- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #3
MRP / Trib. 2024 - MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports
- Thread starter Aphrodite
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Mar 20, 2017
- 10,939
- 36,939
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Wasn't much in itself common sense prevails. The worst part was that both cost us goals. Players need to be aware of the consequences and be better.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #477
6 matches 
- Aug 16, 2009
- 7,849
- 11,681
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- North Ballarat
That seems heavy.
No reason to ran past the ball and then lay a hit like that
Yep lined him up and got him high, not involved in the play and had intentional written all over it.
If Christian was running it, it would have been graded as careless which would have been just moronic.
Swans hierarchy probs breathe a sigh of relief because they don’t need him at the moment and they were running out of excuses to keep him playing in the twos!!! (Tongue in cheek!!!)
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
- Aug 16, 2009
- 7,849
- 11,681
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- North Ballarat
He didn't collect him high - contact was to chest and shoulder.
Injuries were sustained as a result of Smith's head whipping into the back of Parker's.
The penalty seems to be based more on injuries sustained than the act, which I find problematic.
Obviously, you tempt fate when you elect to bump but I don't see this as worse than Wright's, for example.
Injuries were sustained as a result of Smith's head whipping into the back of Parker's.
The penalty seems to be based more on injuries sustained than the act, which I find problematic.
Obviously, you tempt fate when you elect to bump but I don't see this as worse than Wright's, for example.
Last edited:
I’m struggling to understand what the distinction is between getting him high and the force of the bump causing head contact???
Does the fact that smith’s head only hits Parker because the force of contact Into his body causing a whiplashing effect, and that contact(secondary) is forceful enough to cause significant injury, somehow reduce his guilt?
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Yes.
It’s not like Parker did a Pickett and jumped into his head. He did the wrong thing, but got very unlucky. He slowed down, stayed low.
It’s not the same as Wright, or Webster.
I’m not sure luck has much to with it.
It is different to Wright and Webster because smith wasn’t where the ball was, he hadn’t just released the ball and he wasn’t going to mark or receive the ball at the moment of impact.
Parker forcefully bumped a player who was off the ball and the bump caused significant injury including concussion.
Was it totally avoidable contact? Did Parker accidentally shirt front him going for the ball?
I like the player that Luke Parker is, tough, courageous, skilled and hard at the ball, but this was an intentional bump off the ball that caused significant injury.
Hopefully the 6 weeks continues to send the message competition wide, we don’t want players concussed or injured when not contesting the ball.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Luck has plenty to do with it.
Forcefully? He clearly slows down, and is almost stationary when he bumps, and he stayed low and applied the bump to the body.
What is unlucky about a deliberate action?
At the moment of impact you can absolutely significantly increase the force. Momentum and force are not the same thing.
There was significant damage when Parker made contact.
Why are you defending the action? When you intentionally chose to bump a player behind the play you face the consequences.
What is your defense of the action? He didn't mean to get him high? He didn't mean to hit him hard?
None of those things are relevant once he chose to deliberately bump him behind play.
Ive just watched the vision again multiple times, Parker increases speed just prior to impact and lifts his shoulder, which lifts his arm through the motion of the bump.
It is even more damning than I remember on viewing it briefly the first time.
He has been suspended and it deserved suspension the ball was well passed both players at the time of impact.
It was a poor choice by Parker and now he gets to sit on the side lines for 6 weeks.
Happy to see this type of action heavily penalised and would feel the same if it was a carlton player.
Parker has no one to blame (certainly not lady luck) other than himself.
There certainly is loading for damage that was caused, but Parker ran past the pill to lay a block
There probably is loading for damage done and whilst I think that suspension should be based on action, sometimes outcome can be indicative of the dangerous action.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
- Aug 16, 2009
- 7,849
- 11,681
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- North Ballarat
Yes - I think intent has to play a significant part when determining culpability, as it does in pretty much every judicial system, I'm not sure what there is to understand tbh.
He was slowing down (ie minimising impact) & the injuries were accidental. That the penalty is 1 week less than Webster's is incomprehensible.
The act itself wasn't as bad as Wright's effort - yet he wears a couple more weeks.
He deserves a stint on the sidelines, zero argue argument there as in electing to bump he cops what comes his way but I think the punishment doesn't match the crime.
- Aug 16, 2015
- 12,317
- 21,334
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Arsenal
The ball is a fair stretch away from Parker when he bumps Smith.
Intentionally bumps a player.
Hits him high
Off the ball
Causes massive injury to player
6 weeks is a big whack but its not far off the mark
Intentionally bumps a player.
Hits him high
Off the ball
Causes massive injury to player
6 weeks is a big whack but its not far off the mark
- Aug 16, 2009
- 7,849
- 11,681
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- North Ballarat
- He intentionally bumped.
- Didn't get him high with his action
- It wasn't any more off the ball than many shepherds
The question is..
If Smith weren't injured:
Would he be sitting out 4-6 weeks?
Would he be suspended at all?
IMO the answer to both is no, so 6 is heavy.
- Aug 16, 2015
- 12,317
- 21,334
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Arsenal
Didn’t get him high with his action, but his bump caused a blokes head to smash against his causing serious injury.
Im not seeing the relevance that the bump didn’t hit him in the face, the bump cause significant head trauma.
To answer your question regarding suspension if Smith weren’t injured, i doubt he would be, because Smith wouldn’t have had his face smashed in, so I wouldn’t see the need to suspend Parker.
Intent was to bump a player who was off the ball, I gather you’re saying Parker’s intent was not to injure Smith but that is irrelevant.
Parker chose to bump and did it with sufficient force to cause significant injury, whether he slowed up or not, doesn’t wash because he had other options and chose the wrong one.
Webster deserved his suspension because he chose to bump, in that case however Simpkin had just kicked the ball and Webster was late but the incident wasn’t off the ball in the same way Parker’s bump was.
Wright also chose to bump but the argument from some in the footy media was that he played for the ball and it was in a contest. Again I think Wright made the wrong decision but can see why the argument was made.
Parker had no focus on the ball, the play had moved on some distance and he chose to bump causing significant injury.
If Parker had impeded Smith’s run by using his arms in a sheparding manner the impact would have been much less forceful.
Anyway I have commented enough on this, I understand that others want to see the game keep the combative element but I prefer that serious injury be avoided especially unnecessary off the ball stuff.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #495
- Aug 16, 2009
- 7,849
- 11,681
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- North Ballarat
Fair enough mate,
I'm probably on the wrong side of this one.
Appreciate your views & that of lily of laguna on this one.
Jatz
Jatzosaurus Rex
- Sep 7, 2008
- 58,139
- 41,527
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Philadelphia Eagles
I obviously misread it but I swear in an initial club statement they'd said they would accept the decision.
I'm generally not in favour of suspensions purely based on outcome
Throw a punch at a player's head, suspension for a non footy act should be 4 weeks, then I can understand loading for injuries sustained
This a tad more tricky. If there was no injury, he probably doesn't get sighted
But, run past the ball to block/bump an opponent, causing injuries, anywhere from concussion to bone breaks, then a suspension is warranted
Throw a punch at a player's head, suspension for a non footy act should be 4 weeks, then I can understand loading for injuries sustained
This a tad more tricky. If there was no injury, he probably doesn't get sighted
But, run past the ball to block/bump an opponent, causing injuries, anywhere from concussion to bone breaks, then a suspension is warranted
The player was actually slowing as the play moved away. He was not accelerating to involve himself in the play. Have always “liked” Parker more than most oppo players, but it was a dog act. There was no need to even contemplate a shepherd.
Reckon he would be playing angry. A club great in great form in the twos returning from injury and the coach has pointedly moved past him with another year and a half of contract to come. Very mentally challenging to a proud and still capable clubman.
I hate outcome based penalties and personality based judgements. I hate that an attempted “king hit” that misses gets no censure.
The bloke received a fair whack for the nature of the act.
I don't even like the whole "clean record" defense
If it's a poor act, it gets dealt with under said guidelines
Similar threads
- Locked
