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

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

Webster wasn’t to contrite when Clarko gave him a serve.
Grinning, spat, and the subsequent SM posts by his family.
Confirms shit bloke really.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Webster wasn’t to contrite when Clarko gave him a serve.
Grinning, spat, and the subsequent SM posts by his family.
Confirms s**t bloke really.

I think everyone is in agreeance that Clarkson is a below average hypocritical bogan campaigner

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

I think everyone is in agreeance that Clarkson is a below average hypocritical bogan campaigner

Yep, and seems like Webster and his family are cut from the same cloth

 

[Romeoh1]

Worth 5 weeks- 7 is too many. He was an idiot, but sheesh.

 

[SammyRoo]

Firm disagree, with that logic you can disguise an off the ball hit with a 'bump' and do just as much damage.

I understand that…but an argument can be made about “head intent” on a bump …

One may still reject that argument … and say “ he intended to bump his head! ” but equally a counter argument can be made imo.

If a player walks up and “punches” the head … Its hard to make any argument that anything else was intended other than head contact ?

 

[Atomboy]

Webster wasn’t to contrite when Clarko gave him a serve.
Grinning, spat, and the subsequent SM posts by his family.
Confirms s**t bloke really.

God help us all if Clarko is the benchmark for football morality.

 

[angrynaut]

Webster wasn’t to contrite when Clarko gave him a serve.

Would anyone on the planet be contrite when confronted by Alastair Clarkson, of all people?

 

[TY24]

I understand that…but an argument can be made about “head intent” on a bump …

One may still reject that argument … and say “ he intended to bump his head! ” but equally a counter argument can be made imo.

If a player walks up and “punches” the head … Its hard to make any argument that anything else was intended other than head contact ?

That's true, and for bumps where there's some mitigating circumstances I agree.

This isn't one though. Jimmy very clearly intended to hit Jy in the head IMO.

 

[SplintWhisky]

I think 7 is fair enough.

8+ stuff should be for non-footy actions ( this was still a “bump” at the end of the day…. Albeit horribly executed)

8,10 week stuff should be for “king hit” punches, elbows etc. Eg - Pugger on Caven, Barry hall right hook etc

I think we are past those days now. I bang on about it but part of the grading of instances should be whether or not the action taken would be "legal" if there was no head high contact.

So for Webster it looks like he comes I. Late after Simpkin had kicked the ball which would be a down field free. Because the action, even without head high contact, would constitute a free then it should be weighted more.

 

[SplintWhisky]

That's true, and for bumps where there's some mitigating circumstances I agree.

This isn't one though. Jimmy very clearly intended to hit Jy in the head IMO.

Yeah you don't jump up to make contact with someone's shoulder unless you are Liam Baker trying to bump Sandilands.

 

[ferball]

The only fall will be someone being let off Maynard style in finals, bookmark it.

I reckon we'd all hope people in the AFL media are of strong enough character to call it out then.

 

[Present Not Past]

If this sets the precedent for the season for attacks on the head, lets see how it pans out across the whole season for all of the players each week.
The BS meter has now been calibrated.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

If this sets the precedent for the season for attacks on the head, lets see how it pans out across the whole season for all of the players each week.
The BS meter has now been calibrated.

Well it's set the precedent for a non football act of lining players up & charging at them whilst leaping off the ground & hitting them high after they've disposed of the ball.

Something which has never been allowed.

 

[banzai]

I think 7 is fair enough.

8+ stuff should be for non-footy actions ( this was still a “bump” at the end of the day…. Albeit horribly executed)

8,10 week stuff should be for “king hit” punches, elbows etc. Eg - Pugger on Caven, Barry hall right hook etc

But its an illegal bump, even if he didnt get him high, it would still be a free kick down the ground. In another scenario If he was trying to put on a legal bump and attempting a sheppard, then it could be considered a footy action. This should be considered a non footy action as he is deliberately giving away a free kick even if not trying to get him high.

 

[Ry009]

AFL seem to ride the wave of public opinion. This one was widespread in its condemnation of Webster.

Cripps, Lynch, Maynard while all not intentional trying to take someone out - lacked duty of care and weren't suspended the last couple of years.

While there is no conspiracy - little doubt that the decision makers are heavily influenced by public opinion.

 

[Xtreme]

7 really is lucky for some

Should have been 10-12

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Lance I would bet any amount of money that you have used the reported insult at some point in your life. Would also double down that you have been called it more times than you could count.

It’s a very generic insult.

Not at a workplace I haven't! Wouldn't dream of it!

 

[jdeezy]

AFL seem to ride the wave of public opinion. This one was widespread in its condemnation of Webster.

Cripps, Lynch, Maynard while all not intentional trying to take someone out - lacked duty of care and weren't suspended the last couple of years.

While there is no conspiracy - little doubt that the decision makers are heavily influenced by public opinion.

100% agree the AFL leans heavily into the public opinion which is heavily swayed by media opinion. Which is exactly why your Cripps, Lynch and Maynard didn't get reprimanded. It's not they weren't intentionally trying to take someone out, like they're some absolute angels. It's that those 3 are either in the boys clubs or big names / big teams. And the media didn't go hard at them because of that, so the AFL didn't have to either. We all knew at the time if Maynard was a fringe Freo player in Round 5 he would've gotten weeks for the same action.

I'm fine with this being set at a 7 week precedent (probably would've gone a couple more honestly) and the SPP one being set at 4, if both stay consistent through the year. Will we see the same penalty for Sam Walsh doing this on the eve of the finals though? I doubt it. And AFL hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to these sorts of things.

 

[BomberManU]

Ah, the old 'it's not what I stand for' stock standard BS statement. Time for a new script, I think.

 

[Madas]

Good outcome
Would be very interested to see the resultant penalty were it to be a Collingwood or Carlton player the week before or during finals
Will be the true acid test of how seriously the AFL is taking this

 

[Romeoh1]

Good outcome
Would be very interested to see the resultant penalty were it to be a Collingwood or Carlton player the week before or during finals
Will be the true acid test of how seriously the AFL is taking this

Yep- that will be the litmus test. Maynard should have missed time and didn’t and now this year, it's been ramped up. Let’s see how it goes- if they apply tough penalties consistently- most of us will be happy.

 

[north_lad]

Not at a workplace I haven't! Wouldn't dream of it!

Would be absolutely insane in the workplace.

Mind you though, if I saw a colleague knocked clean out by someone that looks like they should live in a cave I probably would make some off colour remarks

 

[FrustratedTiger]

I get the feeling the tribunal would have been happy to give more had the charge been intentional instead of careless. He got lucky there because it was definitely intentional.

 

[3207]

I get the feeling the tribunal would have been happy to give more had the charge been intentional instead of careless. He got lucky there because it was definitely intentional.

And the problem with the gradings - they are subjective.

 

[Speck]

This is not to excuse Webster at all - 7 weeks feels about right to me.

I am curious though - are there any good examples where a player has been running full tilt in an attempt to catch the player (tackle/smother etc), realised that they weren't going to get there, and found a way to avoid or change how they hit the player rather than turning the body for a bump? I'm sure there are plenty out there.

Some players, Webster included, very much are "see ball get ball" players who will never shirt a contest, and pride their game around this. Obviously he got it completely wrong, but it would be interesting to see some direction/education from the AFL showing the viable alternatives (even if it results in a free kick) than turning the body and bumping. For years players have learnt this behaviour as a way of protecting themselves but it puts the opposition player in way too much danger.