Ziebell 4 weeks

[Dixie Flatline]

So the tribunal says that an act coolly taken by a player designed to injure a prone and pinned player attracts the same penalty as a genuine contest for the footy won by the player who is adjudged by the tribunal to have a realistic alternative to contest the footy?

Footy is the loser tonight. Ziebell and North Melbourne should rightly feel aggrieved by the decision, not to mention the umpire who didn't think it even warranted a free kick because Ziebell was clearly going for the footy.

The rate we're going, in a few years time we'll not see any bumps delivered on the field for fear that the head will be hit, nor will we see players genuinely contest the footy but wait instead for the opponent to take possession before wrapping them in a tackle, yet players will be ducking into every tackle laid a la Dale Thomas on Saturday night against the Cats.

Makes me angry.

 

[King Elvis]

How did Richard Douglas not get cited for kneeing Palmer in the head?

Obviously shouldn't be, but in light of this decision, I can't see too much different... Both players contesting the footy from a position of strength, the other guy accidentally and unfortunately being injured as a result.


Until they can cite precedent, the entire system is a joke.

 

[Natho]

The Roos were harshly delt. Hope they can win this case. As for Judd who knows what he did was stupid. Probably deserved the 4.

 

[The Nostradamus]

what a ****ing joke.
twitter going crazy and rightly so. need to have this overturned

 

[Roobound]

So 8 weeks suspension between them, yet on the night only one free kick paid from either incident and it went to Judd.

What a funny old game.

Thats a very good point does that not say that the umpires got it wrong
Spin us ya diatribe on this Geish ya knob duster

 

[Forward Press]

Then the charge is broken. He had eyes on the ball, was contesting the ball. As others have said if he was going for a mark and marked it and collected him high then he would still be suspended according to this ruling

Like I said - times have changed. The head is sacrosanct.

 

[tropicaltiger]

the afl have now made it crystal clear that the "hospital handpass" is dead and buried.

sloppy passes are now gunna advantage the team doing it because the opposition will now have to adjust or pull out of the contest for the fear of being headbutted in the arms and copping a suspension for going hard at the footy.

pretty sure the afl s masterplan is to turn our game into 1/2 soccer and 1/2 netball.

 

[benbanjo]

only people happy with this are Carlton Supporters... lol.. idiots

 

[AG]

Tribunal dice must have 4 weeks on each side tonight.

 

[Forward Press]

Argued Jack's only intention was to gain possession of the ball, and given where the ball was, jumping to get it was the only way to get to it first. Never took his eyes off it.

His alternative was to let Joseph get it, which I hear lots of Carlton fans say would have been a better course of action, but most people don't see being happy to reach the ball second as a preferable tactic.

Is that something that you could argue before a tribunal though? That the MRP got it wrong when they concluded he had a reasonable alternative instead of electing to bump?

 

[King Elvis]

Wait... People are seriously arguing he shouldn't have jumped for the footy?

Are you ****ing kidding me?

 

[Replica31]

Look at the date of the first one. Now look at the date of the second one.

There's your answer.

Like it or not, the AFL has clamped down on different behaviour on the field. I could post a classic Byron Pickett shirtfront and then Buddy's collision with Ben Cousins if you want me to demonstrate the change in focus.

I think also the difference is that Ziebell tucked his arm whereas Harbrow actually reached for the ball to knock it away. If Ziebell had done the same he probably would've got off. 4 is probably harsh but he deserved a couple IMO.

 

[Kcrack]

only people happy with this are Carlton Supporters... lol.. idiots

Does this surprise you? They're as soft as their team.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Wait... People are seriously arguing he shouldn't have jumped for the footy?

Are you ******* kidding me?

these people haven't played footy, obviously

 

[Shermanator]

Like I said - times have changed. The head is sacrosanct.

Oh well lets outlaw the high flying mark now because someone might get a knee, or elbow or god forbid a stud scratch on the back of the scone because the head is sacrosanct ...leave us alone

 

[Zebrah]

Wait... People are seriously arguing he shouldn't have jumped for the footy?

Are you ******* kidding me?

I know. what the ****?

 

[SirJimi05]

Why do you say this?

I mean as a man who was on the brink of being in a similar situation what would you have done?

Probably not tuck my shoulder in and use it to smash him in the head.

 

[VanBerlo=God]

WTF!
He had eyes for the ball, and got hands to it.
What a ******* joke
We better challenge this to a higher authority

I believe his hip made contact with the players head.
AFL hates that, they want it gone from the game and will make an example of any player who does it.

He knew the impact was coming and he had two options for approaching the mark; use his hip and take the player out or take a contested mark over the top of the player. Option 1 is suspension, option 2 is what is legal.

 

[scomac]

If it had been Judd you guys would have fried him,it was a handball who the hell launches with his knee out to mark a handball.All he had to do was punch or knock on the footy he was bigger and stronger instead he took the Wellingham option intent to hurt= Soft.

 

[Gasometer]

Like I said - times have changed. The head is sacrosanct.

Yep its all about the image with both cases tonight rightly or wrongly.

Footballers are supposed to be social role models after all...

...and then we have the farce of Ch 7 commentators giggling like school boys during the Judd incident whilst the rest of radio, print and public went into meltdown.

Image of the game...

 

[Forward Press]

I think also the difference is that Ziebell tucked his arm whereas Harbrow actually reached for the ball to knock it away. If Ziebell had done the same he probably would've got off. 4 is probably harsh but he deserved a couple IMO.

Good point. Electing to bump is MRP-worthy, electing to spoil is not.

In the end, if your eyes are always on the ball, and everything you do is with the intent to win the ball, you will never be suspended. Perhaps that's the lesson the AFL is trying to emphasise.

 

[Daytripper]

Joke of a decision. He's going to miss the Essendon game so from a selfish perspective it works out well but this now opens up a huge can of worms going forward.

Ridiculous - should not have got one week let alone 4.

 

[The Nostradamus]

guys you can apparently no longer get the footy when it is in the air and closer to the opposition player, you must let the opposition player get the ball while you wait for him to get full control of it

 

[fusion]

Thanks for the reply fusion.

If what you're saying in the first paragraph is correct - in my view it is no surprise they took one minute to find him guilty. You have to find ways to argue that the grading of certain elements of the charge was not correct, not some overarching appeal to fairness or whatever. I don't think the tribunal considers that when there is an appeal from a MRP finding.

No you can fight the grading of the charge, or fight the charge itself. Which is what North did. And lost - so it was only ever going to be 0 weeks or 4 weeks.

The tribunal accepted Ziebell's intent was the football, but said he had an alternative. Watching it in real time, all he did was jump to try to mark the ball which was in the air. There really was no realistic alternative apart from letting Joseph take possession first. Which is why most of the replies here are worried about what this does to the spirit of the game.

Let's say Joseph and Ziebell collide heads and both are knocked out. It means both need to be suspended if this logic of this ruling is followed through!

 

[Zebrah]

If it had been Judd you guys would have fried him,it was a handball who the hell launches with his knee out to mark a handball.All he had to do was punch or knock on the footy he was bigger and stronger instead he took the Wellingham option intent to hurt= Soft.

Not according to the tribunal or MRP. Both said his intention was the ball.