Moved Thread Zac Williams bump

Remove this Banner Ad

owen87

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
11,883
15,089
AFL Club
Essendon
So you're saying it was an accidental bump?
You need to read the guidelines by the sounds of it.

Careless v Intentional comes down to whether there was the intention to commit the reportable offence, not simply whether the act of bumping was intentional or not.

That is, did Williams intend to hit Clark in the head? A punch to the head is clearly intended to strike a target, for example, and is not considered a football act. A late bump, however, is not inherently intended to take the target player high, and is considered a football act.

The below is quoted from http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Coach_AFL/2017_Tribunal_Guidelines.pdf

Specifically, look at the last example under careless conduct.

The question doesn't need to be whether the bump itself was accidental, it is "Did Zac Williams bump the player with the intention of hitting Clark in the head?"

All evidence, including the tribunal verdict, points to no, he was careless in his execution, but did not intend to hit Clark high.

Intentional conduct
A Player intentionally commits a Classifiable 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.

Whether or not a Player intentionally commits a Reportable Offence depends upon the state of mind of the Player when he does the act with which he is charged. What the Player did is often the best evidence of the purpose he had in mind. In some cases, the evidence that the act provides may be so strong as to compel an inference of what his intent was, no matter what he may say about it afterwards. If the immediate consequence of an act is obvious and inevitable, the deliberate doing of the act carries with it evidence of an intention to produce the consequence.

For example, a strike will be regarded as Intentional where a Player delivers a blow to an opponent with the intention of striking him.

The state of a Player’s mind is an objective fact and has to be proved in the same way as other objective facts. The whole of the relevant evidence has to be considered. If the matter is heard by the Tribunal, the Tribunal Jury will weigh the evidence of the Player as to what his intentions were along with whatever inference as to his intentions can be drawn from his conduct or other relevant facts. The Player may or may not be believed by the Tribunal Jury. Notwithstanding what the Player says, the Tribunal Jury may be able to conclude from the whole of the evidence that he intentionally committed the act constituting the Reportable Offence.
Careless conduct
A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where his conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players. Each Player owes a duty of care to all other Players, Umpires and other persons (as applicable) not to engage in conduct which will constitute a Reportable Offence being committed against that other Player, Umpire or other person (as applicable). In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach of their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence.

An example of careless conduct would be where a Player collides with another Player who has taken a mark and where contact occurs just after the mark has been taken. The offending Player has a duty of care to avoid any contact which would constitute a Reportable Offence by slowing his momentum as much as he reasonably can and a failure to do so constitutes carelessness.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
36,413
33,848
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Hodge 2 weeks for bumping Wingard in to a behind post.
Hodge 3 weeks for forearming Ziebel.
Lewis 2 weeks for striking Goldstein.

All of them took the free kick. Played out thegame. No failed concussion test. No missed weeks. All of them graded higher due to potential to cause injury.
They were graded intentional and not careless were they not?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Elmer_Judd

#InBielsaWeTrust #MOT
Jul 25, 2019
17,029
29,413
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Leeds United
As long as they are consistent with this penalty throughout the season, but the problem is they (MRP) are not, and another player who does similar will likely get off or escape with a non suspension penalty. That is the current problem with the system in place
 

theyellowsash

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 9, 2009
12,696
16,276
Footscray
AFL Club
Richmond
You need to read the guidelines by the sounds of it.

Careless v Intentional comes down to whether there was the intention to commit the reportable offence, not simply whether the act of bumping was intentional or not.

That is, did Williams intend to hit Clark in the head? A punch to the head is clearly intended to strike a target, for example, and is not considered a football act. A late bump, however, is not inherently intended to take the target player high, and is considered a football act.

The below is quoted from http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Coach_AFL/2017_Tribunal_Guidelines.pdf

Specifically, look at the last example under careless conduct.

The question doesn't need to be whether the bump itself was accidental, it is "Did Zac Williams bump the player with the intention of hitting Clark in the head?"

All evidence, including the tribunal verdict, points to no, he was careless in his execution, but did not intend to hit Clark high.
that doesnt exactly clear it up though, the intent is defined as being all about the conduct not the result. conduct is an action, ie the bump is the conduct, and williams hitting the saints player in the head is the result of the conduct. if the conduct was about the action, then the choice to bump was deliberate.

as classic by the mrp rules, theyre all about the result and are confusing the issue with their wording. if intentional conduct can only be for acts like striking, and striking can only be intentional, then theyve just doubling up rules for rules sake. theres no point even having the intentional/careless rules if thats the case. its all a result of this stupid half baked grading system.

what they should do is just have a set of penalties with pre-set penalties for the severity of each one. eg, you bumped high? ok, here are the 3 penalties you get depending on the severity of the bump. They can still leave themselves room to take things to the tribunal if the act is so egregious that the set penalties arent enough, or for weird cases that they wouldnt anticipate (like judd and toby green eye gouging). That way they can also punish things like attempted striking, which under current rules would be nothing since it relies on the hit landing even if it was a wind up KO punch that barry hall would have been proud of.
 

owen87

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
11,883
15,089
AFL Club
Essendon
that doesnt exactly clear it up though, the intent is defined as being all about the conduct not the result. conduct is an action, ie the bump is the conduct, and williams hitting the saints player in the head is the result of the conduct. if the conduct was about the action, then the choice to bump was deliberate.

as classic by the mrp rules, theyre all about the result and are confusing the issue with their wording. if intentional conduct can only be for acts like striking, and striking can only be intentional, then theyve just doubling up rules for rules sake. theres no point even having the intentional/careless rules if thats the case. its all a result of this stupid half baked grading system.

what they should do is just have a set of penalties with pre-set penalties for the severity of each one. eg, you bumped high? ok, here are the 3 penalties you get depending on the severity of the bump. They can still leave themselves room to take things to the tribunal if the act is so egregious that the set penalties arent enough, or for weird cases that they wouldnt anticipate (like judd and toby green eye gouging). That way they can also punish things like attempted striking, which under current rules would be nothing since it relies on the hit landing even if it was a wind up KO punch that barry hall would have been proud of.
In typical legal fashion, they use intentional and careless in a way that isn’t necessarily in touch with the common usage of the word.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
25,382
27,335
AFL Club
Hawthorn
They were graded intentional and not careless were they not?
Intentional or not the impact for each was low given the player got up and took their free kick. So each should have been 1 week.

But the potential to cause injury had them elevated a step. Or 2 in one case.

Pretty sure we had a player suspended for attempted striking around this time too. I cant remember many of those.
 

Arctic fox

It's only a game
Mar 22, 2017
748
615
Out west
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool
You need to read the guidelines by the sounds of it.

Careless v Intentional comes down to whether there was the intention to commit the reportable offence, not simply whether the act of bumping was intentional or not.

That is, did Williams intend to hit Clark in the head? A punch to the head is clearly intended to strike a target, for example, and is not considered a football act. A late bump, however, is not inherently intended to take the target player high, and is considered a football act.

The below is quoted from http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Coach_AFL/2017_Tribunal_Guidelines.pdf

Specifically, look at the last example under careless conduct.

The question doesn't need to be whether the bump itself was accidental, it is "Did Zac Williams bump the player with the intention of hitting Clark in the head?"

All evidence, including the tribunal verdict, points to no, he was careless in his execution, but did not intend to hit Clark high.
Wasn't there a Reckless conduct once? What happened to it?
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
36,413
33,848
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Wasn't there a Reckless conduct once? What happened to it?
Got rid of it.

Most bumps are graded careless now (unless off the ball etc). Same with most dangerous tackles (unless it's a spear tackle).

Its been covered a lot in this thread but people still don't seem to get it.
 

TheKITC

Cancelled
Mar 7, 2009
2,937
4,406
The Cupboard
AFL Club
Carlton
Good to see this suspension set the precedent for contact to the head and potential to cause injury.
A 'bump' is worse than a deliberate elbow.
#consistentlyinconsistent
Haven't you heard from "the world is against us, everything is about us though" Richmond supporters? It was only tricep contact :rolleyes:. Forget the intent or that it was outside of general play.

Laughable and predictable.
 
Last edited:

tigerwill

Premiership Player
Mar 19, 2008
4,174
5,934
AFL Club
Richmond
Haven't you heard from "the world is against us, everything is about us though" Richmond supporters? It was only tricep contact :rolleyes:. Forget the intent or that it was outside of general play.

Laughable and predictable.
Watch the video. If he hit him with an elbow he wouldn’t have gotten up.
McKay on Vlaustin was the lucky one. Ball dead, McKay jumps off the ground to “bump” Vlaustin. Luckily Vlaustin didn’t go down like Plowman who obviously trying to milk the reversal. Whistle blows, free paid and Plowman was up as if a light breeze had blown him over. Well played.
 

Remove this Banner Ad