Jack Ziebell launching into Aaron Joseph - How many weeks?

[greennick]

probably a precaution more than anything else, he played out the 2nd quarter and looked fine

Correct, it was probably a precaution. Due to the medicos deciding he wasn't right after the contact to the head and continuing to play could result in brain injuries. Which leads to the high rating on the impact, likely as that is probably what they put in their medical report.

 

[Digga Hole]

Correct, it was probably a precaution. Due to the medicos deciding he wasn't right after the contact to the head and continuing to play could result in brain injuries. Which leads to the high rating on the impact, likely as that is probably what they put in their medical report.

I would have been checking the ribs

 

[D-N-R]

While there is accidental contact in the game of football, again, you need to read the rules. Players get suspended all the time for what you or I would deem "accidental contact", however is still prohibited contact in the new AFL.

I provided you with an example of 'accidental contact' not leading to a charge at the tribunal, it does exist and players are not charged for any and all contact to the head. Give me one example of a player being suspended for 'accidental contact'.

The AFL has three types of contact:
- Negligent
- Reckless
- Intentional

No accidental. Accidental falls in to either negligent or reckless. Ziebull could have gotten reckless, so he is lucky they didn't give him that.

These are the types of contact that are deemed reportable, not all types of contact. What one does Judd's chicken-wing fall into? They're probably not sure so it has gone straight to tribunal.

Where is the situation that I described with a player being punched in the head at a marking contest?

What about the Melbourne players whose leg was broken by the North player earlier this year? That went to the tribunal and the player was cleared. What category of contact does that fit into?

These categories are used to weight suspension in something illegal, they don't define all types of contact on a football field.

And yeah, if he got possession it likely wouldn't have changed it as you still can't smash someone in the head (not saying that is what he did, but it is what he is charged with).

Except at a marking contest? Serious question, are marking contests and loose ball contests considered differently? I'm not aware that they are. If Wellingham had played the ball this way last week he wouldn't have been suspended. That Hawks player Breust was absolutely destroyed in a marking contest, with no penalty for the Crows player. You don't often see loose balls attacked in this way, this is true, but are players allowed to?

 

[greennick]

I provided you with an example of 'accidental contact' not leading to a charge at the tribunal, it does exist and players are not charged for any and all contact to the head. Give me one example of a player being suspended for 'accidental contact'.

To be fair, that is a good point, they let the slide tackle players off as they deemed the slides to be accidental. I was more meaning that you can't claim accidental contact to the head, guess I should have made that more clear. There are plenty of examples of that, I am sure I don't need to list some.

I think it will come down to this:
"A player negligently commits a reportable offence if the relevant conduct constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the player to all other players. Each player owes a duty of care to all other players to not engage in conduct which will constitute a reportable offence being committed against that other player"

against this:

"a player will be guilty of rough conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck unless:
a) the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or
b) the forceful contact to the head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen. "

No idea what way it will go though.

Except at a marking contest? Serious question, are marking contests and loose ball contests considered differently? I'm not aware that they are. If Wellingham had played the ball this way last week he wouldn't have been suspended. That Hawks player Breust was absolutely destroyed in a marking contest, with no penalty for the Crows player. You don't often see loose balls attacked in this way, this is true, but are players allowed to?

I have no idea, never looked in to that before. However players normally don't go sideways in to marking contests with their shoulders down. I guess we'll find out shortly?

 

[benno87]

Can't see him getting off unfortunately.

This could have a serious impact on our run for the 8.

 

[greennick]

I just wish they would hurry up and suspend Judd so we can find out about this...

 

[THE MOEMAN]

ziebell will get off.
judd's pathetic defence will also make us look like geniuses

 

[PP34]

Ziebell guilty. Four weeks.

 

[D-N-R]

Nick Bowen: ​

Tribunal satisfied he was contesting the ball, but thought he had a realistic alternative way to do so

Shame, thought it was a fair attempt at the ball. So does this mean that marking contests and loose ball contests are assessed differently?

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Geez, harsh. Not surprised he got done, but 4 weeks is bloody harsh.

I guess when he jumped into Joseph and hit him high he was going to be in strife.

Disappointing for North, hes been in good of late

 

[roos_fanatic08]

Honestly can't believe this...the Afl just ruled against players jumping to contest the footy...****ing idiots

 

[Maddo11]

Jury not convinced there wasn't a "realistic alternative" to contest the ball.

So, apart from drawing free kicks by getting the ball with your head down, there's no incentive to contest the ball.

Great result.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

Utterly gobsmacking that a deliberate act to physically hurt another defenceless player attracts the same penalty as a genuine contest for the football. Football is the loser tonight.

 

[tzman]

Honestly can't believe this...the Afl just ruled against players jumping to contest the footy...******* idiots

wrong coloured stripes

 

[King Elvis]

Shame, thought it was a fair attempt at the ball. So does this mean that marking contests and loose ball contests are assessed differently?

That's absolute ****ing bullshit.

 

[greennick]

Shame, thought it was a fair attempt at the ball. So does this mean that marking contests and loose ball contests are assessed differently?

I wonder if their argument is because
a) in a marking contest the only way you can contest is by going for the mark
or
b) there is no difference, but players almost never go in to a marking contest with their shoulder down (ie, they don't break their duty of care to other players)

or something else altogether entirely.

 

[MrKK]

Waiting for the tribunal to demonstrate a realistic alternative way to contest that ball...

 

[greennick]

Jury not convinced there wasn't a "realistic alternative" to contest the ball.

So, apart from drawing free kicks by getting the ball with your head down, there's no incentive to contest the ball.

Great result.

Though, I disagree with the result, they've been pretty clear on this for a while now.

I would say he could have easily spoiled it. What they want is a solid contest, but where one doesn't unnecessarily put others at risk. If he had have just gone for the spoil and knocked it out, likely everyone would have walked away fine. Jumping at speed side on in to a player with the bulk of your body at head height often results in injury and is what they are trying to stamp out.

 

[greennick]

Honestly can't believe this...the Afl just ruled against players jumping to contest the footy...******* idiots

No they didn't. Just like the bump still exists. Players just have to be more careful.

Though it sucks to lose Beau Waters for a few games every few seasons, he generally deserves it when he does according to their rules. He still does a quite a few good bumps every game, he's just a lot more careful at it now.

It is the same with this, players just need to be more careful.

 

[D-N-R]

That's absolute ******* bullshit.

Could you elaborate please? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make

 

[D-N-R]

I wonder if their argument is because
a) in a marking contest the only way you can contest is by going for the mark
or
b) there is no difference, but players almost never go in to a marking contest with their shoulder down (ie, they don't break their duty of care to other players)

or something else altogether entirely.

Probably 'a' I suppose. Anyway, I'm done with this one. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[grimface_87]

Waiting for the tribunal to demonstrate a realistic alternative way to contest that ball...

You'll be waiting a while...

 

[telsor]

Waiting for the tribunal to demonstrate a realistic alternative way to contest that ball...

They've played enough games between them that I imagine they have a decent idea.

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

They've played enough games between them that I imagine they have a decent idea.

That they have, but Henwood retired 1992, Dunn retired 1985, Schimma retired 1987.
The game has changed alot since these men played.
Time to get some fresh blood in there maybe.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Geez, harsh. Not surprised he got done, but 4 weeks is bloody harsh.

I guess when he jumped into Joseph and hit him high he was going to be in strife.

Disappointing for North, hes been in good of late

When a player gets "off" with a reprimand or gets their penalty reduced by a week, they havent really. All they've done is bank it for the future. ( unless they can get through and reduce their carry over points ). Ziebell had carry over points.
If Ziebell was found guilty of anything at all, he had a week before anything else.
Then they offered 2 additional weeks for this particualar incident = 3 weeks.
In hindsight it was stupid to contest.