- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #3
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
MRP / Trib. 2024 - MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports
- Thread starter Aphrodite
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Sep 30, 2014
- 1,724
- 3,054
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Nothing in that at all…the MRO overlord trying to get 1 back for the pies.
- Mar 20, 2017
- 10,820
- 36,453
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Different angle shown on FoxFooty tonight. Lucky to just get 1.Nothing in that at all…the MRO overlord trying to get 1 back for the pies.
- Apr 21, 2018
- 18,783
- 24,232
- AFL Club
- Carlton
A kick was always graded dirty. Sure not alot in it but . A week imo.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
- Sep 30, 2014
- 1,724
- 3,054
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Cmon, watch it in real time, caught him off balance & he got straight up, they will challenge that & win.
- Mar 20, 2017
- 10,820
- 36,453
- AFL Club
- Carlton
The three blokes on FoxFooty said accept it and move on. Other angle shows that he hit him with his shoulder to his jaw. A concussion and he would have had 4. Agree though that it only looks bad from the other angle.
- Sep 30, 2014
- 1,724
- 3,054
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Well, I did see it a couple of more times, & does look worse from certain angle..& yes they are cracking down, & his name isn’t Maynard
but still think they will challenge.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #82
Straight to the Tribunal …
Careless > Severe > High (3+ weeks)
Careless > Severe > High (3+ weeks)
ESKIE
Keeping it Cool.
- Feb 28, 2009
- 33,135
- 57,355
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Careless undisciplined stupid you name it in this day age if it was one of our guys, I would just say cop it and move on because it was incredibly stupid
- Mar 19, 2014
- 3,791
- 8,626
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Denver Broncos
Incredibly clumsy, he was committed to the contest, a little similar to the Plowman incident.
I felt Drapers late hit was worse as he had no other intention but to hit the player late, wasn't in the marking contest, lucky not to cause injury
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #85
- Aug 16, 2009
- 7,785
- 11,540
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- North Ballarat
Wright pulled out & needlessly flushed Cunningham in the process.
I'd be surprised if the tribunal handed down anything other than a few week suspension.
I'd be surprised if the tribunal handed down anything other than a few week suspension.
- Aug 22, 2014
- 13,937
- 50,766
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Webster's 7 weeks set a pretty significant precedent.
I don't think Wright will get 7. They'll argue that he was coming into a genuine marking contest, only realised he was going to be second to the ball very late in his run (they'll probably have to argue it was after he jumped), and instinctively turned his body to protect himself from the contact.
The difference with Webster was his was a late hit after the player had disposed of the ball - it was a conscious decision to bump, there was no tackle, he wasn't trying to win the ball, etc. etc.
That all being said, the AFL aren't going to let him get away with it. They changed the rules after the Maynard incident because they don't want players using "it was an accidental result of a football act" as a defense for leaving the ground and annihilating someone's brain.
This is why they've graded it Careless Conduct, not Intentional.
Pretty much no chance that Essendon can argue down from Severe to High impact - a 200+cm, 100+kg bloke running full tilt, launching, and driving his shoulder into another guy's head...you could end a life let alone a career doing that.
Contact is High, no arguing that.
And it's already been assessed at the lower threshold of Careless, good luck arguing he wasn't.
Essendon will need to lean on the "Good Bloke" defence, and the "Instinctive Self-defence" clause, and pray that the Tribunal deem 4 weeks to be sufficient.
It'll be more than 3, less than 7, and I think they'll probably land on 5 as a middle-ground.
I don't think Wright will get 7. They'll argue that he was coming into a genuine marking contest, only realised he was going to be second to the ball very late in his run (they'll probably have to argue it was after he jumped), and instinctively turned his body to protect himself from the contact.
The difference with Webster was his was a late hit after the player had disposed of the ball - it was a conscious decision to bump, there was no tackle, he wasn't trying to win the ball, etc. etc.
That all being said, the AFL aren't going to let him get away with it. They changed the rules after the Maynard incident because they don't want players using "it was an accidental result of a football act" as a defense for leaving the ground and annihilating someone's brain.
This is why they've graded it Careless Conduct, not Intentional.
Pretty much no chance that Essendon can argue down from Severe to High impact - a 200+cm, 100+kg bloke running full tilt, launching, and driving his shoulder into another guy's head...you could end a life let alone a career doing that.
Contact is High, no arguing that.
And it's already been assessed at the lower threshold of Careless, good luck arguing he wasn't.
Essendon will need to lean on the "Good Bloke" defence, and the "Instinctive Self-defence" clause, and pray that the Tribunal deem 4 weeks to be sufficient.
It'll be more than 3, less than 7, and I think they'll probably land on 5 as a middle-ground.
Last edited:
- Aug 16, 2009
- 7,785
- 11,540
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- North Ballarat
That's a good breakdown Blue__Balls.
IMO this is worse than the Maynard incident because Wright never genuinely attempted to mark the ball.
If he were square to the man/ball and just happened to arrive a fraction late, I could be sympathetic if he clipped him but when you're pivoting away from the footy at 200cm 100+ kgs to "protect" yourself from a much smaller player you're essentially blindsiding, it's just a pretty weak effort, particularly given he's a player with a well-earned rep for not exactly attacking the footy as hard as he can.
IMO this is worse than the Maynard incident because Wright never genuinely attempted to mark the ball.
If he were square to the man/ball and just happened to arrive a fraction late, I could be sympathetic if he clipped him but when you're pivoting away from the footy at 200cm 100+ kgs to "protect" yourself from a much smaller player you're essentially blindsiding, it's just a pretty weak effort, particularly given he's a player with a well-earned rep for not exactly attacking the footy as hard as he can.
The thing that irks me is that I've got no doubt the incident is related to the way that Brad Scott has instructed * to play. That incident, and other overtly aggressive acts (like Draper) during the game will lead to this sort of outcome sometimes.
If I were the AFL I'd be having a quiet word to Scott and questioning whether this faux toughness he's instilling in the bombers players is compatible with where they are wanting the game to go from a duty of care perspective. Maybe a good coach, I don't know, but he was thuggish on the field, in a bygone era. Nobody wants the fake toughness late-hit crap anymore.
Just my opinion, but "give 'em one to earn it" should stay in last century. Be tough where it really counts - over the ball.
If I were the AFL I'd be having a quiet word to Scott and questioning whether this faux toughness he's instilling in the bombers players is compatible with where they are wanting the game to go from a duty of care perspective. Maybe a good coach, I don't know, but he was thuggish on the field, in a bygone era. Nobody wants the fake toughness late-hit crap anymore.
Just my opinion, but "give 'em one to earn it" should stay in last century. Be tough where it really counts - over the ball.
Last edited:
- Aug 22, 2014
- 13,937
- 50,766
- AFL Club
- Carlton
It'll be an interesting one to watch unfold.
They'll use the "eyes on the ball until after he jumped" argument, but that doesn't change the fact it was Careless. Always find it amusing when the lawyer types try to convince us that the player was so focused on the ball that peripheral vision ceased to exist.
Think all the AFL rep needs to successfully argue that when Wright made the decision to leave the ground, he'd already decided he wasn't going to mark the ball.
That's same camera, a few frames apart. The arms never shaped to mark, the hands never extended, he tucked the arm in and led with the shoulder as he left the ground. It's effectively a bump, even if the initial lead may have been with the intention of marking the ball.
They won't, but it would be wonderful to see the AFL rep roll out some of the Essendon pre-game "Edge" comments as well. Sprinkle a bit of flavour and context on it. This is a pretty clear example of a player who has been instructed to throw his weight around making a very poor split second decision - when he realised he wasn't going to mark the ball he elected to impact the player instead, and in doing so left the ground and made significant contact to the player's head.
- Nov 27, 2016
- 18,536
- 36,120
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Wright will cope 3-5 weeks
While split second, he still made a decision to stop competing for the mark, turned, tucked and hit Cunningham high
While split second, he still made a decision to stop competing for the mark, turned, tucked and hit Cunningham high
- Mar 20, 2017
- 10,820
- 36,453
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Yep. He was more concerned about not getting injured himself than as to whether he would injure his opponent. Four weeks.
Yep just needed to do what Mabior Chol did to May.
Extend the hands to contest the mark and protect yourself with your knee !!
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #96
Wright pleads guilty now just a matter of how many weeks …
Bletch
Premium Platinum
- Dec 8, 2020
- 3,801
- 12,051
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Well, Wright has pled guilty, so bye-bye Duck.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #98
4 matches
Be gone Wayne Kerr, you won’t be missed!
Be gone Wayne Kerr, you won’t be missed!
Bletch
Premium Platinum
- Dec 8, 2020
- 3,801
- 12,051
- AFL Club
- Carlton
About right.
How many times does David Zita have to say "AFL got what they wanted"
David, it was always a 3-5 week suspension
David, it was always a 3-5 week suspension
Similar threads
- Locked
