Big Bad Bustling Tyrone Vickery

Remove this Banner Ad

Tatts22 said:
Not sure what the point of this is. There is no comparison. One is a player trying to kick the ball away from a contest & accidentally collecting another players face with his shin while the other is a deliberate strike to the face. The ball was no where to be seen when Vickery struck Cox and he had no other intention bit to hit Cox - whether he meant to clock him in the head is debatable but he definitely deliberately hit him
Click to expand...
I was thinking about clumsy efforts by ruckmen at boundary throw-ins which had serious consequences.

Not a direct comparison.

I was astounded that King wasn't suspended for 1 or 2 weeks. It was ridiculous play. Zero regard for the safety of others. The worst kicking in danger I've ever seen. Sure, it was an accident, but he had no business swinging his foot at that ball. 2005 was the first year of the AFL's negligent/reckless/intentional grading system. I reckon they should've removed the word "negligent" from their rule book after turning a blind eye to what King did.

I don't think Vickery's effort was as malicious or intentional as people have said. He intentionally swung his arm, but I don't think he was trying to kinghit Cox. I think he meant to give Cox a bit of forearm across the side of the head (as ruckmen sometimes do) and unluckily caught him flush on the jaw. Sure.. Give him 2-3 weeks, but people are mainly carrying on because of the unintended consequence of what he did.

If they were CHB and CHF, then I would say it was a king hit, but they were ruck men contesting a throw-in. There's always a bit of by-play. Cox threw an elbow into Vickery's guts. Why isn't Cox also charged for throwing the elbow back into Vickery's midriff?
 
Modified Dog said:
I was thinking about clumsy efforts by ruckmen at boundary throw-ins which had serious consequences.

Not a direct comparison.

I was astounded that King wasn't suspended for 1 or 2 weeks. It was ridiculous play. Zero regard for the safety of others. The worst kicking in danger I've ever seen. Sure, it was an accident, but he had no business swinging his foot at that ball. 2005 was the first year of the AFL's negligent/reckless/intentional grading system. I reckon they should've removed the word "negligent" from their rule book after turning a blind eye to what King did.

I don't think Vickery's effort was as malicious or intentional as people have said. He intentionally swung his arm, but I don't think he was trying to kinghit Cox. I think he meant to give Cox a bit of forearm across the side of the head (as ruckmen sometimes do) and unluckily caught him flush on the jaw. Sure.. Give him 2-3 weeks, but people are mainly carrying on because of the unintended consequence of what he did.

If they were CHB and CHF, then I would say it was a king hit, but they were ruck men contesting a throw-in. There's always a bit of by-play. Cox threw an elbow into Vickery's guts. Why isn't Cox also charged for throwing the elbow back into Vickery's midriff?
Click to expand...

I think he was behind in a ruck contest and tried to hit Cox across the chest to force him back/himself forward as part of the usual grappling that goes on....A few cm lower (or if Cox hadn't crouched at the wrong time) and nobody would have said a word.

But reports are done on what happened, not what was planned, and Vickery's wrist hit Cox's Jaw and knocked him out, so it's a correct report. Reckless, High, High.

and yeah, I'd charge Cox for the elbow as well (reckless, low, body, so probably a reprimand, but even if it's a week, players should take a week off after a concussion, so really it's no effect)...Also LeCras...That was clearly premeditated, so could well go as intentional.
 
I've said this elsewhere, so I'll say it here.

I've said earlier I think 4 down to 3 is about right for this*, although by the formula, 3 down to 2 seems to fit better. Part of me really hopes it comes in light though, just to see the outrage and squealing from the weagles fans. Heads will explode.



* - right by the usual standards of today...I think reports tend to get off too lightly though.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

telsor said:
I've said this elsewhere, so I'll say it here.

I've said earlier I think 4 down to 3 is about right for this*, although by the formula, 3 down to 2 seems to fit better. Part of me really hopes it comes in light though, just to see the outrage and squealing from the weagles fans. Heads will explode.



* - right by the usual standards of today...I think reports tend to get off too lightly though.
Click to expand...

I think he'll get 3-4 but the bolded is always appealing :D
 
Tatts22 said:
I think he'll get 3-4 but the bolded is always appealing :D
Click to expand...

Of course, for some of them, I think anything short of crucifixion (after being made to carry his cross across the nullabor because anything else would be vic bias) will be 'too light'
 
pazza said:
Should there have been a free kick to Vickery in the first place?

According to the ruck rules, each ruckman must be 1 metre away from the other before the throw in. Was Cox a metre away from vickery, hence Vickery was not expecting contact?
Click to expand...

Would have avoided the whole issue if that had been (correctly) paid, but at the same time, if they paid everything that came up, there would be a free in practically every ruck contest..
 
pazza said:
Should there have been a free kick to Vickery in the first place?

According to the ruck rules, each ruckman must be 1 metre away from the other before the throw in. Was Cox a metre away from vickery, hence Vickery was not expecting contact?
Click to expand...
A good umpire would've penalised Cox for the elbow to the guts which is what started it all.
 
Vickery has to take a break but what he did was not worse and not even on the same ladder rung as lake or hall. Worth three weeks probably but he had been provoked.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

there seems to be a lot of delusional people around, if you even think for a second Vickery was trying to push Cox out of the way and accidentally collected him high..............GET OF THE CONES!
LOL at Cox deserves a week for the elbow. I am by no means a fan of the Eagles, hell if we chop W.A. off the map it would be no skin of my nose (do it quick while Ross is still there) but it was a straight up whack from behind. dud, thug, shit haircut 5 weeks.
 
Vickery sent straight to the tribunal.

Cox incident didn't have enough force.
 
I have no idea how that is a severe impact. Obviously an absolute cowardly act, but have no idea how they worked out the force.


http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-07-28/vickery-to-tribunal
The incident was graded by the Match Review Panel on Monday morning, with the panel deciding it was intentional (three activation points), severe impact (four points) and high contact (two points).
 
go_the_dockers said:
I have no idea how that is a severe impact. Obviously an absolute cowardly act, but have no idea how they worked out the force.


http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-07-28/vickery-to-tribunal
The incident was graded by the Match Review Panel on Monday morning, with the panel deciding it was intentional (three activation points), severe impact (four points) and high contact (two points).
Click to expand...
I would not enter into a debate on the correct punishment. However, today, once it is considered deliberate - cox unconscious and with concussion 'potential long term impacts' it has to go to the tribunal.

It is 2014 not 1984.
 
Vickery to tribunal. Fines for LeCras and Shuey for their part in flying the flag, and Cox's elbow on Vickery declared insufficient for a report.

Personally, I don't think there's anything more that a West Coast supporter could have hoped for out of that statement.
 
telsor said:
Do you think Cox's elbow to Vickery's guts a legal action?
Click to expand...

No, it could've been free kick.

However, it was considered, correctly in my view, to below the required force to constitute a reportable offence.

Similarly, if someone grabs your jumper and the umpire doesn't give you a free kick, you can't KO the bloke and claim that it wouldn't have happened if he didn't grab my jumper.
 
ziad said:
I would not enter into a debate on the correct punishment. However, today, once it is considered deliberate - cox unconscious and with concussion 'potential long term impacts' it has to go to the tribunal.

It is 2014 not 1984.
Click to expand...

That'll be the gist of it... With the recent focus on and escalation in importance of the effects of concussion... They will likely now consider concussion to be structural... Lasting impacts within the structure of the brain etc... It'll be exactly what's pushed it to be considered 'severe impact'.
 
go_the_dockers said:
I have no idea how that is a severe impact. Obviously an absolute cowardly act, but have no idea how they worked out the force.


http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-07-28/vickery-to-tribunal
The incident was graded by the Match Review Panel on Monday morning, with the panel deciding it was intentional (three activation points), severe impact (four points) and high contact (two points).
Click to expand...

I agree it doesn't fit in with their precedent.

Typically someone who is concussed and can't come back on is assessed as high impact, the severe is usually only assigned when someone has broken a bone.

Very loosely

Low Impact: Obvious discomfort to victim, able to stay on the field though. Think gut punch
Medium Impact: Discomfort to player, requires coming to the bench and an assessment, perhaps a laceration. Player is able to carry on in the game after a time on the bench
High Impact: player is injured to a point they can't return to the game
Severe: Player not only can't return but has longstanding injury, think broken jaw etc

What I will say though - you only had to see the light contact the ump copped a month back and see how heavily concussed he was and then look at the Colledge's knee to the head from Lycett. Both significantly different impacts, but the same outcome.

Sometimes the bones break and other times they don't
 
When you take the Vickery 9 activation point grading, alongside Lvl 1 misconducts for the players who flew the flag and the insufficient force verdict on Cox, it reads as a massive rebuke from the MRP.
 
Slightly amusing that it's gone to the tribunal. Could and should have been settled by the MRP.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Big Bad Bustling Tyrone Vickery

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top