Moved Thread Zac Williams bump

Remove this Banner Ad

Kappa

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 7, 2014
21,364
26,504
AFL Club
Collingwood
What part of what I said was wrong? Are you going to argue that Heeney didn't get bumped or that Pickett wasn't fined and given a low impact charge, because a quick google search will show they are factual statements
the two incidents were different, and thus had different grading. The Williams bump was later and he left the ground which is worse.
 

carlton_99

All Australian
Oct 4, 2018
912
3,244
AFL Club
Carlton
the two incidents were different, and thus had different grading. The Williams bump was later and he left the ground which is worse.
A hit being later has no effect on impact and both players were able to get up within a few seconds without the 20min concussion wait. So not sure one going to the bench for a minute is relevant at all.
 

juss

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 23, 2009
23,792
30,536
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
New York Jets
Happy for Williams to get a week as we don’t need that in our game and it didn’t pass the eye test but the AFL need to have a hard look at their suspension grading system.

Should’ve been low impact and should’ve been let off by the letter of the law. I like the idea behind a grading system but it must be followed.
Honestly, we all have known the system throws up some flawed outcomes every year, but honestly, this won't necessarily be one of them. The bump deserved a week, and it got one.

I guarantee you the system will cause some howler results this year and inconsistencies, but in this one probably the right outcome for the action was received.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kappa

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 7, 2014
21,364
26,504
AFL Club
Collingwood
A hit being later has no effect on impact and both players were able to get up within a few seconds without the 20min concussion wait. So not sure one going to the bench for a minute is relevant at all.
Williams chose to leave the ground which makes the impact worse, pretty simple.
 

carlton_99

All Australian
Oct 4, 2018
912
3,244
AFL Club
Carlton
Williams chose to leave the ground which makes the impact worse, pretty simple.
Well put that in the guidelines then. Because based on the tribunal today it seemed that Gleeson was arguing that a negative post match concussion test was one of the main reasons for the medium impact.
 

Hawk_francais

Premiership Player
Sep 20, 2015
3,370
6,658
AFL Club
Hawthorn

By the way I didn't show any still shot - think that was someone else.
Note: The audio is the statement Michael Christian made after the Pickett sanction was handed down being read out
What you need to do is look at this bump side by side with the one from Williams, then see that:

1. Pickett’s bump is mainly to the body and head contact comes incidentally, it’s incidental. Williams jumps and drives his elbow into Hunter’s head and upper body.

2. The force of the bump. Just look at both videos and ask yourself when you’d rather be in Isaac’s shoes, or Hunter’s. It’s chalk and cheese, Williams hit much harder than Pickett. That’s why the impact grading exists.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
36,121
33,342
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
What you need to do is look at this bump side by side with the one from Williams, then see that:

1. Pickett’s bump is mainly to the body and head contact comes incidentally, it’s incidental. Williams jumps and drives his elbow into Hunter’s head and upper body.

2. The force of the bump. Just look at both videos and ask yourself when you’d rather be in Isaac’s shoes, or Hunter’s. It’s chalk and cheese, Williams hit much harder than Pickett. That’s why the impact grading exists.
What you need to do is read the Tribunal rules.

The sole question was was the impact 'low' or 'medium'.

The AFL (successfully) argued that due to the 'potential' for injury, the impact was in fact 'medium' despite the fact Taylor played on and passed a concussion test.

Not something I disagree with on principle, but that's not whats reflected in the rules. It's like saying a punch to the head that 'potentially' could break someones jaw, but doesnt in fact hurt them more than dazing them, should be graded as 'severe impact' due to the 'potential' for injury.

The real culprit here is the recent focus (rightfully) on concussion. The AFL are (again rightfully) concerned about a flood of lawsuits from former players who have suffered concussion, due to the AFL not doing enough to protect them. They want to be seen to be being strong on the issue (and remember, a failed concussion test is now 2 weeks out for the player).

I'm OK with all of that, but it needs to be reflected in the rules, and at thee moment it's not.
 

Kappa

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 7, 2014
21,364
26,504
AFL Club
Collingwood
What you need to do is read the Tribunal rules.

The sole question was was the impact 'low' or 'medium'.

The AFL (successfully) argued that due to the 'potential' for injury, the impact was in fact 'medium' despite the fact Taylor played on and passed a concussion test.

Not something I disagree with on principle, but that's not whats reflected in the rules. It's like saying a punch to the head that 'potentially' could break someones jaw, but doesnt in fact hurt them more than dazing them, should be graded as 'severe impact' due to the 'potential' for injury.

The real culprit here is the recent focus (rightfully) on concussion. The AFL are (again rightfully) concerned about a flood of lawsuits from former players who have suffered concussion, due to the AFL not doing enough to protect them. They want to be seen to be being strong on the issue (and remember, a failed concussion test is now 2 weeks out for the player).

I'm OK with all of that, but it needs to be reflected in the rules, and at thee moment it's not.

It's clear in the rules that the MRO has the authority to label an incident like Williams' as medium impact, Carlton tried to argue that is was "low" impact, because a player came onto the field later and didn't have concussion, despite the fact that the impact was actually Williams running full pace, then launching off the ground straight into someone's head. Just because someone has a tough chin and didn't get concussed doesn't mean the impact wasn't of medium force. Punching someone in the head with force COULD cause serious injuries, which is why it often ends in significant suspensions, wtf is your argument? Of course things with potential to be more dangerous are treated more seriously.
 

Hawk_francais

Premiership Player
Sep 20, 2015
3,370
6,658
AFL Club
Hawthorn
What you need to do is read the Tribunal rules.

The sole question was was the impact 'low' or 'medium'.

The AFL (successfully) argued that due to the 'potential' for injury, the impact was in fact 'medium' despite the fact Taylor played on and passed a concussion test.

Not something I disagree with on principle, but that's not whats reflected in the rules. It's like saying a punch to the head that 'potentially' could break someones jaw, but doesnt in fact hurt them more than dazing them, should be graded as 'severe impact' due to the 'potential' for injury.

The real culprit here is the recent focus (rightfully) on concussion. The AFL are (again rightfully) concerned about a flood of lawsuits from former players who have suffered concussion, due to the AFL not doing enough to protect them. They want to be seen to be being strong on the issue (and remember, a failed concussion test is now 2 weeks out for the player).

I'm OK with all of that, but it needs to be reflected in the rules, and at thee moment it's not.
What you need to do is (after taking off your whiny club supporter hat) think more broadly about the rules and the MRO is general. They are in place to keep the game safe and hand out proportional punishments to player who endanger others.

Often the MRO fails to do this, so why are you complaining when it hands down a suspension that even you can see is warranted? Personally I’m much happier that players are rubbed out for the ‘potential’ to cause injury. That way cases are assessed on the action rather than the outcome.

The only complaint possible is that it should’ve been a longer suspension.
 

Bjchan13

Club Legend
Jul 23, 2018
2,967
3,041
AFL Club
Essendon
View attachment 1073427

Very interestingly from this article going through how incidents are graded by Christian, this bump was graded as low impact and adjudged a fine. Pickett absolutely flushed Heeney on the cheek and technically, this still shows that he too left the ground... Does anyone know if or how Heeney was post this bump?

I'd be very interested to know if anything is explicitly written in the laws/rules regarding 'leaving the ground' when bumping, as media folk seem to be using it as a crutch. Carlton could and should use this footage in Williams' defense.
Good article. Solidifies my opinion that the AFL and Christian have NFI what they're doing.
 

Bjchan13

Club Legend
Jul 23, 2018
2,967
3,041
AFL Club
Essendon
What does this have to do with anything I said? I never said what Williams did was right, but if there is contact made with the head and a concussion test is administered (during or after the game) the impact must be classified from now on as Medium...
Is that what the AFL have said? Or is this what you are saying would be standard using Williams as a benchmark? Players will be having concussion tests all the time as a precaution and passing them most of the time throughout the season. Would be madness for the AFL to go down this path.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bjchan13

Club Legend
Jul 23, 2018
2,967
3,041
AFL Club
Essendon

By the way I didn't show any still shot - think that was someone else.
Note: The audio is the statement Michael Christian made after the Pickett sanction was handed down being read out
Pickett. Late, shoulder to head, feet on ground and Heeney had no way of bracing for contact as he had just kicked it. Played out game. No concussion. 10k Fine.

Shiel, 50/50 ball up for grabs, 2 players approaching from opposite directions, Shiel crouched low, shoulder to head, feet on ground, Taylor had oppurtunity to brace for contact but showed no situational awareness. Shiel won the ball. Taylor passed concussion test. Played out game after 15 min break. 2 weeks suspension.

I see Picketts action as worse than Shiels because he was late to the contest and Heeney had no way of bracing for contact due to being mid kicking action.
 
Last edited:

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
36,121
33,342
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
What you need to do is (after taking off your whiny club supporter hat) think more broadly about the rules and the MRO is general. They are in place to keep the game safe and hand out proportional punishments to player who endanger others.
No they're not. They're there to enforce the rules as written, not just to make it up as they go along.
 

Hawk_francais

Premiership Player
Sep 20, 2015
3,370
6,658
AFL Club
Hawthorn
No they're not. They're there to enforce the rules as written, not just to make it up as they go along.
Handing out proportional punishments is not compelling evidence that the system is flawed.

Just count your blessings that he didn’t break Clark’s jaw and cop a month-long suspension.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
36,121
33,342
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Punching someone in the head with force COULD cause serious injuries, which is why it often ends in significant suspensions, wtf is your argument?
So you're saying a punch that shatters some ones jaw should get the same punishment an identical punch that glances off the victim without doing much damage, but COULD have shattered his jaw?

That's my concern with punishment for potential injury.

Again, dont get me wrong. I've been saying all thread its Rough conduct, High, Careless and either Low or Medium impact.

According to the rules, that's either a fine (low) or a week (medium).
 

calman

Senior List
Jul 6, 2008
240
483
ballarat
AFL Club
Carlton
AFL classed a player who played out the game and did not go to the bench or be assisted to his feet, passed a mandatory concussion test after the game ( cynic in me says it was not done during the game as it would impact player numbers and rotations for 20 minutes)
I would like to see AFL fine St kilda for not doing a concussion test straight away, as AFL have deemed the hit to be of medium impact, why could not St Kilda bench see this

So classed as medium impact which sets the bar very very low
so if
a player has to helped from the ground or fails a concussion test,
does that now mean the impact it automatically upgraded


1615338239312.png


This should have been low impact according to thier tribunal rules
player play out the match check
player minimal ongoing issue, passed mandatory AFL concussion check

If they want this incident to get a week change the tribunal rules and THEN let the clubs and players know
not makey uppey as we go along.

Should the AFL tribunal rules reflect a week = yes
Do the AFL tribunal rules as the stand reflect a week = no

see a couple of hits in 2019 that got nothing from an AFL protected species
1615338483980.png
 

LukeParkerno1

Post-Human
Sep 23, 2005
128,076
51,375
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
As soon as you leave the ground to hit a bloke and you are contact high...you get a week. If you injure the bloke it's 4 times worse than that. Not sure what the point of the challenge was for!
 

TheKITC

Club Legend
Suspended
Mar 7, 2009
2,898
4,341
The Cupboard
AFL Club
Carlton
I think a lot of people in here are missing the point and are going to the obvious "Carlton fans having a sook" tactic. I am on record stating before the tribunal that I think the action deserved a week. What is puzzling and troubling (and bloody frustrating) is how they (AFL, MRO) arrived at that decision. As has been explicitly discussed by myself and others, by the definitions and rules that the AFL has themselves set, Williams should not have been graded medium. I challenge anyone to debate that without gut feel or optics based opinions, because that is written in black and white in how impact is graded and there are precedents, like the article I posted.

Anyone who read Gleeson's evidence (AFLs QC) against Williams knows that he pretty much made a goose of himself and basically stated, "Well, potentially it could have been medium impact, the potential was there so we are grading it as such" and made flippant statements based on no science or evidence that I can find, talking about how Williams turned his head which creates more impact. It was like, what is this guy going on about? Nothing he said was based on the laws set out nor factual, they were simply gut feel opinions.

The decision was made based on optics alone and contradicts their own rules and regulations. It would be fine if the AFL came out and was transparent enough (keep dreaming) to say "we have carte blanche on extraordinary decisions that involve head high contact that may go outside of the matrix and regulations set regarding suspensions. We can base this on several factors, including the optics and how it affects the game moving forward". But no, they bumble and stumble through a tribunal hearing, which Carlton's Barrister made far more salient and logical points including throwing their own laws back at them, to arrive at a decision that was clearly contrived to achieve a desired result that the AFL wanted.

I am pretty confident that at some point in the season, there will be a high profile player who gets a different grading despite doing something comparable to Williams which is the real crux of the problem. At least try to be consistent and transparent, we have neither at the moment.

Not too dissimilar. I wouldn’t say Pickett left the ground though and it wasn’t as late.
As soon as you leave the ground to hit a bloke and you are contact high...you get a week. If you injure the bloke it's 4 times worse than that. Not sure what the point of the challenge was for!
I posted a still of the incident which shows exactly the opposite and Pickett did in fact leave the ground. If you want to start arguing over degrees of leaving the ground, go for it but it's very clear he did from what I posted. Can anyone point me in the direction of the rule the states that if a player 'leaves the ground' to bump, that it's instant suspension? The media and people in here harp on and on about it, but is it written anywhere in the laws and rules?
 
Last edited:

LukeParkerno1

Post-Human
Sep 23, 2005
128,076
51,375
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
I posted a still of the incident which shows exactly the opposite and Pickett did in fact leave the ground. If you want to start arguing over degrees of leaving the ground, go for it but it's very clear he did from what I posted. Can anyone point me in the direction of the rule the states that if a player 'leaves the ground' to bump, that it's instant suspension? The media and people in here harp on and on about it, but is it written anywhere in the laws and rules?
It's common sense. You leave the ground you are automatically initiating contact. You have to get the timing right or you face a suspension. Pickett was lucky and many said that at the time, You don't have one farcical outcome and then compound it with another. This was the right decision and I'd have said the same if it was one of our players. Exactly how stupid do you need to be to leave the ground to bump in the first place let alone clock the bloke high. You should be thankful Clark doesn't have a broken jaw otherwise Williams would have got 6 weeks. Hopefully from his sake he learns from this, it was such a needless act especially in a trial!
 

TheKITC

Club Legend
Suspended
Mar 7, 2009
2,898
4,341
The Cupboard
AFL Club
Carlton
It's common sense. You leave the ground you are automatically initiating contact. You have to get the timing right or you face a suspension. Pickett was lucky and many said that at the time, You don't have one farcical outcome and then compound it with another. This was the right decision and I'd have said the same if it was one of our players. Exactly how stupid do you need to be to leave the ground to bump in the first place let alone clock the bloke high. You should be thankful Clark doesn't have a broken jaw otherwise Williams would have got 6 weeks. Hopefully from his sake he learns from this, it was such a needless act especially in a trial!
No, don't give me "common sense". This was a tribunal hearing, not a chat around a coffee machine. It either is written in the rules and laws or it isn't.

Hint: it isn't.
 

LukeParkerno1

Post-Human
Sep 23, 2005
128,076
51,375
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
No, don't give me "common sense". It either is written in the rules and laws or it isn't.

Hint: it isn't
Common sense is always part of it! It just is. There is no problem with this being a week. Lets look at it...

a) Was it late- yes
b) was it high- yes
c) could he have pulled out- yes
d) was the act needed-no
e) did he jump into it, thus a vulnerable player was put in that position- yes he did.

Every act where a player leaves the ground SHOULD be a medium grade. There should be no ifs of buts, it should be medium, and therefore a week. If you injure them that grade is hight to severe depending on the extent. I'm happy if the MRP are harsh on this from now on.

You keep your feet and bump then by all means have it in the low category.

It's actually quite simple, and I'd say this if it was a Sydney player. Why put yourself at the mercy of the MRP when the act was so dumb and needless!
 

TheKITC

Club Legend
Suspended
Mar 7, 2009
2,898
4,341
The Cupboard
AFL Club
Carlton
Common sense is always part of it! It just is. There is no problem with this being a week. Lets look at it...

a) Was it late- yes
b) was it high- yes
c) could he have pulled out- yes
d) was the act needed-no
e) did he jump into it, thus a vulnerable player was put in that position- yes he did.

Every act where a player leaves the ground SHOULD be a medium grade. There should be no ifs of buts, it should be medium, and therefore a week. If you injure them that grade is hight to severe depending on the extent. I'm happy if the MRP are harsh on this from now on.

You keep your feet and bump then by all means have it in the low category.

It's actually quite simple, and I'd say this if it was a Sydney player. Why put yourself at the mercy of the MRP when the act was so dumb and needless!
If you took the time to fully read what I've posted, I agree that the "pub test" dictates it deserved a week.

The problem is not what we all think, it's how the game is adjudicated and what the laws state. Firstly, there is nothing in the laws that state leaving the ground and making contact (bumping or rough conduct) explicitly makes a difference regarding suspensions. Secondly, this was a tribunal hearing and laws and regulations need to be adhered to rather than going for "common sense" or optics based decisions. They went against what their own regulations state in black and white, I again challenge anyone to dispute that with facts.

If you faced a magistrate and said "well it's common sense that I should be able to drive 80kmph there as it's safe to do so, so the fact that the road rules dictate it's 50kmph don't matter because you know, common sense" you would not do well and rightfully so.

In fact, the Williams suspension is essentially like the opposite of the above example. Williams was doing 50kmph but the magistrate has punished him because he drives a fast car that has the "potential" to do faster and looks like it could drive really, really fast which could hurt someone, even though he did not. Common sense :drunk:
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad