This
You can clearly see Johnson's shoulder make contact with the Cheek/Chin of Hanley. As Hanley goes down, he is immediately holding onto his face. I cant see anyway Johnson avoids suspension here based on previous incidents...
-
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
MRP / Trib. AFL Round 13 charges - Steven Johnson receives two-match ban for bump on Pearce Hanley
- Thread starter catempire
- Start date
- Tagged users None
This
You can clearly see Johnson's shoulder make contact with the Cheek/Chin of Hanley. As Hanley goes down, he is immediately holding onto his face. I cant see anyway Johnson avoids suspension here based on previous incidents...
Unfortunately fpm, that's the reality. This is not a legitimate competition, it's a dictatorship with arbitrary penalties handed out depending on what the powers-that-be determine that morning. The only thing you can do is not get involved in those incidents. At all. Johnson has shown he's completely incapable of this.
I'm expecting him to get weeks and will be amazed if he gets off. Innocent or not. That's the manipulate landscape footy has become. Guilt or innocence has little to do with it.
SJ hit at good pace. Had his shoulder hit Hanley's chin, Haney would have been knocked out. If anything, it looked as though the whiplash caused Hanley's face to brush past SJ back as he went through.
Johnson got pinged last year for picking a player up on the ridiculous charge that he may have been injured. Since then I've seen dozens of times where players do this to their own team-mates and occasionally opponents, and nothing said. You can't blame a MRP targetted player. If they want to get you, they will get you. And it must be something that is spoken about, because all the commentators "knew" he was "gone".
The medical report should favour SJ. Pearce is a tough dude and was back up and playing within a few minutes.
Cracking bump, love to see that tough style of play. Unfortunately we simply can't predict any more how the MRP will rule from week to week.
For the record, I think that this type of thing should not even come into consideration by the MRP. We've had our own issues with suspension in recent weeks with Merrett and Brown, so we can sympathise. Hope all goes well.
Cracking bump, love to see that tough style of play. Unfortunately we simply can't predict any more how the MRP will rule from week to week.
For the record, I think that this type of thing should not even come into consideration by the MRP. We've had our own issues with suspension in recent weeks with Merrett and Brown, so we can sympathise. Hope all goes well.
Righto.
So Hodge makes similar, nearly identical contact twice to two separate players in one game - even causing facial damage to the opposition captain giving him weeks on the sidelines & he gets off.
Johnson does the same thing & the player runs out the game and you say he will get weeks?
The only way Johnson gets weeks for this is if the AFL really do have it in for us.
Otherwise they will follow the same precedent for every single bump incident since the Kelly suspension, and let him off - which they bloody should!
The AFL wont want out game to appear any softer - especially given origin II is coming up on Wednesday!!
Can i just say that i am a huge football fan. Have been watching the game for my whole life, live and breathe it and i have ABSOLUTLEY NO IDEA if he will be suspended.. None whatsoever.. I think this is summed up by watching my most respected journalist in the game try and explain it tonight on 360..
It's not our club that are making up the soft rules though.
The netball girls will be laughing at how soft AFL is if this sort of stuff gets weeks.
- Banned
- #110
No but it is up to the club to take legal action against the AFL. I can handle the kelly one being the exception to the rule, but if only cats players are suspended (kelly/SJ) with all the others that have been let off since Kelly, then court action must be taken.
Ahh I see your point.
It would be awesome to see a club stand up to the AFL & take legal action against all this MRP rubbish.
In a legal term, every bump since Kelly has set a precedent.
It would make it very hard for the AFL to argue otherwise in a court of law.
dlanod
Moderator
- Sep 14, 2006
- 53,661
- 85,159
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- GWS; CCMariners; NQCowboys; Ravens
- Moderator
- #112
The big problem with the MRP is that they explicitly do not take precedence into account, so we end up with repeatedly head-scratching cases. It's the dumbest part of their considerations.
For the record I do think SJ made contact with the head so will probably go for a week, but only because of his carry-over points. But I was also am scratching my head that Hodge had no case to answer given the "no contact to the head" regime that they've been promoting.
Scott thompson bump on johnno last year anybody... Bout as close as an example u will get...
- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,663
- 22,236
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Exactly how I feel. Hopeful, but definitely not confident. MRP could definitely say that he had the option to tackle and, to me, it looked like he got him in the head.
And unless it gets thrown out altogether, his poor record and carryover points will see him miss at least the Fremantle game and possibly Hawthorn as well. Even more unfortunately, his poor record loading and carryover points will see him go just over the 2-3 week threshold (depending on whether it is graded 'negligent' or 'reckless' and assuming 'low' impact), so he doesn't get a free hit by taking it to the tribunal. On the other hand, 125 points, + 20% (25 points) + 54 carryover points would put him below 5 points if he went to the tribunal and lost and get him back into 'reprimand' range for a standard level one offence.
Just salt in the wound, really...
And unless it gets thrown out altogether, his poor record and carryover points will see him miss at least the Fremantle game and possibly Hawthorn as well. Even more unfortunately, his poor record loading and carryover points will see him go just over the 2-3 week threshold (depending on whether it is graded 'negligent' or 'reckless' and assuming 'low' impact), so he doesn't get a free hit by taking it to the tribunal. On the other hand, 125 points, + 20% (25 points) + 54 carryover points would put him below 5 points if he went to the tribunal and lost and get him back into 'reprimand' range for a standard level one offence.
Just salt in the wound, really...
Oh absolutely I agree!
And it won't change until the clubs start standing up to the hierarchy unfortunately.
I'm getting close to giving up. Honestly, I'm just not interested in following such a corrupt and biased sport where the administrative body seem to decide who they want suspended and who not. It's not going to get any better either.
Elixuh
See you on the 9th green at 9
SJ my second favourite non-lions player. Hated seeing Hanley down like that but don't think SJ should be in strife. IMO wasn't high contact.
No, unfortunately it wont.
And as I said, until clubs start standing up to the AFL and forcing legal action in situations like this it will never change.
The clubs really need to make a stance for the sake of the game.
I know there are sometimes contentious things that happen on the field that can be rightfully hit and miss come tribunal time, but in situations like this where one bump is ok then a carbon copy gets 2 weeks - its bloody mind boggling.
Either say the bump is ok & just accept that unfortunately injuries like the Murphy/Hodge thing happen as its a contact sport, or just outlaw it and say that any head contact during a bump - regardless of impact - gets weeks.
At least then everyone knows where they stand.
Its pretty clear cut & it shouldn't be a grey area. Period.
Way different champ.Lotsa people said that about the Kelly incident and we all know what happened there...
Kel went for the man with no intention of contesting the ball. SJ was contesting the ball and was late arriving. His intention was the ball.
Kel had an alternative to his action don't believe SJ did.
Kel clearly jumped into Goddard. SJ didn't to Handley.
SJ had his arm completely tucked in. Kel didn't.
If SJ had an unblemished record I'd be confident he'd get off. Concerned about his priors though.
- Banned
- #122
Yeah, head is sancrosanct, and he clearly made contact with Hanley's head.
Up to 3 weeks, I'd suspect.
Up to 3 weeks, I'd suspect.
Shamus Nomore
Rookie
No worries, just submit this.
CatTricks
Norm Smith Medallist
Johnno was approaching the ball at pace.. Did he have another option?
