AFLW Autopsy Sydney Swans vs Collingwood Friday 30th Aug Nth Sydney Oval @7:15pm

[SwansProudly]

#CheerThis

 

[Wheresbuddy]

Magpies are challenging the 3 match ban.

Whether you agree or disagree, the AFL is punishing on outcome when a player elects to bump, especially if it's clear that tackling is an alternative. It should only get downgraded based on the fact that the suspension seems disproportionate when taking into account the length of the AFLW season.

 

[Kbroome]

Whether you agree or disagree, the AFL is punishing on outcome when a player elects to bump, especially if it's clear that tackling is an alternative. It should only get downgraded based on the fact that the suspension seems disproportionate when taking into account the length of the AFLW season.

The suspension is roughly on par with Parker's suspension, however a 2 game suspension probably seems far given that amounts to like 4.2 games in the mens season

 

[liz]

Whether you agree or disagree, the AFL is punishing on outcome when a player elects to bump, especially if it's clear that tackling is an alternative. It should only get downgraded based on the fact that the suspension seems disproportionate when taking into account the length of the AFLW season.

Except tackling wasn't really an alternative in this instance since Collier had disposed of the ball. The alternative was to not line her up and to make no contact.

I wondered, watching the footage, whether there was actually contact to Collier's head, or if it was all to the body. In that case, the concussion Collier experienced might be whiplash related. But Port tried to run a similar argument for the Houston bump on Rankine and it did them no good.

But who knows when it gets to the tribunal. I'm still confused how the Bulldogs player was deemed to have laid a reasonable tackle when she ran down someone (Sheppard?) last season, despite the fact she came at pace from behind and drove the Swan hard into the ground. Maybe that's the kind of tackle that the rules have been clarified for this season to put the onus on the tackler-from-behind not to cause concussion.

 

[Kbroome]

Except tackling wasn't really an alternative in this instance since Collier had disposed of the ball. The alternative was to not line her up and to make no contact.

I wondered, watching the footage, whether there was actually contact to Collier's head, or if it was all to the body. In that case, the concussion Collier experienced might be whiplash related. But Port tried to run a similar argument for the Houston bump on Rankine and it did them no good.

But who knows when it gets to the tribunal. I'm still confused how the Bulldogs player was deemed to have laid a reasonable tackle when she ran down someone (Sheppard?) last season, despite the fact she came at pace from behind and drove the Swan hard into the ground. Maybe that's the kind of tackle that the rules have been clarified for this season to put the onus on the tackler-from-behind not to cause concussion.

There was as White was said to have a ball appear on her cheek or head and you can see the contact when you proper proper slow it down, but still AFL has shown it doesn't matter and there was obviously other options for White to not bump.

 

[Kbroome]

Charge was upheld for Tarni White

 

[liz]

There was as White was said to have a ball appear on her cheek or head and you can see the contact when you proper proper slow it down, but still AFL has shown it doesn't matter and there was obviously other options for White to not bump.

That would just mean there was contact to White’s head, not to Collier’s. Though, from the vision, evidence of contact on White’s head suggests maybe a head clash (possibly as well as shoulder contact to neck/lower jaw).

 

[Wheresbuddy]

Charge was upheld for Tarni White

Never thought I would ever feel sorry for a Pies player but I do for Tarni. I would've been happy with 2 weeks.

 

[Kbroome]

That would just mean there was contact to White’s head, not to Collier’s. Though, from the vision, evidence of contact on White’s head suggests maybe a head clash (possibly as well as shoulder contact to neck/lower jaw).

Hopefully can see it with these screenshots that it was an accidental head clash.

Never thought I would ever feel sorry for a Pies player but I do for Tarni. I would've been happy with 2 weeks.

Yea think she might be unlucky that its a one size fits all policy with the MRO rubric and not an individual rubric for the mens and the womens

 

[liz]

Charge was upheld for Tarni White

Clearly AFL.com.au doesn’t think it’s worth sending a journalist to cover the AFLW tribunal. All they’ve reported is that the ban was upheld. Contrast that to coverage of the men’s tribunal where they will typically set out the basis on which the appeal argument was made at the very least. And usually a brief summary of the arguments and evidence.

 

[liz]

Hopefully can see it with these screenshots that it was an accidental head clash.


Yea think she might be unlucky that its a one size fits all policy with the MRO rubric and not an individual rubric for the mens and the womens

Thanks. Those help to clarify. I don’t have the means or know how to slow vision down or take screen shots and it’s hard to tell what happened with one angle of normal speed footage.

 

[Kbroome]

Thanks. Those help to clarify. I don’t have the means or know how to slow vision down or take screen shots and it’s hard to tell what happened with one angle of normal speed footage.

Thats in 0.25x speed on an already slow mo footage so probably like 0.1x speed in total and it took me 2-3 minutes to keep getting the right pause moment. So don't be so down on yourself

 

[Kiama Chris]

Hopefully can see it with these screenshots that it was an accidental head clash.


Yea think she might be unlucky that its a one size fits all policy with the MRO rubric and not an individual rubric for the mens and the womens

Rough Conduct Intentional Hight Impact High Contact. Of course "careless". 3 weeks is just fine. 4 would have been OK.

 

[Kbroome]

Rough Conduct Intentional Hight Impact High Contact. Of course "careless". 3 weeks is just fine. 4 would have been OK.

I think they gave it 3 because the rubric can't go below that and they wanted to account for the massively shorter season. Personally think its a 2 week suspension to put it in line with roughly the male equivalent