Tribunal / suspensions 2024

[chef]

8 for me. Cowardly stuff

[EasternWest]

8 for me. Cowardly stuff

Yo WTF he knew exactly what he was doing.

Rub this dude out and send a serious message. That kind of thing can end careers.

[jeemak]

The arsehole should have been savagely introduced to the fence after that. Absolute wanker stuff and he should get three months.

I mean, what does the AFL stand for? The apologist blokey nature of the commentariat will be out in force tomorrow attempting to mitigate what was an act of calculated violence intended to maim an opponent. They'll say he needs to go for a long time, but stop short of actually suggesting an appropriately long ban. Simpkin now has a career at risk, what's a reasonable price to pay for that?

Last year Pickett copped two for his hit on Bailey Smith, only because the latter was fortunately able to walk away from the contest. But if you review that incident versus the Webster and Simpkin one from today, they're extremely similar. Pickett should have copped many more weeks, and that may have acted as a signal the league was serious about penalising dangerous intent and not just outcomes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPqjWoqghAM

If you penalise intent, you immediately clean up the mess. Webster will be sidelined mainly because of the outcome of his actions, and that to me is missing the point if you really want to protect the head. Bad outcomes are important and need to factor into penalties, but they're a lag indicator of an action that due to their relative infrequency don't do enough to change behaviour.

[jazzadogs]

Intent is interesting because the only time they seemed to consider intent over outcome last year was when they decided that Maynard did not INTEND to cause the outcome of Brayshaw being knocked out.

[jeemak]

Intent is interesting because the only time they seemed to consider intent over outcome last year was when they decided that Maynard did not INTEND to cause the outcome of Brayshaw being knocked out.

And that's where the apologist bullshit comes into play. Maynard's intent was to impact high with force. As soon as he balled up on drove his shoulder downwards it should have been weeks. Doing that was physically more difficult than lowering his arms and using them to limit contact and protect himself from danger.

A simple way of looking at the Maynard incident would be what would he have done if he was on a set of skis or roller skates out of control, waving his arms around and about to hit a tree. Would he have balled up in that situation or would he have put his hands out to limit the damage to himself? The answer is obviously the latter but he wasn't heading towards a tree, he was heading towards a prone and vulnerable opponent and decided to maim him.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

The arsehole should have been savagely introduced to the fence after that. Absolute wanker stuff and he should get three months.

I mean, what does the AFL stand for? The apologist blokey nature of the commentariat will be out in force tomorrow attempting to mitigate what was an act of calculated violence intended to maim an opponent. They'll say he needs to go for a long time, but stop short of actually suggesting an appropriately long ban. Simpkin now has a career at risk, what's a reasonable price to pay for that?

Last year Pickett copped two for his hit on Bailey Smith, only because the latter was fortunately able to walk away from the contest. But if you review that incident versus the Webster and Simpkin one from today, they're extremely similar. Pickett should have copped many more weeks, and that may have acted as a signal the league was serious about penalising dangerous intent and not just outcomes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPqjWoqghAM

If you penalise intent, you immediately clean up the mess. Webster will be sidelined mainly because of the outcome of his actions, and that to me is missing the point if you really want to protect the head. Bad outcomes are important and need to factor into penalties, but they're a lag indicator of an action that due to their relative infrequency don't do enough to change behaviour.

Did you hear Bernie Vince on the Powel Pepper hit? Said it was out of character from him and he's a good bloke. Thought 4 weeks was a bit harsh. Absolute wanker.

The Pickett one I said was negligent at the time. This hit reminded me of his on Bailey. And the AFL will wonder why these hits still happen. Absolute negligent amateur league.

[jeemak]

Did you hear Bernie Vince on the Powel Pepper hit? Said it was out of character from him and he's a good bloke. Thought 4 weeks was a bit harsh. Absolute wanker.

The Pickett one I said was negligent at the time. This hit reminded me of his on Bailey. And the AFL will wonder why these hits still happen. Absolute negligent amateur league.

This is the BS that I hate. Everyone's a good bloke of upstanding character until they're not, and if there's direct evidence of them taking an opportunity for a cheap one then that should be enough to at least make people suspicious of their original good bloke assessment, and leave it out of the conversation.

Negligence is a funny word - failure to take proper care over something. Without the myriad training sessions, AFL warnings, general decency or whatever you could make the excuse that ignorance leads to a negligent act on the field of play. But every player is equipped with all of the elements that should take ignorance out of the equation as a mitigating factor for negligent acts committed. Meaning there's no excuse for negligence and the definition should be considered more harshly.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

This is the BS that I hate. Everyone's a good bloke of upstanding character until they're not, and if there's direct evidence of them taking an opportunity for a cheap one then that should be enough to at least make people suspicious of their original good bloke assessment, and leave it out of the conversation.

Negligence is a funny word - failure to take proper care over something. Without the myriad training sessions, AFL warnings, general decency or whatever you could make the excuse that ignorance leads to a negligent act on the field of play. But every player is equipped with all of the elements that should take ignorance out of the equation as a mitigating factor for negligent acts committed. Meaning there's no excuse for negligence and the definition should be considered more harshly.

SPP always plays on the edge. His bump certainly wasn't out of character but agree with what you're saying.

I think reckless or malicious or stupid or dangerous may be more appropriate words for the Pickett and Webster bumps.

[GVGjr]

Kingy has come out with a suggestion that Webster should get 10 weeks.
Could it be that high?

[bornadog]

Kingy has come out with a suggestion that Webster should get 10 weeks.
Could it be that high?

I still think he will get 6

[divvydan]

I really don't know what he'll get.
4 weeks seems the absolute minimum possible and inline with other bumps in recent history.
I think everyone believes this action warrants more than that but how many more weeks can you add unless you deem it intentional, which is almost never the case with bumps.

Personally, I'd like to see it be ruled intentional and Webster given 8 weeks. I think 5 weeks is more likely since they'll want to go above the usual 4 but will be limited by ruling it as careless.

[ledge]

I really don't know what he'll get.
4 weeks seems the absolute minimum possible and inline with other bumps in recent history.
I think everyone believes this action warrants more than that but how many more weeks can you add unless you deem it intentional, which is almost never the case with bumps.

Personally, I'd like to see it be ruled intentional and Webster given 8 weeks. I think 5 weeks is more likely since they'll want to go above the usual 4 but will be limited by ruling it as careless.

To be honest if that wasn’t deliberate and intentional neither was the JFK assasination.

[divvydan]

The Match Review Officer (MRO) graded the incident as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact, leaving Webster facing a ban of three-plus matches.

As expected, graded careless.

[angelopetraglia]

Kingy has come out with a suggestion that Webster should get 10 weeks.
Could it be that high?

I would be happy with 10. But think he will get around 6. The game can't stand for that type of conduct anymore. Especially in the light of all these concussion issues. It was completely avoidable, it was late, it was high and it was exteme impact. Send a message to the football world that they take these issues seriously.

[angelopetraglia]

The Match Review Officer (MRO) graded the incident as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact, leaving Webster facing a ban of three-plus matches.

As expected, graded careless.

I don't think it was careless. It was intentional. He lined him up with and old fashioned hip and shoulder, something you would have seen in the 70s and 80s.