MRP / Trib. Shane McAdam Bump on Jacob Wehr

[LukeParkerno1]

The ‘potential to cause injury’ is farce.

In todays world it’s not. The AFL are asking for trouble if they don’t consider this. The issue is the blatantly soft penalties for all 3 not just this one. I’m flat out over these high bumps, set the standard as 3 weeks minimum and it would stop the act in a week as coaches won’t want their players missing a month!

 

[JP Sauce]

Crows should be happy with 3, it’s the Pickett one that’s a farce but we already knew that

So you agree that Buddy should’ve gone for 4+ then. Actually caused injury.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So you agree that Buddy should’ve gone for 4+ then. Actually caused injury.

I’d be happy enough if they all got the same. They probably all should have got the same charge. Was Bud lucky yes, I expected him to get 2 weeks purely off the metric. I hate the metric we need a new metric for bumps the current one is ridiculously outdated.

 

[Coasters7]

The ‘potential to cause injury’ is farce.

It’s deliberately vague and I only ever see that reasoning brought into it when they know they don’t have much of an argument based on the rules.

Wasn’t high, didn’t leave the ground, and was a pretty clean, albeit hard, hit.

“BuT yOu CoUlD hAvE sErIoUsLy HuRt HiM”.

When they hit you with that you know you’re f*cked because any deliberate act on the football field could technically be argued as potential to cause injury

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

In todays world it’s not. The AFL are asking for trouble if they don’t consider this. The issue is the blatantly soft penalties for all 3 not just this one. I’m flat out over these high bumps, set the standard as 3 weeks minimum and it would stop the act in a week as coaches won’t want their players missing a month!

It wasn’t high.

 

[pjcrows]

McAdam potentially causes concussion but doesn't - 3 weeks.

Franklin actually causes concussion - 1 week.

No worries.

 

[Magma]

3 weeks for winding a bloke

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Three weeks is perfectly fine in isolation.

Next to Pickett and Franklin decisions it is a joke.

 

[Crow till I die]

I mean fair enough if you’re going to call it like it is and try to stop rough play in the face of all these impending lawsuits.

But I just can’t understand the consistency given the two other incidents that happened this weekend.

Picketts looked worse, he left the ground, and actually got him in the head. Can someone explain to me how that is less of a “potential to cause serious injury” than McAdam’s hit was?

If you’re going to crack down on it at least stick to your own set of rules. McAdam 3 weeks? Sure, then Pickett 4 or 5

There is a very very real chance McAdam will get off now with no weeks on an appeal as its not an arm of the AFL, its independent. Then IF that happens, the AFL will have mud all over their face for what they have done

I said before, Christian should have been holding 9.00am media conference today to say they reassessed McAdams referral to the tribunal and have withdrawn it and offered a 2 match ban under MRO as they recognised in light of the Pickett and Franklin penalties, they erred in referring this to the tribunal. That would have saved face for the AFL and likely the crows would have just accepted the 2 match ban and everyone moved on. Now they have got the crows back right up ad lets face it, there are more holes in the AFL's arguments than a block of swiss cheese - the legal guys when presenting to a less biased panel should have no problem pulling the AFL grading apart

 

[Brasher]

So AFL can use an opposing teams doctor to support a suspension but not to defend a charged player?

How is that even tried on by the AFL?

 

[HugeJohnson]

It's an absolute disgrace that Pickett received less. The suspension is fine in isolation but Picketts honestly looked even worse to me and somehow came out with a better outcome? If I was Adelaide I would be fuming

 

[Brasher]

AFL Statement....we will show the world we are tough on unnecessary head contact like we saw with Pickett and Franklin. It just won't be tolerated...here Shane have 3.

 

[CrowToon]

In todays world it’s not. The AFL are asking for trouble if they don’t consider this. The issue is the blatantly soft penalties for all 3 not just this one. I’m flat out over these high bumps, set the standard as 3 weeks minimum and it would stop the act in a week as coaches won’t want their players missing a month!

Yeah you are right but they need to start applying it to other areas too. Kane sounded like a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic when 12 months ago he was banging on about the speccy being under threat due to the potential for a knee to the back of the head causing injury. Now he sounds like he had the right take. How can the AFL use potential to cause injury in one instance but not another. A knee to the back of the head.

Remember, it's no longer about players going past the ball. Buddy did that and only got a week. Shane went after the ball carrier.

It's no longer about footy actions. A bump is a footy action too, but apparently only when done in an increasingly limited capacity.

The result no longer matters anymore it's the potential.

I genuinely think the AFL is backing themselves into a pretty tight corner and I get it is motivated by looming lawsuits but the reality is if they are going to do it then they need to at least appear that they are

A) consistently applying rules to everyone

And

B) ensuring that their principles apply to all facets of the game, not just their pick and choose model.

 

[dean33]

Right result however Pickett and buddy should have got the same.

 

[dean33]

McAdam potentially causes concussion but doesn't - 3 weeks.

Franklin actually causes concussion - 1 week.

No worries.

I’m surprised buddy even got a week. He’s been doing the same thing for the last 15 seasons and continues to get off.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The AFL now have to now make the bump illegal. By actual laws if the game.
You can’t keep it as legal and penalise players because the player bumped with force.

 

[dean33]

Afl thinking -
3 pretty identical bumps
Afl legend - 1 week
Up and coming star - 2 weeks
Rookie - 3 weeks

 

[RonnieRaven]

So the tribunal think the Pickett one was more 'glancing?' GAGF

And 360 predictably just did a big pat on the back piece for the AFL and the MRO.

Then Robbo flirted with the idea of bringing up the core issue fans are losing their minds over - the absolute inconsistency relative to Pickett and what do they do? They laugh about the whole thing.

How out of touch do you need to be with your audience?
360 was already a joke but this just confirms in my mind it isn't trying to discuss issues fans cares about but is in fact a mouthpiece for the AFL.

Boycott it.

I did a couple years ago can’t stand wankley loved him on abc now his a flipping moron

 

[PAFC_FOREVER]

AFL trying to become the NBA more everyday.

Star driven league.

All 3 should be penalised high. Not just reduce based on reputation....

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

The AFL now have to now make the bump illegal. By actual laws if the game.
You can’t keep it as legal and penalise players because the player bumped with force.

This is the answer.

 

[maskmcgee]

Bottom of 3rd last paragraph the tribunal basically say that Pickett was incorrectly graded and should of been cited to the same extent as McAdam.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It wasn’t high.

Well he didn’t concuss himself. You bump you cop the consequences. Make a tackle.

 

[JP Sauce]

Not only are bumps banned now, but tackling too.

Think how many players have been injured in tackles. Way too much potential for injury!

Also gotta ban contested marking, lots of knees in the back, leg injuries from bad landings, tonnes of potential for injury!

And you know when most players pull a hamstring? When they're running. BAN IT!

You know, now that I think about it, if we stopped games altogether then the potential for injury goes down drastically.

 

[CakeEater]

Not a superstar and doesnt play for a big Vic Club- yeah 3 weeks sounds right.

"Afl logic"