- May 29, 2013
- 4,216
- 10,336
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Has to go ... launched himself, bumped the head .... one week minimum
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 17
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
If he was built like a normal size man he'd be out for 4+Has to go ... launched himself, bumped the head .... one week minimum
You cannot legitimately grade that any higher than medium at worst, and in all likelihood it's realistically low impact.In his defence he was trying to spoil. A bit late on the (poorly directed) spoil attempt, but unlike Wright he was still contesting and did not just launch into the player. That said, I doubt still trying to contest will be deemed a defence any more. It might be a mitigating factor for ones that go straight to tribunal.
So, presumably Careless, High contact, Medium impact. Under the guidelines Low impact is a fine, Medium impact 1 week. Probably the latter. It could be graded as "high impact" and two weeks, because they do seem to want to "send a message".
That would seem to be adjusting the grading to suit a desired outcome, something a completely above board and never at all corrupt in the slightest organisation like the AFL would never possibly countenance.
Instant challenge if it's greater than medium. Most likely lowYou cannot legitimately grade that any higher than medium at worst, and in all likelihood it's realistically low impact.
And I'm not saying he shouldn't get a suspension, but if that gets graded high impact (even medium would be dubious) then the system is a farce.
Good luck with that ... Lynch is the biggest protected species in game .... Cotchin mark IILooked very bad but can't see it being graded more than "low".
Wouldn't mind seeing a replay of how Lynch gave up 50 to Gulden with high contact, what with his history of jumper punches and all, though
They've been suspending guys based on 'potential for serious injury' recently.I guess you missed King getting one week ...last week
Classic case of low impact that was deemed medium impact and we couldn't get it downgraded ..... and Bakers action was worse in that he jumped off the ground and into the Swans player front on ..... King just grazed Macrae and still copped a week
Must have been deemed "medium impact", which seems fair enough.Offered 1 week
Melican left the field of play after the incident but returned a short time later and played out the rest of the game.Must have been deemed "medium impact", which seems fair enough.
He was trying to smother.
The eggshell rule (also thin skull rule, papier-mâché-plaintiff rule, or talem qualem rule) is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.I'm still not a fan of them suspending based on outcome instead of action though.
Richmond announced they're challenging
I think they're about to find out the hard way about the "potential to cause injury" clause. Going to be hard to argue that jumping into the path of someone trying to mark the ball isn't inherently dangerous
Has to go ... launched himself, bumped the head .... one week minimum