MRP / Trib. Webster KO's Simpkin - Update 7 week penalty

[Brezsa]

You wont set a precedent until the AFL have the balls to suspend a star player who is a chance to miss finals/brownlow. until then a lot of people are just going to think that these rules to protect the head is all talk. i mean look back to last year just before the finals and during and see how they adjudicate its completely different. It costs the AFL to much money to be banning Cripps,Dangerfield or Daicos for 8 weeks so you'll just have a rule that targets no name players unfairly.

Let’s stick to the topic, Cripps, Dangerfield or Daicos aren’t this weekend. We have a new AFL Footy Ops boss, overseeing this as part of her department, who clearly didn’t like the tribunals Maynard decision, so changed the rules, so that if Maynard did that this weekend wouldn’t get off.

Not only did Laura Kane change that rule she has changed the processes at the tribunal to make it near on impossible for players to get off on a technicality (as Cripps did)

So the only precedent right now, is that of SPP last week, not 12 years ago (as one saints poster suggests), not some conspiracy about the AFL.

if you want that consistency you demand, then based on what Laura Kane and the AFL has said & based on the changes implemented & based on last weeks tribunal result, you’d be expecting a significant suspension. Then if in 20 weeks they drop the ball, sure scream conspiracy.

 

[Plugger35]

It’s not an overreaction. It’s a greater understanding of the damage that are done to a persons brain due to hits like that. It’s an acknowledgment that the game has a duty of care (hence the upcoming law suites)

If anything the example you provide is showing an under reaction.

I get it, it’s a player from a team you support, so you are looking for an angle, but it’s coming off desperate & simple out of touch of the reality in 2924 & everything the AFL has done, with rule changes, interpretations & other suspension over the last 24 months (been just go back a week for your precedent)

Yeah I get all that stuff about more research and understanding about the damage of concussions.

I'm not arguing that Webster shouldn't be suspended for his hit on Simpkin either but I think 4 weeks is about fair for what he did.

Does going over the top and punishing him with 8 weeks discourage other players from doing the same thing any more than 4 weeks?

Maybe it does but is it fair and does the punishment fit the crime? I don't think so.

Should we give people that get caught shoplifting a life sentence in jail like murderers, that will stop them shoplifting but is that fair?

 

[Kappa]

Times haven't changed that much from when that happened 12 years ago.

The damage to Riewoldt wasn't any less because it happened 12 years ago and the cheap shot from Ziebell wasn't any better because it happened 12 years ago.

The only thing that has changed since then is people's overreaction to a hit like that and calling for ridiculous over the top suspensions.

If Ziebell copped 4 weeks for that hit on Riewoldt why should Webster cop a bigger suspension now?

Some people here are calling for an 8 week suspension or even more which is more than what Barry Hall copped for a king hit on Staker?

That's just ridiculous no matter what times you are judging it by.

You think the community and the AFL's stance on concussion hasn't changed in the past 12 years?

Do you even hear the things you say? How can you say such stupid things and think "yep, that's a good point Plugger!"

 

[Plugger35]

You think the community and the AFL's stance on concussion hasn't changed in the past 12 years?

Do you even hear the things you say? How can you say such stupid things and think "yep, that's a good point Plugger!"

Well it changed when one of your players recklessly knocked another player out and ended his career but he had a GF to play so that's OK.

The AFL have no credibility on this issue, they pick and choose when to make a stance on concussion depending on the player and the club.

Sicily got suspended for 3 weeks for a tackle last year for not showing a duty of care, would that happen to a Collingwood player in a prelim?

 

[Kappa]

Well it changed when one of your players recklessly knocked another player out and ended his career but he had a GF to play so that's OK.

The AFL have no credibility on this issue, they pick and choose when to make a stance on concussion depending on the player and the club.

Sicily got suspended for 3 weeks for a tackle last year for not showing a duty of care, would that happen to a Collingwood player in a prelim?

So now you're talking about Collingwood .

You do understand that the attitude towards concussion has changed in the past 12 years, yes? Don't change the topic.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Is that the 2023 one? I can't find a 2024 version.
Assuming the above is still accurate its probably intentional and high impact, but they might call it severe to "send a message".

Yes it is from 2023.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2023/03/01/9c9bdc05-2377-4ffb-a8a0-885835edcaf1/2023-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

Personally I think it deserves a minimum of 4 weeks if he is a first time offender, and more if he has history.

Anything more than 5 weeks would be unfair (assuming he has no priors), they would just be scapegoating him .

It is good that these head high bumps are being removed from the game but it is all ultimately farcical if the AFL are going to let golden boys / teams go as we saw with Maynard last year.

If Webster gets 6+, literally a few months after Maynard got cleared to play in a GF, that would be comical.

Scapegoating is not a good thing, but look at this thread and see how many nuffies are all in favour it.

 

[Dogflogger]

Let’s stick to the topic, Cripps, Dangerfield or Daicos aren’t this weekend. We have a new AFL Footy Ops boss, overseeing this as part of her department, who clearly didn’t like the tribunals Maynard decision, so changed the rules, so that if Maynard did that this weekend wouldn’t get off.

Not only did Laura Kane change that rule she has changed the processes at the tribunal to make it near on impossible for players to get off on a technicality (as Cripps did)

So the only precedent right now, is that of SPP last week, not 12 years ago (as one saints poster suggests), not some conspiracy about the AFL.

if you want that consistency you demand, then based on what Laura Kane and the AFL has said & based on the changes implemented & based on last weeks tribunal result, you’d be expecting a significant suspension. Then if in 20 weeks they drop the ball, sure scream conspiracy.

you have alot of faith in the AFL executives, So you believe they will treat superstar players from finals bound teams the same way they will treat the journeymen?

 

[TY24]

Some people here are calling for an 8 week suspension or even more which is more than what Barry Hall copped for a king hit on Staker?

What’s the difference between a king hit and intentionally putting your shoulder through someone’s temple?

Webster only had one intention, to hurt Simpkin. Absolutely deserves the book thrown at him.

 

[mad-saint-guy]

Utter stupidity from Webster. I do believe that it was a brain fade rather than a malicious act because he's gone 12 years in the comp without doing anything like that, but it's got to be a 6 week suspension. That is exactly what we cannot allow to happen in the sport.

 

[Dogflogger]

Utter stupidity from Webster. I do believe that it was a brain fade rather than a malicious act because he's gone 12 years in the comp without doing anything like that, but it's got to be a 6 week suspension. That is exactly what we cannot allow to happen in the sport.

I dunno some people think his hit was as intentional as Barry Halls hit on Brent Staker.

 

[Tadpole]

What an absolute twatwaffle of the highest order. What the hell was going through his head to have even considered doing such a thing? A brain fart so massive I’m surprised it didn’t launch him straight up into the atmosphere. I know that I know very little about football compared to a lot around these parts, but if that’s not an absolute dog act of the highest order, I don’t know what is. Totally lined him up, left the ground and launched his elbow straight into his head. Definitely worse than what SPP got punished at the tribunal for, so if this one doesn’t get 5 - 6 minimum, then I don’t even know what to think any more.

 

[Tadpole]

Hope he gets well looked after. I can't imagine North are going to be too results driven this year so hopefully he gets plenty of time off.

That wasn't an innocuous knock that he copped it was an absolute brain basher. Webster should have the book thrown at him.

Forget the book. Throw the whole flipping library at him.

 

[Ry009]

Throw the whole flipping library at him.

He won't see it coming.

Based on the efforts of him and his siblings, parents clearly never took the kids to one.

 

[JimmyBC]

It doesn't matter if it was a brain fade (which it probably was) we've moved past that now once you commit to an action you own it. SPP was less severe and more hinged on a swinging tackle bringing the player into his path however he still committed to a bump.

 

[RAPPA]

Add to it the stupidity of Webster’s family to subsequently defend his hit on social media. Amazing how dumb people can be.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Add to it the stupidity of Webster’s family to subsequently defend his hit on social media. Amazing how dumb people can be.

Not just defended but mocked Simpkin
Pretty poor stuff

 

[Dazb86]

Lmfao what was he thinking

 

[CarterS]

Add a few weeks onto his suspension for being an absolute idiot. Can't believe someone would do that in a pre season game.

 

[Roo Beauty]

Few Saints fans having a mare in this thread.

Embarrassing.

 

[SplintWhisky]

I would love to see all the camera angles all synced up because based on the long range one on fox and the picture used online on the news article, I am not sure there was head contact.

That picture looks like there was no contact but I would love to know the time difference between that and the below


If there is no head contact and it was the force of impact that caused the concussion then he shouldn't be rubbed out. If there is head high contact then that is going to he a 6 week type deal

 

[marcus1232]

I think we can all expect and accept he is going to get 6 weeks

I just love the class of people here trying to character assassinate a person who made a mistake.
Cant wait to hear there responses when inevitably one of the players from there team does the same thing this year.

Absolute Hypocrites all you faceless gremlins

 

[ChristianBoy]

I would love to see all the camera angles all synced up because based on the long range one on fox and the picture used online on the news article, I am not sure there was head contact.
View attachment 1918990
That picture looks like there was no contact but I would love to know the time difference between that and the below
View attachment 1918991

If there is no head contact and it was the force of impact that caused the concussion then he shouldn't be rubbed out. If there is head high contact then that is going to he a 6 week type deal

Yeah was whiplash rather than a head knock.

 

[Gavin Excell]

I think we can all expect and accept he is going to get 6 weeks

I just love the class of people here trying to character assassinate a person who made a mistake.
Cant wait to hear there responses when inevitably one of the players from there team does the same thing this year.

Absolute Hypocrites all you faceless gremlins

Oh please
He's being rightfully called out for an ugly hit

 

[Elixuh]

I think we can all expect and accept he is going to get 6 weeks

I just love the class of people here trying to character assassinate a person who made a mistake.
Cant wait to hear there responses when inevitably one of the players from there team does the same thing this year.

Absolute Hypocrites all you faceless gremlins

I didn’t even know Jimmy Webster existed in the AFL system until yesterday.

He’s copping his fair share for a disgraceful dogshot.

 

[boncer34]

I dunno some people think his hit was as intentional as Barry Halls hit on Brent Staker.

How isn't it?