- Jul 13, 2015
- 37,928
- 42,747
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
You're bang on with this
Sicily deserved three
Nank deserved four
Whatever Sicily deserved, Nankervis deserved more.
Have all the Swans players deserved their suspensions this year?
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.
LIVE: Sydney v Brisbane Lions - 2:30PM AEST Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 61% chance -- What's your tip? -- Ticketing Buy, Sell -- Teams on Thurs »
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
You're bang on with this
Sicily deserved three
Nank deserved four
I'd argue Parker was maybe a little stiff seeing as since then there have been a few get off for insufficient force. But our argument at tribunal was garbo soWhatever Sicily deserved, Nankervis deserved more.
Have all the Swans players deserved their suspensions this year?
For those playing at home, same as DeGoey, would have been 4 weeks but tribunal accepted contrition as being worthy of 25% discount
For those playing at home, same as DeGoey, would have been 4 weeks but tribunal accepted contrition as being worthy of 25% discount
Why did they waste everyone's time? After the JDG three week penalty for a very similar hit this was always going to be three weeks. I said it earlier in the thread that three weeksis the going rate for these type of hits this year, rightly or wrongly.
Next year they need to be increased. A Nankervis/JDG hit 4-5 weeks and a Stewart hit 5-6 weeks.
3 weeks is a disgrace. What Nankervis did was far far worse than Sicily did to McLuggage (which was accidental I firmly believe)
Once again, Richmond getting preferential treatment at Tribunal (how many times have we said that over the years)
Hawthorn fans have every to feel angry/victims of a miscarriage of justice.
The act was as bad, perhaps not the outcome.3 =About right I’d have thought. Not quite as bad as Stewart who copped 4 from memory.
The balance between penalties for different cases is way out.
The AFL has clearly decided to crack down on certain issues and the penalties are out of proportion.
Some of the dangerous tackles/bumps that get 3 weeks are pretty marginal, they're really accidents/mistakes due to insufficient care being taken (thinking Sicily, Mansell more than Nankervis), but you can throw a deliberate jumper punch to the chin and you'll only get a week.
Being a second or two late in contesting a ball, or a couple of degrees off in the angle you take a player to the ground in a tackle aren't nearly as bad as a deliberate action, even if it's 'just' a jumper punch, but to the AFL, it's 3 times as bad!
To compare 2 from the same team, the Mansell and Nankervis bumps should never have got the same penalties.
Mansell runs 10-20M in a straight line towards the ball, moving at serious speed he gets there a second late, and when he realises he'll be second to the ball he braces and mostly makes impact with the arm, but also touches the head...3 weeks.
Nankervis lined him up for a bump, was never going for anything else and while I doubt he intended to hit high, he did....3 weeks.
How are they equivalent?
( To be clear, I think Mansell should have got less...1 week would have been sufficient. I'm fine with 3 for Nankervis ).
A lot more emphasis should be put on the intent behind the action rather than the result, but the AFL is afraid to do that because saying a player deliberately tried to hurt another is considered offensive by the player who did it...even though often it's clearly the case.
For those playing at home, same as DeGoey, would have been 4 weeks but tribunal accepted contrition as being worthy of 25% discount
This genuine remorse discount can get ****ed IMO.
Pretty funny. As if players won't just say anything to get 1 week less.
Well i mean Sicily didn't, he doubled down, then doubled down againPretty funny. As if players won't just say anything to get 1 week less.
I think Nank would have been aiming to tackle Lloyd, but the speed he gathers and releases the ball caught Nank out.The balance between penalties for different cases is way out.
The AFL has clearly decided to crack down on certain issues and the penalties are out of proportion.
Some of the dangerous tackles/bumps that get 3 weeks are pretty marginal, they're really accidents/mistakes due to insufficient care being taken (thinking Sicily, Mansell more than Nankervis), but you can throw a deliberate jumper punch to the chin and you'll only get a week.
Being a second or two late in contesting a ball, or a couple of degrees off in the angle you take a player to the ground in a tackle aren't nearly as bad as a deliberate action, even if it's 'just' a jumper punch, but to the AFL, it's 3 times as bad!
To compare two similar incidents from the same team, the Mansell and Nankervis bumps should never have got the same penalties.
Mansell runs 10-20M in a straight line towards the ball, moving at serious speed he gets there a second late, and when he realises he'll be second to the ball he braces and mostly makes impact with the arm, but also touches the head...3 weeks.
Nankervis lined him up for a bump, was never going for anything else and while I doubt he intended to hit high, he did....3 weeks.
How are they equivalent?
( To be clear, I think Mansell should have got less...1 week would have been sufficient. I'm fine with 3 for Nankervis ).
A lot more emphasis should be put on the intent behind the action rather than the result, but the AFL is afraid to do that because saying a player deliberately tried to hurt another is considered offensive by the player who did it...even though often it's clearly the case.
I think Nank would have been aiming to tackle Lloyd, but the speed he gathers and releases the ball caught Nank out.
From there he should have tried not to bump, he made the wrong split second decision. I too was more of a brace, more so than Degoey, you can see he raises his left hand, if he was truely trying to put a heavy bump on to do as much damage as possible he wouldn’t get into that position.
The trouble Nank has is he is a slow and less nimble ruckman and bulky.
If Degoey had the same bulk the WCE player would have been injured far worse than they were.
End of the day they AFL would make this all much easier if they just banned bumping. If it was against the rules and a free kick and or 50, even without high contact, players would stop doing it.
I think Nank would have been aiming to tackle Lloyd, but the speed he gathers and releases the ball caught Nank out.
From there he should have tried not to bump, he made the wrong split second decision. I too was more of a brace, more so than Degoey, you can see he raises his left hand, if he was truely trying to put a heavy bump on to do as much damage as possible he wouldn’t get into that position.
The trouble Nank has is he is a slow and less nimble ruckman and bulky.
If Degoey had the same bulk the WCE player would have been injured far worse than they were.
End of the day they AFL would make this all much easier if they just banned bumping. If it was against the rules and a free kick and or 50, even without high contact, players would stop doing it.
Ahh. That probably comes back to a brace!Define a 'bump'.
How does that differ from just bumping into each other?