was to mark or spoil the ball. When that split second told him he couldn't get there, he covers up to protect an otherwise open ribecage and Simpson thus cops a shoulder.

End result was what most expected. 3 weeks with pleas.

 

[PieNSauce]

Are you saying that at the last moment he changed his intent from contesting the ball to ironing out Simpson?

Because thats intent.

Clearly you have never played the game. What he did was protect himself from the impact without pulling out. I think you are walking a very thin line coming in here and making like you are in possession of mind reading powers.

 

[Malifice]

I told you that but you continued with your rose colored glasses.

No, I clearly stated a few posts above that it was most likely going to be Reckless/ Severe/ High.

But I wouldnt be shocked if the MRP went with intentional.

Intentional has shown from MRP history be linked to striking when there can be no doubt on the intent. Going into a marking contest with your eyes on the ball for all the time up to the last split second is enough to show that his main intent was to mark or spoil the ball. When that split second told him he couldn't get there, he covers up to protect an otherwise open ribecage and Simpson thus cops a shoulder.

Agree that this is what he would have argued had he been charged with intent, and this may have been difficult to have proved otherwise (intent being a state of mind and all that).

Still, not for one moment do I think that he was simply intending to protect himself, in my mind he clearly changed his intenti in a split second to 'iron out Simpson'.

While its doubtful the MRP could have proved his intent beyond reasonable doubt, im certainly in no doubt as to what he was intending at the point of the collision.

Clearly you have never played the game. What he did was protect himself from the impact without pulling out.

To my mind he was not simply 'protecting himself' If I can be so bold as to direct you to the thread on the gameday threads, and the thread on the AFL board about the incident, thats the way most neutrals saw it as well.

Of course the difficulty lies in proving it at the MRP (regardless of what I or the majority believe).

But for intent being so difficult to establish in these cases, he would be missing quite a few more games.

 

[Swooop]

Well as I understand things it was a five week Penalty, just got reduced by Prescibed factors like early Plea and good record.

The original five weeks is fair and the reduction is simply what exists in the circumstances.

It was sickening to see Kade Simpson afterwards.

Players have to be more careful than that and Wellingham imo could have avoided the final carnage.

Still, others seem to do just as bad and get less, nevertheless he remains lucky to be playing soon as he is.

Players need to play hard and fair but at the same time need to stay mindful of not hurting heads of others, because IMO when the lawyers finally really get hold of concussions and brain injury our great game will be under significant threat.

 

[PieNSauce]

No, I clearly stated a few posts above that it was most likely going to be Reckless/ Severe/ High.

But I wouldnt be shocked if the MRP went with intentional.



Agree that this is what he would have argued had he been charged with intent, and this may have been difficult to have proved otherwise (intent being a state of mind and all that).

Still, not for one moment do I think that he was simply intending to protect himself, in my mind he clearly changed his intenti in a split second to 'iron out Simpson'.

While its doubtful the MRP could have proved his intent beyond reasonable doubt, im certainly in no doubt as to what he was intending at the point of the collision.



A real charmer.

Sad.



To my mind he was not simply 'protecting himself' If I can be so bold as to direct you to the thread on the gameday threads, and the thread on the AFL board about the incident, thats the way most neutrals saw it as well.

Of course the difficulty lies in proving it at the MRP (regardless of what I or the majority believe).

But for intent being so difficult to establish in these cases, he would be missing quite a few more games.

Don't suppose that you've considered that the difficulty in proving such a thing might have something to o with the lack of mind reading powers? Seriously more believable that a guy who has never been cited in 5 years in the system simply made a stupid mistake. He's paying for it so I think you should cut your losses and go back tou your own board before the mods lose patience.

 

[Malifice]

Don't suppose that you've considered that the difficulty in proving such a thing might have something to o with the lack of mind reading powers?

If that was the case, then criminal matters (all of which carry the element of Mens Rea or 'intent to commit the offence') would rarely be prosecuted.

Intent is frequently hard to prove, particualrly in a fast moving environment with split second decsions and an awful lot of momentum.

Seriously more believable that a guy who has never been cited in 5 years in the system simply made a stupid mistake.

Im not arguing otherwise.

Anyways, its done and dusted now.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Wellingham can count himsslf very lucky that the MRP could not draw an inference from the video replay that he was intentionally engaging in rough conduct.

Not lucky at all. If they cant infer intent then they cant allege intent. The video replay clearly shows he had his eyes on the ball.

 

[PieNSauce]

If that was the case, then criminal matters (all of which carry the element of Mens Rea or 'intent to commit the offence') would rarely be prosecuted.

Intent is frequently hard to prove, particualrly in a fast moving environment with split second decsions and an awful lot of momentum.



Im not arguing otherwise.

Anyways, its done and dusted now.

It is and my best advice to you is cut your losses and go away now.