Moved Thread Zac Williams bump
- Thread starter JG22
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Engimal v3
Premium Gold
Robbo arguing for 2 weeks lol
TheKITC
Cancelled
Mark Robinson getting totally and disproportionately outraged over this on 360. It actually took Dermott of all people to bring it back down to earth and say "hang on a second Mark, is there really any malice in that? Yes, he's done the wrong thing and will be in trouble but c'mon".
He already was, but Robinson is a disgrace and a gronk. There is 0% chance he carries on like that if it's Zach Merrett as the offender. He is so obvious in his intentions and so utterly sh*t at his job.
He already was, but Robinson is a disgrace and a gronk. There is 0% chance he carries on like that if it's Zach Merrett as the offender. He is so obvious in his intentions and so utterly sh*t at his job.
Do st kilda receive any sanction for not doing a concussion test straight away ?? They did let the player continue to play out the whole game
- Jul 23, 2018
- 7,023
- 8,425
- AFL Club
- Essendon
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.
Last edited:
- Jul 23, 2018
- 7,023
- 8,425
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Its the action that should hold more weight. Late, jumped off the ground, shoulder to head while Clark had just disposed of the ball so had no chance to brace for contact.
Let's base off action and potential.
Saying this shouldn't be a week because the opponent played on just fine is ridiculous.
Saying this shouldn't be a week because the opponent played on just fine is ridiculous.
- Sep 25, 2013
- 16,122
- 31,139
Fair decision. Robbo is an absolute dill.
I remember when I liked football, it is a long memory
- Moderator
- #160
Witb Rough conduct charges its hard to prove intent. Proving he intended to bump is not the same same as proving he intended to engage in Rough conduct.
Hes allowed to bump. It was clumsy and late though, or in other words, careless.
Most Rough conduct charges are graded as careless for this reason.
Compare to a charge of striking where intent is implied by the use of a fist to someone's face.
Striking charges are almost always graded as intentional as a consequence.
- Jul 23, 2018
- 7,023
- 8,425
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Thanks, that makes perfect sense of the system, although i think its flawed. I dont want to see the bump go anywhere, its essential to the game in my opinion. In the future if the AFL want to get rid of the Williams action, they can easily do it by saying if you jump to bump it will be classified as intentional. That might stop people leaving the ground to bump but keeps the regular feet planted bump alive. Also anything late should hold some weight as well. Basically try and keep the physicality but keep it fair. Dont think the AFL really know what they're doing in this space.
- Jan 14, 2016
- 2,890
- 7,386
- AFL Club
- West Coast
He always does this - guy is a dinosaur who flip flops on his views depending on which teams are involved.
- Banned
- #163
Obviously worth a week.
If a guy did it in a PF, he should miss the GF. That should be the standard.
If a guy did it in a PF, he should miss the GF. That should be the standard.
- Moderator
- #164
Pretty much my thoughts as well.
My biggest concern was the new concussion rule (auto miss 2 weeks if you fail a test). The AFL basically now has to rate any infringement that results in your opponent failing the concussion test as at least 'High impact' (if intentional) or 'Severe' impact (if careless) just to engineer a situation where the guilty party misses more weeks than the victim.
As an alternative to the above, I'd like to see a rule that for any infringement where your opponent misses 2 weeks for a failed concussion test, you get those 2 weeks added to your sentence (or a minimum of 3 weeks is imposed).
Concuss your opponent, and youre out for 3 weeks minimum. That sets the standard.
On the flip side I'm reminded of cases of players who get their jaws broken, and the guilty party is back playing before the victim (who is still watching on and drinking though a straw).
Happened to Kade Simpson a few years back.
CarltonBlooz
Team Captain
- Mar 9, 2021
- 557
- 1,412
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Deserved it, dumb silly campaigner thing to do in your first 30 seconds in a new club.
captain blood 17
El Jefe
- Dec 9, 2006
- 52,324
- 118,982
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa Traralgon Football Club
you called it. And i would be surprised if the challenge gets up. One week it is.
- Feb 11, 2011
- 752
- 3,785
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Minnesota Vikings
Considering the only consequence for a failed challenge is a 10k fine, there is no real reason not to appeal. Might as well have a go on the off chance he gets a favourable decision
- Sep 25, 2013
- 16,122
- 31,139
The shit grading system leaves room for challenges like this. I believe if it gets downgraded to low impact he gets off? No harm in asking the question.
Eye test says one week and I think that’ll remain the case after the challenge.
Interesting if the AFL will use the emotive "head snapped back" and vague 'potential for serious injury' arguments last year to rub out Ben Long from a final or if that is just a one off used.
Wouldn't surprise me if they don't, it is a ridiculous argument. There is 'potential for serious injury' in every single tackle. Every player in the League who tackled Selwood would be rubbed out as his had 'snapped back' every time he was tackled.
Williams was late jumped in the air, the ball was gone, the player was unprotected and his him in the head. Suspend him for that not the emotive and ludicrious arguments the AFL argued to dismiss Long who hit McRea (or Hunter can't remember) crouching while the player had ball in hand and could protect himself, jumped straight up and was not concussed in any way.
Wouldn't surprise me if they don't, it is a ridiculous argument. There is 'potential for serious injury' in every single tackle. Every player in the League who tackled Selwood would be rubbed out as his had 'snapped back' every time he was tackled.
Williams was late jumped in the air, the ball was gone, the player was unprotected and his him in the head. Suspend him for that not the emotive and ludicrious arguments the AFL argued to dismiss Long who hit McRea (or Hunter can't remember) crouching while the player had ball in hand and could protect himself, jumped straight up and was not concussed in any way.
One week fair enough.
It wasn't disgustingly dangerous or really even intentional but he made contact with the head while bumping a player.
But I will be keeping a close eye on this joke of an MRP system to see if it has improved at all because it was more than broken last year.
It wasn't disgustingly dangerous or really even intentional but he made contact with the head while bumping a player.
But I will be keeping a close eye on this joke of an MRP system to see if it has improved at all because it was more than broken last year.
Hubnester
Moderator
- Jul 11, 2010
- 5,595
- 13,870
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Moderator
- #173
Oh, that's true. I think I read on the AFL website it was 'one week with an early plea', and I wondered if that meant it could ever get to 2 weeks if they didn't accept it.
But if there's just a few dollars on the line why not.
TheKITC
Cancelled
Very interestingly from this article going through how incidents are graded by Christian, this bump was graded as low impact and adjudged a fine. Pickett absolutely flushed Heeney on the cheek and technically, this still shows that he too left the ground... Does anyone know if or how Heeney was post this bump?
I'd be very interested to know if anything is explicitly written in the laws/rules regarding 'leaving the ground' when bumping, as media folk seem to be using it as a crutch. Carlton could and should use this footage in Williams' defense.
Williams is nice complimentary player at best, he wouldn’t have got them over the line against Richmond regardless.
