Gibson's hit on Conca - How many weeks?

[Ron The Bear]

Didn't think there was any malice in it. Bit of a hospital pass from Cotchin.

In the game I grew up with he'd have no case to answer, but modern AFL logic dictates someone got hurt, he needs to be held accountable.

 

[Cynic]

High impact? What a load of rubbish. If he gets cited it'll be Reckless, Low Impact and High Contact so that'll be one down to zero.

 

[StevenwellerHFC]

0 weeks, next.

 

[Maddo11]

Had eyes for the ball the whole time, wasn't overly late. if he had of only got the ball I would have just called play on.

In reality the report should get thrown out, but he'll probably just get one down to zero and some left over points

 

[darcytiger]

Was at the game, saw it live then on TV afterwards. Nothing in it, not even a 50. He took the mark, if he had of spilt it you could give him a free kick. That is it.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

What I find funny, is that the only fans who say it was fine are Richmond fans, wight he one lone swan....

 

[mollyfud]

Look, could go either way and wouldn't be disgraceful or the end of the world if he was reported/found guilty. I would like to think that he had eyes for the ball and took off well before the ball was marked, but could be considered a little crued and maybe an unrealistic attempt. Could go against him that his arms aren't 100% out stretched in the attempt to spoil. Might go for him that the ball was knocked away by Gibson, might go against him that it was possibly with his head!

As I say, could go either way and the length of suspension (if there is one) will go on the doctors report. At worst it will be reckless.

I just hope, if he gets off, that the idiots in the media look at the fact that this is an act ON THE BALL not a bump OF THE MAN which is where the difference comes in the accidental head knocking comes!

 

[telsor]

Short memories. Did you all forget Ziebell got rubbed out for 4 for the exact same thing? Yet he is labeled a thug who needs to change the way he plays.

Gibson will probably get off though to highlight how farcical the MRP is.

Ziebell got 4 in large part because he's got a very bad record.

If Gibson had the same record, he'd be risking the same.

 

[TheMcGrathMan]

Look, could go either way and wouldn't be disgraceful or the end of the world if he was reported/found guilty. I would like to think that he had eyes for the ball and took off well before the ball was marked, but could be considered a little crued and maybe an unrealistic attempt. Could go against him that his arms aren't 100% out stretched in the attempt to spoil. Might go for him that the ball was knocked away by Gibson, might go against him that it was possibly with his head!

As I say, could go either way and the length of suspension (if there is one) will go on the doctors report. At worst it will be reckless.

I just hope, if he gets off, that the idiots in the media look at the fact that this is an act ON THE BALL not a bump OF THE MAN which is where the difference comes in the accidental head knocking comes!

This is pretty much it. Not long until we find out, but things in Gibsons favour include 1) he was in the air before the ball met Concas hands and 2) he could well argue he had eyes on the ball.

It's definitely not something that will be a horrendous decision unless he goes for any lengthy period of time - thrown out, reprimand, 1 week are all acceptable. It's my view that the MRP will judge it as I've already posted, as I think that's the way they will have been instructed to view incidents like these. It's my view though that this is nothing like Douglas and other incidents and so we won't need to harp on about it if he does get off.

 

[telsor]

Just watched the video a couple of times....I've commented before that I think the MRP are too tough on this, but he's in trouble, and in this case, he deserves it. He led with an elbow to the head, and any punch at the ball was pretty much just incidental.

I still think it'll be 1 week with a plea (high, medium, reckless), but wouldn't be surprised if they push up the impact to high. It's probably not really warranted, but it's on the bad side of both impact and intent, and if they're feeling it looks bad (and the MRP is all about how things look after all), they'll round the impact up because the other option would be calling him a thug.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Clearly High contact, debatable whether in motion of spoil or not (bent arm). Debatable whether reportedly late (50m) or just slightly.

Impact will be either low or medium depending on medical report. Stayed down, and came off ground after, so potentially medium.

Intention - normally take into consideration prior record (impeccable) which would suggest negligent, but given other player reactions could be reckless.

He could get anywhere from nothing to '2 weeks'. Good record (25%) and guilty plea (25%) should save him from having to serve more than a week.

Others this season got off 'worse' incidents. Could be "incidental contact in motion of spoiling" - 0 weeks, 0 points.

He could get Low/Negligent (125pts), and get off with reprimand.
He could get Medium/Negligent, or Low/Reckless (225) and get a week and carryover points.
Or, they could hit him for Medium/Reckless (325), and he'll get a week and more carryover points.

 

[Maddo11]

Got one down to zero. Seems fair enough.

 

[The Swert]

Results are in:

"Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Richmond Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level One Offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has an existing six-year good record, reducing the penalty by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 70.31 demerit points towards his future record."

 

[TheMcGrathMan]

Seems fair.

 

[mollyfud]

Results are in:

"Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Richmond Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level One Offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has an existing six-year good record, reducing the penalty by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 70.31 demerit points towards his future record."

The interesting thing is that there is a semi-free swing at challenging this as doing so won't get any extra weeks. The cost to challenge and fail is 23 odd points. The reward for successfully challenging is 70 (or 90 odd) points and to maintain the clean record. I would not at all be surprised if they challenge this! One day the tribunal should, as I believe they are able to do, increase the penalty/ratings so teams know there is more then just the lose of the early plea in challenging a report.

JMTC

 

[Big Sauce 21]

He shouldn't have a good record, cheap shotting close in round 1

 

[hcd199]

Fair decision in the end: in the name of consistency, they had to cite him for it, and "negligent" is the correct classification. Although, didn't he get reported for charging? If that's correct, surely they should have, at least, explicitly rejected the charging report before laying out the striking one?

 

[Mister B]

Probably the right decision in the end. Only just saw the vision then, if he had have gone the spoil with a near fully extended arm would have been thrown out. I can't help but think the arm bent at about 90 degrees was what did him in. The report / non report for the swinging arm tackle in Round 1 may not have done him any good in terms of the generosity stakes either.

 

[Vindicater]

Saw it was a Hawthorn player.

Knew it would be less than a week.

 

[roomagic1984]

How can someone who effects a spoil be reported for charging?

That doesn't make sense. Either report him for striking, or don't report him at all.

How can someone that wins the ball get 4 weeks?

If Gibson did that this week, he might have got 3 weeks... its a lucky dip!

 

[kenneje]

Saw it was a Hawthorn player.

Knew it would be less than a week.

Bahahaha.

 

[Ron The Bear]

There's definitely been a backpedal from the ruthless logic of the past, which can't be a bad thing. Now if they can just get the game itself back to what it was...

 

[Rioli magic]

Saw it was a Hawthorn player.

Knew it would be less than a week.

Haha suck shit.

 

[Roosurgence]

Just watched the video a couple of times....I've commented before that I think the MRP are too tough on this, but he's in trouble, and in this case, he deserves it. He led with an elbow to the head, and any punch at the ball was pretty much just incidental.

I still think it'll be 1 week with a plea (high, medium, reckless), but wouldn't be surprised if they push up the impact to high. It's probably not really warranted, but it's on the bad side of both impact and intent, and if they're feeling it looks bad (and the MRP is all about how things look after all), they'll round the impact up because the other option would be calling him a thug.

He wasn't trying to spoil the ball at all, was nothing but a cheap shot. I have never seen a player make a spoiling attempt with a forearm to the head. He knew exactly what he was doing, he could see Conca was going to mark the ball and saw it as an opportunity to hurt him. People forget Fyfe got two weeks for incidental contact the head and he as actually trying to contest the ball.

Gibson can count his lucky stars the MRP is a shambles.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Elbowing a guy in the head from behind while missing the ball completely is 'negligent'.

Hahahaha.

The umpiring is way better this year but the MRP is still a farce.