Moved Thread Zac Williams bump

[calman]

Common sense is always part of it! It just is. There is no problem with this being a week. Lets look at it...

a) Was it late- yes
b) was it high- yes
c) could he have pulled out- yes
d) was the act needed-no
e) did he jump into it, thus a vulnerable player was put in that position- yes he did.

Every act where a player leaves the ground SHOULD be a medium grade. There should be no ifs of buts, it should be medium, and therefore a week. If you injure them that grade is hight to severe depending on the extent. I'm happy if the MRP are harsh on this from now on.

You keep your feet and bump then by all means have it in the low category.

It's actually quite simple, and I'd say this if it was a Sydney player. Why put yourself at the mercy of the MRP when the act was so dumb and needless!

agree with everything you say
except thier own rules show it should have been classed as low
nothing wrong with following your own rules, then changing them if they are out of date
When you ignore the rules when you feel like it, is when it annoys fans

But AFL has been doing it for years
eg cotchin hit on shiel

except AFL came up with a BS decision, so he could play in richmond first GF since 1980

How would you feel being booked for doing 60 in an 80 zone, and then being told at court, we think it should have been a 40 zone because of potential, so you are guilty
if they AFL want the rules to reflect head being sacrosanct, then write them correctly

 

[BF Tiger]

I think a lot of people in here are missing the point and are going to the obvious "Carlton fans having a sook" tactic. I am on record stating before the tribunal that I think the action deserved a week. What is puzzling and troubling (and bloody frustrating) is how they (AFL, MRO) arrived at that decision. As has been explicitly discussed by myself and others, by the definitions and rules that the AFL has themselves set, Williams should not have been graded medium. I challenge anyone to debate that without gut feel or optics based opinions, because that is written in black and white in how impact is graded and there are precedents, like the article I posted.

Anyone who read Gleeson's evidence (AFLs QC) against Williams knows that he pretty much made a goose of himself and basically stated, "Well, potentially it could have been medium impact, the potential was there so we are grading it as such" and made flippant statements based on no science or evidence that I can find, talking about how Williams turned his head which creates more impact. It was like, what is this guy going on about? Nothing he said was based on the laws set out nor factual, they were simply gut feel opinions.

The decision was made based on optics alone and contradicts their own rules and regulations. It would be fine if the AFL came out and was transparent enough (keep dreaming) to say "we have carte blanche on extraordinary decisions that involve head high contact that may go outside of the matrix and regulations set regarding suspensions. We can base this on several factors, including the optics and how it affects the game moving forward". But no, they bumble and stumble through a tribunal hearing, which Carlton's Barrister made far more salient and logical points including throwing their own laws back at them, to arrive at a decision that was clearly contrived to achieve a desired result that the AFL wanted.

I am pretty confident that at some point in the season, there will be a high profile player who gets a different grading despite doing something comparable to Williams which is the real crux of the problem. At least try to be consistent and transparent, we have neither at the moment.





I posted a still of the incident which shows exactly the opposite and Pickett did in fact leave the ground. If you want to start arguing over degrees of leaving the ground, go for it but it's very clear he did from what I posted. Can anyone point me in the direction of the rule the states that if a player 'leaves the ground' to bump, that it's instant suspension? The media and people in here harp on and on about it, but is it written anywhere in the laws and rules?

What you posted was a still shot after the moment of contact.

 

[TheKITC]

What you posted was a still shot after the moment of contact.

Keep clutching those straws.

Care to show me in the laws of the game where 'leaving the ground' is explicitly listed as being illegal or grounds for harsher punishment when bumping or engaging in rough conduct?

 

[BF Tiger]

Keep clutching those straws.

Care to show me in the laws of the game where 'leaving the ground' is explicitly listed as being illegal or grounds for harsher punishment when bumping or engaging in rough conduct?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

View attachment 1074261

At least Heeney had the ball too, not as if you shouldn't be expected to take. Whilst I personally believe he was fractionally lucky, there are some key differences between Pickett's actions and Zac Williams jumping to take out a bloke without the pill! The ball was nowhere near Williams. It was so dumb and unnecessary.

 

[TheKITC]

View attachment 1074261

So you're showing a still before the contact was made. What's that prove? I also take it you cannot find anything in the laws of the game regarding leaving the ground anyway?



Look, Williams was on the ground too. INNOCENT. Even though there is absolutely nothing anywhere to do with leaving the ground.

Try again.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Did Clark not pass the concussion test though? The impact shouldn't be upgraded just because someone did a concussion test. They'll be done regularly as a precaution. If you fail the test then yes upgrade impact.

Also how it wasn't graded as intentional is beyond me.

Did he intend to bump? Yes, I would say so. Did he intend to cause harm or hurt his opponent? I wouldn't think so.
I think intentional needs to be reserved for instances where a player takes a deliberate swipe (strike), or an extremely late or hard hit. It kind of intimates at some form of malice.
This was a little late and I wouldn't say the bump was overly aggressive or hard. Looked like he wanted to bump the player as they disposed of the ball (happens plenty of times every game), stupidly left the ground (his ultimate undoing) and couldn't really pull out. Clark got rid of the ball a little quicker than he expected and Zac follows the ball with his head and wasn't even really looking at Clark when he made contact.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Strange that they're trying to appeal, seems like an obvious outcome for the action.

If the AFL is serious at all about concussion, welfare of players, and the look of the game, they need to stamp this rubbish out.

If the AFL was serious about concussion, they'd be asking some awkward questions of the Saints' medical staff. Considering he was a little wobbly on his feet when he first got up, they should have performed a test during the game, not after.
And I'm not trying to turn this back onto the Saints because I'm upset about Williams. He left the ground and that's probably what cost him the week. He cops his whack and we move on, as disappointing as it is. I would be wondering the same if it was from a game that didn't include my team, or even if it was my team that failed to do the test at the time.
The AFL is talking the talk, but they are only walking the walk half of the time.

 

[Bald]

My first thought when I saw it was it needed to be 2 weeks. Taking precedence out of it, I can't understand why it was only 1.

 

[BF Tiger]

So you're showing a still before the contact was made. What's that prove? I also take it you cannot find anything in the laws of the game regarding leaving the ground anyway?

View attachment 1074276

Look, Williams was on the ground too. INNOCENT. Even though there is absolutely nothing anywhere to do with leaving the ground.

Try again.

Geez your a whiny bitch.

There’s a lot that is NOT in the laws of the game. I have never seen the rule about no weapons, or a rule specifically mentioning squirrel grips or eye pokes. Maybe it just falls under rough conduct or something.

 

[Bjchan13]

Did he intend to bump? Yes, I would say so. Did he intend to cause harm or hurt his opponent? I wouldn't think so.
I think intentional needs to be reserved for instances where a player takes a deliberate swipe (strike), or an extremely late or hard hit. It kind of intimates at some form of malice.
This was a little late and I wouldn't say the bump was overly aggressive or hard. Looked like he wanted to bump the player as they disposed of the ball (happens plenty of times every game), stupidly left the ground (his ultimate undoing) and couldn't really pull out. Clark got rid of the ball a little quicker than he expected and Zac follows the ball with his head and wasn't even really looking at Clark when he made contact.

I think most AFL fans would agree that bumping is an essential part of the game and needs to stay. I think most would also agree that the act of jumping to bump needs to be stamped out. I also think a good % of fans would want anything late stamped out (when a player has just kicked the ball you shouldn't be making any contact with their head as they have no way to protect themselves. If its a fair bump timed during the kick then it should be play on.) The AFL and the way the MRO view these incidents don't reflect these values. They base their decisions on an entirely different set of criteria, contradict themselves from week to week, change interpretations from week to week and favour certain players in certain situations. Its an absolute shitshow. Everyone agrees the head needs to be protected in this day and age, without changing the fundamentals of the game.( Eg fair bump) The AFL's current system is a mess and isnt doing that. Its too reactive. Needs to be proactive. Williams should've been suspended for a week, maybe more in some peoples view, but not under the criteria that he was (medium impact).

 

[TheKITC]

Geez your a whiny b*tch.

There’s a lot that is NOT in the laws of the game. I have never seen the rule about no weapons, or a rule specifically mentioning squirrel grips or eye pokes. Maybe it just falls under rough conduct or something.

You've just totally exposed what type of poster you are by resorting to pathetic and childish name calling because you cannot deal with someone logically and reasonably disagreeing with you. Not going to report this post so it stays up and people can see it.

Last time I'll respond for obvious reasons

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

The ball was gone and Williams still decided to run through Clark's head. Are people seriously whining that he got a week?

The ball had barely left his foot. It's not like it was massively late.
"run through Clark's head". Leave the hyperbole out. Watch the gif in the OP. It was a glancing blow at best, fractionally late, with the elbow tucked and shoulder making incidental contact. It was borderline between a fine and a week. Clark played on (well) and the medical staff didn't deem it bad enough to give him a concussion test at the time. Precedents have also shown that similar incidents have attracted fines. It's hardly a stretch that some people don't agree.
Ultimately, it was probably his decision to jump combined with the late concussion test that cost him the week.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I think most AFL fans would agree that bumping is an essential part of the game and needs to stay. I think most would also agree that the act of jumping to bump needs to be stamped out. I also think a good % of fans would want anything late stamped out (when a player has just kicked the ball you shouldn't be making any contact with their head as they have no way to protect themselves. If its a fair bump timed during the kick then it should be play on.) The AFL and the way the MRO view these incidents don't reflect these values. They base their decisions on an entirely different set of criteria, contradict themselves from week to week, change interpretations from week to week and favour certain players in certain situations. Its an absolute shitshow. Everyone agrees the head needs to be protected in this day and age, without changing the fundamentals of the game.( Eg fair bump) The AFL's current system is a mess and isnt doing that. Its too reactive. Needs to be proactive. Williams should've been suspended for a week, maybe more in some peoples view, but not under the criteria that he was (medium impact).

All fair points, but in regards to jumping and late contact, I feel people have a different image in their mind of how this bump played out.
Look at the still image above that TheKITC posted. This is fractionally before the bump. Williams still has one foot on the ground and the ball had barely left the boot.
Yes, technically it WAS late and he DID leave the ground, but not to the extent that most seem to remember.
IMO, the commentators generally set the tone for these types of things. The more they go on about it and show it and say things like "I think he might be in a bit of trouble there", the player is likely to cop a penalty. If a similar incident is given little to no fanfare, it either won't even be looked at, or they will get off.

 

[faible]

I'm sure all the Carlton supporters in here arguing that Williams shouldn't be suspended are not at all biased, and are coming from a completely impartial position on the matter.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

I'm sure all the Carlton supporters in here arguing that Williams shouldn't be suspended are not at all biased, and are coming from a completely impartial position on the matter.

He shouldn’t be suspended based on the current rules. Most of us actually agree that style of bump has no place in the game but the way the AFL and the MRO and came to that conclusion is a joke.

System needs a big overhaul.

 

[faible]

He shouldn’t be suspended based on the current rules.

Disgaree.

System needs a big overhaul.

Agree.

 

[TheKITC]

I'm sure all the Carlton supporters in here arguing that Williams shouldn't be suspended are not at all biased, and are coming from a completely impartial position on the matter.

Why don't you actually engage with my posts, which are far from emotional and totally based on facts rather than making sweeping, hit and run observations...

Happy to debate with you in a reasonable manner if you disagree, my views are there for you to pick apart.

 

[faible]

Why don't you actually engage with my posts, which are far from emotional and totally based on facts rather than making sweeping, hit and run observations...

Happy to debate with you in a reasonable manner if you disagree, my views are there for you to pick apart.

The AFL take leaving the ground as consideration in to the 'potential to cause serious injury' part of their grading of offences. This isn't new.

The additional element of both Frawley and Tuck being diagnosed with CTE in the off-season would have only added to their willingness to classify high contact acts as having more potential to cause injury.

AFL statement: Amendment to AFL Tribunal guidelines

The AFL has decided to change the AFL Tribunal guidelines effective immediately

www.afl.com.au

They amended the tackle rules last year to remove any ability for it to be argued otherwise.

Anyone who's surprised Williams' got a week really hasn't read the room in the offseason when it comes to high contact.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

First pic is the moment the ball hits his boot. It's not like he came from a long way back. 2nd and 3rd pics are between boot touching ball and Williams leaving the ground (has one foot on the ground in both pics). Last pic is about as close to the moment of impact that I could be bothered trying to stop it. Williams' foot has barely left the ground and the ball hasn't even gone over Setterfield's(?) head.

And if you look at the gifs that Munga posted on the first page in post #12, there's barely a fraction of a second between the ball leaving Clark's boot and Williams making contact, and that's in slow motion. He also "leaves the ground" pretty much at the point of impact.

 

[Bjchan13]

All fair points, but in regards to jumping and late contact, I feel people have a different image in their mind of how this bump played out.
Look at the still image above that TheKITC posted. This is fractionally before the bump. Williams still has one foot on the ground and the ball had barely left the boot.
Yes, technically it WAS late and he DID leave the ground, but not to the extent that most seem to remember.
IMO, the commentators generally set the tone for these types of things. The more they go on about it and show it and say things like "I think he might be in a bit of trouble there", the player is likely to cop a penalty. If a similar incident is given little to no fanfare, it either won't even be looked at, or they will get off.

The commentators should have no bearing whatsoever. If they do thats another big problem with the system. The jumping and the lateness of a hit can be calculated to the exact parameters with a replay, if the AFL went down the path pf trying to stamp those actions out. They dont in the current system, the jumping and lateness (if any) aren't specifically used in the criteria. The AFL need to get specific, proactive in regards to what actions they do and dont want in the game and maybe tweak some rules and criteria for the better. At the moment they are too contradictory and i dont think they are actually protecting the head.

 

[faible]

First pic is the moment the ball hits his boot. It's not like he came from a long way back. 2nd and 3rd pics are between boot touching ball and Williams leaving the ground (has one foot on the ground in both pics). Last pic is about as close to the moment of impact that I could be bothered trying to stop it. Williams' foot has barely left the ground and the ball hasn't even gone over Setterfield's(?) head.

And if you look at the gifs that Munga posted on the first page in post #12, there's barely a fraction of a second between the ball leaving Clark's boot and Williams making contact, and that's in slow motion. He also "leaves the ground" pretty much at the point of impact.

View attachment 1074352
View attachment 1074348
View attachment 1074350
View attachment 1074356

So he could have smothered the ball, impacting the play, and not risking injury to the player OR suspension? Good to know.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

The AFL take leaving the ground as consideration in to the 'potential to cause serious injury' part of their grading of offences. This isn't new.

The additional element of both Frawley and Tuck being diagnosed with CTE in the off-season would have only added to their willingness to classify high contact acts as having more potential to cause injury.

AFL statement: Amendment to AFL Tribunal guidelines

The AFL has decided to change the AFL Tribunal guidelines effective immediately

www.afl.com.au

They amended the tackle rules last year to remove any ability for it to be argued otherwise.

Anyone who's surprised Williams' got a week really hasn't read the room in the offseason when it comes to high contact.

Except that link relates very specifically to dangerous tackles. It makes no mention of hip and shoulders, bumps or the like. A similar change may have been put into effect, but you can't come to that conclusion from the link you provided.

 

[TheKITC]

The AFL take leaving the ground as consideration in to the 'potential to cause serious injury' part of their grading of offences. This isn't new.

The additional element of both Frawley and Tuck being diagnosed with CTE in the off-season would have only added to their willingness to classify high contact acts as having more potential to cause injury.

AFL statement: Amendment to AFL Tribunal guidelines

The AFL has decided to change the AFL Tribunal guidelines effective immediately

www.afl.com.au

They amended the tackle rules last year to remove any ability for it to be argued otherwise.

Yeah, so that article expressly addresses the spear or dangerous tackle and has nothing to do with this. You are drawing an extremely long bow in trying to apply that to 'leaving the ground' with regards to the 'potential to cause serious injury' when engaging in rough conduct and bumping. Nothing in that article, in the laws of the game or anywhere for that matter that I can find, has ever aligned leaving the ground with any form of explicit punishment or direct guilt. Happy to hear otherwise if it can be shown...

Anyone who's surprised Williams' got a week really hasn't read the room in the offseason when it comes to high contact.

Again, the notion of 'reading the room' is just random, fluff. I am talking about the hard and fast rules and laws of the game, written in black and white. I have listed and shown why under the AFLs own guidelines on the matter, Williams should have been graded as low. Nobody has been able to challenge that with anything factual and has just gone with "it looked bad".

Williams is certainly guilty of (low grade) rough conduct, even more so of stupidity.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

So he could have smothered the ball, impacting the play, and not risking injury to the player OR suspension? Good to know.

Interesting logic. If you apply that to any game, technically speaking, ANY player who elects to bump, regardless of whether there is head contact, has the option of smothering instead and not risking injury. Therefore, we should just get rid of the bump.