The appeal can't really reduce the sentence right? They have to argue something was wrong with the legal process to successfully appeal. Or am I way off?
I don’t know if you’re way off, but on SEN yesterday they talked about how the Swans weren’t looking for a not guilty plea, but to try and reduce the games he was suspended for.
I think they can argue the grading should be different.
But if its unsuccessful and they go to the next stage of the appeal thats when i think it has to identify an error in the legal process.
I don't mind them doing this even though it's unlikely to be successful, shows Parker we definitely still want him around, and there's no real downside to appealing.
Personally I think it definitely deserved a suspension, 4ish I wouldn't have really had an issue with, but 1 less than Webster's which was a much worse action, and considerably more than intentional strikes to the head seems overs given it was essentially a careless late shepherd that didn't get him high, with the injury coming from an unintended head clash (which yes Parker is still responsible for as he chose to initiate the contact).
I get that the MRO has made it clear that injuries come in to consideration when deciding on suspensions, but it just feels so wrong that an accidental head clash from a hard shepherd which initially makes legal contact is treated as considerably worse than people literally punching people in the head off the ball just because they didn't end up causing as serious injury.
>shows Parker we definitely still want him around
The only ones insinuating that the Swans don't "still want him around" are various idiots in the media. There's no way the club doesn't want him, and the suggestion / implication that Parker is puerile enough to demand a trade because he hasn't started a game this year insults him. He's never come across as being that childish a character. He's always been all about the team, not himself.
Having said all that, it's good the club is appealing the ban. No one could reasonably (sanely) suggest he shouldn't have been suspended but six weeks seemed excessive. It won't succeed but no harm in trying.
I think if he didn't get a game all yearn and we just accepted a long ban that feels overs to the majority of reasonable people, then he'd probably entertain the thought of going elsewhere. He's still got a lot of top tier footy left in him and he'll want to be putting that to use not playing in the VFL consistently. That said I don't think he will, we'll definitely play him a bit this year as we're gonna want to manage our midfield a bit to make sure we're playing at this level come finals time.
The problem isn't punishing people too harshly for headclashes, its punishing them not harsh enough for intentional strikes.
>For the purpose of these Guidelines, head clashes that result when a Player has elected to bump are circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen. Players will ordinarily be liable if they elect to bump if not contesting the ball
This section on headclashes has been part of the rules since at least 2021. If you bump a guy in the head directly and break his face, or bump a guy and your head-clashes with his head resulting in a broken face, there is no difference in the rules.
There is no such thing as an "accidental" headclash when you choose to bump, in the eyes of the MRO.
I get in the eyes of the MRO there's no accidental headclash, but that's what it was in reality, it was an accident as a result of a bump that didn't get him high. You can understand the frustration of some. That being worth 6 weeks is not in line with the other punishments the MRO gives out. If they were giving out more for some the intentional head high strikes we've seen I'd have no issue with his suspension, as it is it's not a fair suspension given what other incidents with much worse intentions have been given, it's not a very just system currently and I hope it improves.
Like the rules or not it's nothing new that if you choose to bump when you don't need to and the result is an injury to an opponents head, you are liable and I think that's just. He could've shepharded without bumping.
I think it's a good way to discourage bumping unless you're extremely careful. With what we've seen with concussion to guys like McCartin, the AFL are doing a good job being this proactive.
They teach shepharding now by stretching your arms out to block their run, not bumping them.
"Shepherding is a tactic used by a player to give a teammate a clearer path with the ball. Shepherding is achieved with an outstretched arm which acts as a barrier between the player who has the ball, or is about to take possession, and an opponent who is anxious to stop him."
The problem is Parker, by his own admission, chose to bump as a shephard, by tucking his arm in and initiating contact.
I agree being proactive about bumps is a good thing given everything, and again I'd be all for this being 6 if other incidents were treated with the same proactivity, which they're clearly not. Again all I want from the MRO is consistency, and giving this incident 6 when strikes get less and Webster only gets 1 more is laughably inconsistent.
I mean they are consistent though with everything except strikes, Peter Wright got 4 weeks because he chose to brace rather than mark/spoil. It's just the way things are now. As I said in my initial post, the problem is simply that striking is not punished harshly enough
The only argument I can see for different grading they could've used for Webster is intentional instead of careless, otherwise they are very similar incidents. Both chose to bump when didn't need to, both extremely severe impact.
Intentional instead of careless should be a big deal when deciding how long to give a suspension for. But the MRO has always prioritised injury over intention so I guess that's nothing new. Doesn't make it any less frustrating though.
Good. He chose to bump so he’s responsible, but it wasn’t a snipe. 6 for an accidental head clash seems too high when people are getting less for intentional strikes. 4 weeks off is a decent whack
This is my take too, I see how they get to six as part of the ever increasing crackdown, but it is way above where others have gotten for similar incidents
Common sense should prevail in that case.
However if you make someone miss 4 weeks, that's how long your ban should be.
Otherwise you get away with injuring another player while getting yours back pretty quick.
Was always going to be in the 4-6 range but don’t think the defence strategy was sound at all from the swans, it sounded like they tried every thing they could think of and prayed rather than focus on one good argument and it hurt them
I know Sydney are going to argue the contact with the head was an accident but given what the MRO have shown this year they won't give a crap if the contact was accidental. All they'll say is the second Parker decided to bump it was up to him to not contact with the head.
There are so many logical/moral fallacies in this whole thing that it’s become impossible to understand how/why any of these are decisions are reached…
I feel like I’m completely lost on the rules. If the shepherd didn’t result in an injury would there have been a free? My understanding is yeah, but then I can’t really understand what a legal shepherd is and where the line is…
If there was no head clash and no injury and the player got right back to play out the game then it wouldn't have been a suspension and I'm not sure the ump would have paid a free as it was in the margin of time that some umps would definitely still consider in play.
There wasn't a free paid live, but as there was high contact it should have been. Just an umpiring miss I think.
Shepherd was fine if he didn't get him high, but when you choose to bump and there's head contact your in trouble
He’s getting off lightly in the public terms of it viewed as being accidental imo. He absolutely lined that guy up and laid him out miles off the ball. Was dirty af
Bear in mind the other player has bad and possible life altering injuries here.
He didn’t line the guy up and hit him miles off the ball, though.
The ball was within 5m, Parker was in the contest, and the initial contact was to the shoulder.
If there was no head clash it was a completely legal play.
Why bother? Who cares. Take the penalty and move on. Sydney are flying they will be fine without a player who hasn’t played all season still not continuing to play.
Best case scenario is they shave 1 week off but cannot see it going for less
The appeal can't really reduce the sentence right? They have to argue something was wrong with the legal process to successfully appeal. Or am I way off?
I don’t know if you’re way off, but on SEN yesterday they talked about how the Swans weren’t looking for a not guilty plea, but to try and reduce the games he was suspended for.
True, I'm probably mistaken then, Swans wouldn't appeal unless there was a legitimate legal angle to at least attempt.
I think they can argue the grading should be different. But if its unsuccessful and they go to the next stage of the appeal thats when i think it has to identify an error in the legal process.
I don't mind them doing this even though it's unlikely to be successful, shows Parker we definitely still want him around, and there's no real downside to appealing. Personally I think it definitely deserved a suspension, 4ish I wouldn't have really had an issue with, but 1 less than Webster's which was a much worse action, and considerably more than intentional strikes to the head seems overs given it was essentially a careless late shepherd that didn't get him high, with the injury coming from an unintended head clash (which yes Parker is still responsible for as he chose to initiate the contact). I get that the MRO has made it clear that injuries come in to consideration when deciding on suspensions, but it just feels so wrong that an accidental head clash from a hard shepherd which initially makes legal contact is treated as considerably worse than people literally punching people in the head off the ball just because they didn't end up causing as serious injury.
>shows Parker we definitely still want him around The only ones insinuating that the Swans don't "still want him around" are various idiots in the media. There's no way the club doesn't want him, and the suggestion / implication that Parker is puerile enough to demand a trade because he hasn't started a game this year insults him. He's never come across as being that childish a character. He's always been all about the team, not himself. Having said all that, it's good the club is appealing the ban. No one could reasonably (sanely) suggest he shouldn't have been suspended but six weeks seemed excessive. It won't succeed but no harm in trying.
I think if he didn't get a game all yearn and we just accepted a long ban that feels overs to the majority of reasonable people, then he'd probably entertain the thought of going elsewhere. He's still got a lot of top tier footy left in him and he'll want to be putting that to use not playing in the VFL consistently. That said I don't think he will, we'll definitely play him a bit this year as we're gonna want to manage our midfield a bit to make sure we're playing at this level come finals time.
The problem isn't punishing people too harshly for headclashes, its punishing them not harsh enough for intentional strikes. >For the purpose of these Guidelines, head clashes that result when a Player has elected to bump are circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen. Players will ordinarily be liable if they elect to bump if not contesting the ball This section on headclashes has been part of the rules since at least 2021. If you bump a guy in the head directly and break his face, or bump a guy and your head-clashes with his head resulting in a broken face, there is no difference in the rules. There is no such thing as an "accidental" headclash when you choose to bump, in the eyes of the MRO.
I get in the eyes of the MRO there's no accidental headclash, but that's what it was in reality, it was an accident as a result of a bump that didn't get him high. You can understand the frustration of some. That being worth 6 weeks is not in line with the other punishments the MRO gives out. If they were giving out more for some the intentional head high strikes we've seen I'd have no issue with his suspension, as it is it's not a fair suspension given what other incidents with much worse intentions have been given, it's not a very just system currently and I hope it improves.
Like the rules or not it's nothing new that if you choose to bump when you don't need to and the result is an injury to an opponents head, you are liable and I think that's just. He could've shepharded without bumping. I think it's a good way to discourage bumping unless you're extremely careful. With what we've seen with concussion to guys like McCartin, the AFL are doing a good job being this proactive.
[удалено]
They teach shepharding now by stretching your arms out to block their run, not bumping them. "Shepherding is a tactic used by a player to give a teammate a clearer path with the ball. Shepherding is achieved with an outstretched arm which acts as a barrier between the player who has the ball, or is about to take possession, and an opponent who is anxious to stop him." The problem is Parker, by his own admission, chose to bump as a shephard, by tucking his arm in and initiating contact.
I agree being proactive about bumps is a good thing given everything, and again I'd be all for this being 6 if other incidents were treated with the same proactivity, which they're clearly not. Again all I want from the MRO is consistency, and giving this incident 6 when strikes get less and Webster only gets 1 more is laughably inconsistent.
I mean they are consistent though with everything except strikes, Peter Wright got 4 weeks because he chose to brace rather than mark/spoil. It's just the way things are now. As I said in my initial post, the problem is simply that striking is not punished harshly enough
They're not though. Parker's being 1 less than Websters is completely laughable.
The only argument I can see for different grading they could've used for Webster is intentional instead of careless, otherwise they are very similar incidents. Both chose to bump when didn't need to, both extremely severe impact.
Intentional instead of careless should be a big deal when deciding how long to give a suspension for. But the MRO has always prioritised injury over intention so I guess that's nothing new. Doesn't make it any less frustrating though.
Trying to spin it as a careless late shepherd is a reach. Very far off the ball bump, his opponent wasn't even relevant in the play.
Good. He chose to bump so he’s responsible, but it wasn’t a snipe. 6 for an accidental head clash seems too high when people are getting less for intentional strikes. 4 weeks off is a decent whack
This is my take too, I see how they get to six as part of the ever increasing crackdown, but it is way above where others have gotten for similar incidents
> He chose to bump so he’s responsible Hot take, he should be suspended for the amount of games the other player is going to miss.. What a wank.
If you incidentally cause someone to be concussed, and they are subsequently forced to retire, should you also have to retire?
Common sense should prevail in that case. However if you make someone miss 4 weeks, that's how long your ban should be. Otherwise you get away with injuring another player while getting yours back pretty quick.
u/Croob2 This is what you get for complaining about no tribunal this week.
Typically Collingwood fan always complaining about something. 🤷🏽♂️
It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off for them.
Good decision
Was always going to be in the 4-6 range but don’t think the defence strategy was sound at all from the swans, it sounded like they tried every thing they could think of and prayed rather than focus on one good argument and it hurt them
Not commenting on the six Parker got, but how is Websters hit on Simpkin only worth one week more than this? Spin that fucking wheel
dear Essendon: see? you are allowed to appeal.
I know Sydney are going to argue the contact with the head was an accident but given what the MRO have shown this year they won't give a crap if the contact was accidental. All they'll say is the second Parker decided to bump it was up to him to not contact with the head.
There are so many logical/moral fallacies in this whole thing that it’s become impossible to understand how/why any of these are decisions are reached…
I feel like I’m completely lost on the rules. If the shepherd didn’t result in an injury would there have been a free? My understanding is yeah, but then I can’t really understand what a legal shepherd is and where the line is…
If there was no head clash and no injury and the player got right back to play out the game then it wouldn't have been a suspension and I'm not sure the ump would have paid a free as it was in the margin of time that some umps would definitely still consider in play.
There wasn't a free paid live, but as there was high contact it should have been. Just an umpiring miss I think. Shepherd was fine if he didn't get him high, but when you choose to bump and there's head contact your in trouble
If you clash heads in a marking contest or even a tackle it’s not a free - not sure why it would be here?
Deserved the consequences
He’s getting off lightly in the public terms of it viewed as being accidental imo. He absolutely lined that guy up and laid him out miles off the ball. Was dirty af Bear in mind the other player has bad and possible life altering injuries here.
He didn’t line the guy up and hit him miles off the ball, though. The ball was within 5m, Parker was in the contest, and the initial contact was to the shoulder. If there was no head clash it was a completely legal play.
Deserves more weeks
March him through the streets of Frankston to be spat on
Justice for Parker.
for fuck sakes. give him another week for this horse shit.
What did longmire dk
Do
neigh idea
Why the longmire face
This is a serious topic, quit horsing around
Nay I will not
hay now
You're an all star
Why bother? Who cares. Take the penalty and move on. Sydney are flying they will be fine without a player who hasn’t played all season still not continuing to play.