AFL Player #20: Peter Wright - Will kick 40+ AFL goals in 2025

[Lore]

Contract Status: Free Agent (?) 2027
My Boy Draft 2024: Pick 21, TheGrizz

 

[Duckworth]

Is “it’s a collision sport, what else was he expected to do?” Enough of a defence?
Wright had eyes for the ball and adjusted for contact after he saw something in his peripheral vision. Hardly any malice in it.

 

[Tazdog]

If Maynard got off for ending Brayshaws career, then 2mp should be fine. No history of violence, he went for a mark and made an unfortunate collision.

 

[Old Campaigner]

If Maynard got off for ending Brayshaws career, then 2mp should be fine. No history of violence, he went for a mark and made an unfortunate collision.

They changed the rules specifically because Maynard got off

 

[Bunk Moreland]

It is a tough one, I really don’t know what the answer is with these sort of collisions.

The same incident - two players on a collision course going for the ball - BUT with the ball on the ground… we seem to have largely solved. It started out with the AFL suspending anybody who collected anyone in the head - which I maintain is a flawed approach. The fault in that situation is on the player who leads with his head and and gets taken out. It shat me to tears for many years… Selwood was the main offender, the bloke simply cannoned into ground ball contests… leading with his head. It’d get taken out and the other guy would get suspended while we all had to listen to how incredibly brave Joel was. Well yes he was a tough player, he was also stupidly reckless and refused to protect himself.

That seems to have worked itself out. Two players on a collision course for a ground ball now turn their bodies and hit the contest side on. Which is the best outcome as nobody’s head is in danger.

This is similar, but with the ball in the air.

How should it be looked at? In the strictest and most traditional sense, it’s Cunningham’s fault that he got knocked out. Two players attacked a contest and only one of them chose not to protect himself.

But that was pretty much required for him to get the ball. And that’s what we laud in football - “putting yourself on the line” - Cunningham did that, sacrificing his own wellbeing to stop Wright getting the ball and maybe going on to score a goal.

Really, Cunningham’s only other option was to pull out of the contest, which we do not accept.

So even though it was Cunningham’s fault, it was done with the most laudable football intentions. For 100+ years, all fair, well done, ridiculously brave, bad luck, everybody gets on with it and Wright doesn’t face any problems because he was merely protecting himself in the contest.

That doesn’t wash any more.

What were Wright’s options? Hard to know if he had any given we’re talking milliseconds. Obviously first and foremost he’s going for the ball, at what point does he consciously realise he’s not getting it and instead brace for contact? There probably isn’t a conscious decision, it’s all so quick.

What else can he do? I guess he can attack the contest with venom but instead attempt to get low. Broken ribs, punctured lung for Cunningham, which appears to be the preferred option.

Or he can pull out entirely, which we won’t accept.

Really, the only true way to get rid of these collisions is to make it “black and white” illegal to make contact with any player who is in the air going for a mark. Players won’t do it and will actively pull out of contests. We obviously won’t accept that.

 

[The Prosecutor]

 

[fairbump_playon]

It is a tough one, I really don’t know what the answer is with these sort of collisions.

The same incident - two players on a collision course going for the ball - BUT with the ball on the ground… we seem to have largely solved. It started out with the AFL suspending anybody who collected anyone in the head - which I maintain is a flawed approach. The fault in that situation is on the player who leads with his head and and gets taken out. It shat me to tears for many years… Selwood was the main offender, the bloke simply cannoned into ground ball contests… leading with his head. It’d get taken out and the other guy would get suspended while we all had to listen to how incredibly brave Joel was. Well yes he was a tough player, he was also stupidly reckless and refused to protect himself.

That seems to have worked itself out. Two players on a collision course for a ground ball now turn their bodies and hit the contest side on. Which is the best outcome as nobody’s head is in danger.

This is similar, but with the ball in the air.

How should it be looked at? In the strictest and most traditional sense, it’s Cunningham’s fault that he got knocked out. Two players attacked a contest and only one of them chose not to protect himself.

But that was pretty much required for him to get the ball. And that’s what we laud in football - “putting yourself on the line” - Cunningham did that, sacrificing his own wellbeing to stop Wright getting the ball and maybe going on to score a goal.

Really, Cunningham’s only other option was to pull out of the contest, which we do not accept.

So even though it was Cunningham’s fault, it was done with the most laudable football intentions. For 100+ years, all fair, well done, ridiculously brave, bad luck, everybody gets on with it and Wright doesn’t face any problems because he was merely protecting himself in the contest.

That doesn’t wash any more.

What were Wright’s options? Hard to know if he had any given we’re talking milliseconds. Obviously first and foremost he’s going for the ball, at what point does he consciously realise he’s not getting it and instead brace for contact? There probably isn’t a conscious decision, it’s all so quick.

What else can he do? I guess he can attack the contest with venom but instead attempt to get low. Broken ribs, punctured lung for Cunningham, which appears to be the preferred option.

Or he can pull out entirely, which we won’t accept.

Really, the only true way to get rid of these collisions is to make it “black and white” illegal to make contact with any player who is in the air going for a mark. Players won’t do it and will actively pull out of contests. We obviously won’t accept that.

To avoid suspension Wright needed to either be badly injured or to tuck himself up so he was all elbows and knees and go straight at the footy, attempting to chest mark

Cunningham would still be in hospital if Wright had done that but there would have been no suspension

 

[eth-dog]

Of course.

We should protest the Heeney suspension

 

[Howard Moon]

Wonder if they will ever grade a bump intentional, even Webster's was graded careless

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Wonder if they will ever grade a bump intentional, even Webster's was graded careless

You'd have to do it off the ball I guess, would take a lot of campaigner in somebody to do that.

 

[Lore]

The two camera angles give a different slant on it. The straight on view shows Pete running in a straight line towards the flight of the ball. If he has any intention to bump he’d be doing it wrong, and gotta remember he is a forward, the ball is being kicked to him.

The suggestion he should have punched the ball (in the Twitter comments) is a bizarre one, unless you think he’s a defender trying to do a Michael Hartley

27

Michael Hartley

Age

31

Ht

198cm

Wt

104kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.2

3star

K

6.9

3star

HB

4.3

3star

M

4.6

4star

T

2.6

4star

No current season stats available

D

10.4

3star

K

7.4

3star

HB

3.0

3star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.8

5star

.

Side view doesn’t catch the run up, but shows the height difference pretty clearly especially with 2MP leaving the ground. If Cunningham had jumped to the same height or if Pete stayed on the ground it would look different.

Will be very interesting to see how the tribunal interprets all of it and what exactly they think he (and every other player in future) should do differently.

I think one option that hasn’t been considered is if Pete has caught and tackled Cunningham instead, potentially bringing both of them to ground and absorbing some of Cunningham’s momentum.

 

[Howard Moon]

The umpire didn't even pay a free kick in game did he?

 

[doug85]

No idea how he can even challenge a lengthy ban. Can’t argue it wasn’t high or severe. And there’s no lower classification than careless.

 

[Old Campaigner]

I don't think I've seen a player publicly call for another player to eat a suspension the way Papley did.

Compare that to Sicily (who is just as much of aflog) having McGrath come out in his defense.

 

[Howard Moon]

No idea how he can even challenge a lengthy ban. Can’t argue it wasn’t high or severe. And there’s no lower classification than careless.

Scott said it last week, the AFL have conjured the system so there is rarely any wriggle room for challenge from a legal standpoint

 

[Howard Moon]

I don't think I've seen a player publicly call for another player to eat a suspension the way Papley did.

Compare that to Sicily (who is just as much of aflog) having McGrath come out in his defense.

Papley is a little bitch, parker was happy to mock us as soft Infront of the football world then we come back and give them a bit he cries

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

I don't see what else he could have possibly done there.
If this is the new standard the you need to clear a path for anyone running back with the flight off the ball.
if swans player is not there, he marks it.

Might open a can of worms

 

[citizen-erased]

Papley is a little bitch, parker was happy to mock us as soft Infront of the football world then we come back and give them a bit he cries

They seemed worried.

Careless charge helps.
Could argue the severity not helped by his head hitting the ground. Fact he was up and about too, so down to high.
No free kick called at the time shows how split second it was.

 

[Vander18]

It is a tough one, I really don’t know what the answer is with these sort of collisions.

The same incident - two players on a collision course going for the ball - BUT with the ball on the ground… we seem to have largely solved. It started out with the AFL suspending anybody who collected anyone in the head - which I maintain is a flawed approach. The fault in that situation is on the player who leads with his head and and gets taken out. It shat me to tears for many years… Selwood was the main offender, the bloke simply cannoned into ground ball contests… leading with his head. It’d get taken out and the other guy would get suspended while we all had to listen to how incredibly brave Joel was. Well yes he was a tough player, he was also stupidly reckless and refused to protect himself.

That seems to have worked itself out. Two players on a collision course for a ground ball now turn their bodies and hit the contest side on. Which is the best outcome as nobody’s head is in danger.

This is similar, but with the ball in the air.

How should it be looked at? In the strictest and most traditional sense, it’s Cunningham’s fault that he got knocked out. Two players attacked a contest and only one of them chose not to protect himself.

But that was pretty much required for him to get the ball. And that’s what we laud in football - “putting yourself on the line” - Cunningham did that, sacrificing his own wellbeing to stop Wright getting the ball and maybe going on to score a goal.

Really, Cunningham’s only other option was to pull out of the contest, which we do not accept.

So even though it was Cunningham’s fault, it was done with the most laudable football intentions. For 100+ years, all fair, well done, ridiculously brave, bad luck, everybody gets on with it and Wright doesn’t face any problems because he was merely protecting himself in the contest.

That doesn’t wash any more.

What were Wright’s options? Hard to know if he had any given we’re talking milliseconds. Obviously first and foremost he’s going for the ball, at what point does he consciously realise he’s not getting it and instead brace for contact? There probably isn’t a conscious decision, it’s all so quick.

What else can he do? I guess he can attack the contest with venom but instead attempt to get low. Broken ribs, punctured lung for Cunningham, which appears to be the preferred option.

Or he can pull out entirely, which we won’t accept.

Really, the only true way to get rid of these collisions is to make it “black and white” illegal to make contact with any player who is in the air going for a mark. Players won’t do it and will actively pull out of contests. We obviously won’t accept that.

Been thinking about this a little.

Do we consider a right of way concept? As in the guy running at the footy (Wright) has right of way and the onus is on the player running back to mitigate/manage/avoid contact. This is consistent with the front on contact rules and protects the crazy brave from themselves. Also means those presenting at the footy aren’t expected to somehow make complex assessments of time and space in nanoseconds, whilst also keeping eyes on the footy.

The downside is we lose (another) part of our game that we all love - the act of going back with the flight into the unknown.

Personal preference would be that Cunningham gets a free and that’s it….but that won’t be the outcome.

 

[mike14]

We won't, but the club should go hard on Heeney getting off while Redman got a week. I'm sure we've got a few media contacts who would love a controversial quote or two.
If we aren't going to be a successful club we can at least be antagonistic campaigners. Rolling over and taking it hasn't gotten us anywhere...

 

[R t james]

The picture the afl posted makes it look like he’s front on , so he’s in a marking contest and that picture he should get of , there was another bump a bit later on that was exactly the same , no one injured so no report , must be difficult for the players

 

[andleanback]

No idea how he can even challenge a lengthy ban. Can’t argue it wasn’t high or severe. And there’s no lower classification than careless.

Richmond did it last year, footy accident in a marking contest.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

No idea how he can even challenge a lengthy ban. Can’t argue it wasn’t high or severe. And there’s no lower classification than careless.

I'd challenge the definition of "conduct".

 

[Zach Package]

If you look down, it gets much worse.

View attachment 1937789

impossible to predict what will happen here because the full gamut of bold faced corruption or incompetence from all parties involved is possible however if you’re facing the footy and your arm is also touching the ball when you impact the other player is it really an unrealistic attempt at the footy?

 

[doug85]

Richmond did it last year, footy accident in a marking contest.

I think the rules have changed since the Maynard/Brayshaw smother attempt.

FWIW, I don’t think Wright should be suspended. It’s a contact sport, accidents happen. Anyone that crosses the line signs up for the possibility they can get accidentally crunched.

 

[andleanback]

I think the rules have changed since the Maynard/Brayshaw smother attempt.

FWIW, I don’t think Wright should be suspended. It’s a contact sport, accidents happen. Anyone that crosses the line signs up for the possibility they can get accidentally crunched.

Yeh for those types of incidents, incidents can still be rules as football accidents. This was nothing like Maynard’s.