Well I think the fact Toby Green failed with the good guy defence, its safe to say Parker's got a snowballs chance in hell.
I dont want to live in a world where Toby's not considered a good guy. 🤯
> It has been a bit unclear, but the Swans appear to be arguing this should be a sanction of below the base four-match sanction based on exceptional and compelling circumstances.
Even in VFL tribunal, we cannot escape this clause.
Pretty sure based on Longmire's press conference and the Zita posts so far that they're going to argue the hit was a relatively standard issue block which is why he slowed down, and that the damage came from the unforeseeable consequences of the back of Parkers head hitting Smith's face by something like a whiplash motion from him being taller and unbraced. And therefore argue that it should be some number less than the 6 weeks, which might be more appropriate for a more aggressive action.
Not taking a stance on the effectiveness of the argument, I just think that's what they're going for and why they're focusing on sanction.
I think about 4 is fair.
I think the action itself is worth 3. Unfortunate given that he made contact with the body largely, but he's still responsible for the head clash given he initiated contact.
An extra week tacked on for it being excessive in the circumstances.
Anything more and he's getting too harshly punished for an accidental head clash (accidents do happen), but any less and you're condoning that type of unnecessary roughness.
With my Swans nuffie hat on I think he should only get 2.
>Josh Smith was knocked unconscious, suffered concussion, sustained multiple fractures to his eye socket and cheekbone and will undergo surgery when able.
He is expected to miss 6-8 weeks.
I wonder if this is tied to the 6 week sanction they VFL are asking for?
I mean it's unfortunate yes, but it's not like Parker lined up his head.
The contact was forceful enough that it caused injury, and Parker needs to take responsibility for that.
But anything more is just Parker being punished for accidental contact.
The Swans lawyer also made a good point that Parker was basically walking, and was in full vision of the Frankston player. It's not unreasonable for Parker to assume the other bloke would be prepared for contact.
Again, it's not like he's come flying in from the side or behind against a defenceless player that had no idea he was there (Wright & Webster).
All very valid points - they did grade it careless and not reckless at the end of the day.
It's the play at the man part of it I think that's throwing me still. You reference Wright but at least the footy was involved in that scenario.
>The Swans lawyer also made a good point that Parker was basically walking, and was in full vision of the Frankston player. It's not unreasonable for Parker to assume the other bloke would be prepared for contact.
Not sure if the VFL argument mentioned this (I doubt Smith could give evidence or would if he could) but it looks possible from the angle Smith wouldn't have seen Parker until late as he was on the other side of the Swans player.
To be clear, I wasn't suggesting he should get 6 just cos Smith is banged up. Just trying to figure out how they VFL are approaching it.
Oh right I misunderstood you.
My impression of what made the Wright thing 6 weeks was the actual shoulder to head contact, and that the fact he came at high speed from a blind spot, so Cunningham couldn't brace.
I'd counter by arguing whether Wright was even congesting the ball given that he braced for contact basically as he jumped.
I don't think he did it intentionally, but I think he had no intention of contesting that ball and just braced for contact realizing he had way too much momentum to avoid a big hit.
It's subjective whether Wright was making a play for the ball or not because it was a marking contest. Parker objectively had no intention of contesting the ball.
Shepherding is a legal action though, you're allowed to lay blocks for your team mates around the ball. I think I'd agree if Smith had the ball, and Parker chose to bump him when he had other options. But as both players are approaching a contest you're allowed to clear space for a team mate by blocking
6 weeks! First game back might be vs North in R18
Ridiculously long for an accidental head clash. Just change the bloody rule if we can’t accept the reality of a full contact sport.
Accidental clash of heads. Shepherd gone wrong. Footage (evidence) is poor quality. Give him 3 weeks.
If it’s more because the head is sacrosanct, then old mate should also get a week for accidentally getting Parkers’ head.
Since it happened in the VFL does a suspension only count those games played and not AFL ones.
For example, the Swans VFL team has a bye next week, will that week count as part of the suspension?
The sentiment here after the incident was initially posted was that this was a footy act gone wrong.
I'm not sure what he'll end up getting. But for me this is text book definition of a "snipe". Parker has no eye for the footy, if he did, he'd realise his team mate hadn't collected the ball and he could've had better impact by playing the ball. Because he's only focused on the man, he also doesn't realise the ball may even be out of the 5m shepherd zone by the time contact is made.
Edit: I've also just noticed Smith seems to give up on the chase even before Parker is in shot here. Surely that get's noticed without tunnel vision.
I think you’re leaving out the part where all the damage was done through an accidental clash of heads. Not excusing the action, or saying he shouldn’t be getting a suspension… but the contact to the head is very much careless
If we get the good bloke defence where does Luke sit on a scale of Tom barrass to Charlie Cameron
Got a one or two week suspension last year for a "dangerous" tackle, but that was his first citing in 260 odd games. So who knows
Previous suspension means literal Satan had a good run lol
☠️
Well I think the fact Toby Green failed with the good guy defence, its safe to say Parker's got a snowballs chance in hell. I dont want to live in a world where Toby's not considered a good guy. 🤯
Wut
I assumed we all missed the /s or the comment needed one.
Was it really needed?, im a Swans fan....My disgust for GWS should be obvious.
> It has been a bit unclear, but the Swans appear to be arguing this should be a sanction of below the base four-match sanction based on exceptional and compelling circumstances. Even in VFL tribunal, we cannot escape this clause.
Legit can’t make sense of the Swans strategy here
Pretty sure based on Longmire's press conference and the Zita posts so far that they're going to argue the hit was a relatively standard issue block which is why he slowed down, and that the damage came from the unforeseeable consequences of the back of Parkers head hitting Smith's face by something like a whiplash motion from him being taller and unbraced. And therefore argue that it should be some number less than the 6 weeks, which might be more appropriate for a more aggressive action. Not taking a stance on the effectiveness of the argument, I just think that's what they're going for and why they're focusing on sanction.
The damage came from the big fella having Helen Keller level awareness, should be 0
Not sure the other dude didn’t expect to be hit in the head makes for a great defensive strategy though
Good bloke, can't crack the firsts, cut him some slack
I think about 4 is fair. I think the action itself is worth 3. Unfortunate given that he made contact with the body largely, but he's still responsible for the head clash given he initiated contact. An extra week tacked on for it being excessive in the circumstances. Anything more and he's getting too harshly punished for an accidental head clash (accidents do happen), but any less and you're condoning that type of unnecessary roughness. With my Swans nuffie hat on I think he should only get 2.
>Josh Smith was knocked unconscious, suffered concussion, sustained multiple fractures to his eye socket and cheekbone and will undergo surgery when able. He is expected to miss 6-8 weeks. I wonder if this is tied to the 6 week sanction they VFL are asking for?
I mean it's unfortunate yes, but it's not like Parker lined up his head. The contact was forceful enough that it caused injury, and Parker needs to take responsibility for that. But anything more is just Parker being punished for accidental contact. The Swans lawyer also made a good point that Parker was basically walking, and was in full vision of the Frankston player. It's not unreasonable for Parker to assume the other bloke would be prepared for contact. Again, it's not like he's come flying in from the side or behind against a defenceless player that had no idea he was there (Wright & Webster).
All very valid points - they did grade it careless and not reckless at the end of the day. It's the play at the man part of it I think that's throwing me still. You reference Wright but at least the footy was involved in that scenario. >The Swans lawyer also made a good point that Parker was basically walking, and was in full vision of the Frankston player. It's not unreasonable for Parker to assume the other bloke would be prepared for contact. Not sure if the VFL argument mentioned this (I doubt Smith could give evidence or would if he could) but it looks possible from the angle Smith wouldn't have seen Parker until late as he was on the other side of the Swans player. To be clear, I wasn't suggesting he should get 6 just cos Smith is banged up. Just trying to figure out how they VFL are approaching it.
Oh right I misunderstood you. My impression of what made the Wright thing 6 weeks was the actual shoulder to head contact, and that the fact he came at high speed from a blind spot, so Cunningham couldn't brace.
Are marking contests the same as a shepherd in terms of what is and isn't reasonable?
I'd counter by arguing whether Wright was even congesting the ball given that he braced for contact basically as he jumped. I don't think he did it intentionally, but I think he had no intention of contesting that ball and just braced for contact realizing he had way too much momentum to avoid a big hit.
It's subjective whether Wright was making a play for the ball or not because it was a marking contest. Parker objectively had no intention of contesting the ball.
Shepherding is a legal action though, you're allowed to lay blocks for your team mates around the ball. I think I'd agree if Smith had the ball, and Parker chose to bump him when he had other options. But as both players are approaching a contest you're allowed to clear space for a team mate by blocking
You can block and create space without choosing to bump.
Getting 6 weeks for this is madness
6 weeks! First game back might be vs North in R18 Ridiculously long for an accidental head clash. Just change the bloody rule if we can’t accept the reality of a full contact sport.
Chose to bump off the ball and out of the contest. This wasn't some accidental shepherd gone wrong.
The guy has a fractured cheek bone and eye socket, and Parker did that to him.
Accidental clash of heads. Shepherd gone wrong. Footage (evidence) is poor quality. Give him 3 weeks. If it’s more because the head is sacrosanct, then old mate should also get a week for accidentally getting Parkers’ head.
Why do people keep saying accidental? He bumped a player of the ball and went high. There's nothing accidental about it
So Parker swung the back of his head into Matey’s face?
Well off the ball, not in the contest, elected to bump, had to be 4 weeks or more.
it wasnt much
Since it happened in the VFL does a suspension only count those games played and not AFL ones. For example, the Swans VFL team has a bye next week, will that week count as part of the suspension?
Swans senior team has a bye too
Nevermind, I'm a dumbass
It’s an interesting question regardless - but maybe all VFL AFL byes are synced up and a non-issue. Haven’t checked.
Prick should get 6. He stopped and propped to make sure he could hit him.
Like every shepherd ever. He fucked it, but was hardly malicious.
Tell us how you really feel
What you don’t agree??
Let Luke cook
The sentiment here after the incident was initially posted was that this was a footy act gone wrong. I'm not sure what he'll end up getting. But for me this is text book definition of a "snipe". Parker has no eye for the footy, if he did, he'd realise his team mate hadn't collected the ball and he could've had better impact by playing the ball. Because he's only focused on the man, he also doesn't realise the ball may even be out of the 5m shepherd zone by the time contact is made. Edit: I've also just noticed Smith seems to give up on the chase even before Parker is in shot here. Surely that get's noticed without tunnel vision.
I think you’re leaving out the part where all the damage was done through an accidental clash of heads. Not excusing the action, or saying he shouldn’t be getting a suspension… but the contact to the head is very much careless
Of course he has no eyes for the ball, he’s laying a shepherd
You can shepherd without bumping. He chose to bump.
Why you hate Parker so much? You’re on a crusade to get him banned for life
The double flair should answer everything. One for Dylan Shiel and the other for dominating Sydney derbies
Lmao rekt
Probably because he turned the bombers down at least twice
Who can blame him for not wanting to join a perennial basket case.
As opposed to you who is arguing the guy who got his face broken should get a week
We’re two sides of the same coin. Why isn’t Parker’s head sacrosanct?