Tyler Sonsie punch (VFL) - how many weeks? (poll added)

[tiger_tough]

Haha **** me there is some drama queens in here. 10+, worse than Gaff, police should charge him etc etc

3 is a tad light but anything more than 5 would've been madness. Was a half punch.

 

[tiger_tough]

Three weeks?

Congratulations Richmond fans you can officially now never complain about the umpires + MRO having it out for you.

What has it got to do with the umpires you clown? The MRO sent it to tribunal too....

 

[TheCatStevensExperience]

If you ignore the 2 more years he's contracted for

Which would require you to ignore Richmond's list management is....interesting....at times.

7 years for Hopper

 

[TheCatStevensExperience]

Haha * me there is some drama queens in here. 10+, worse than Gaff, police should charge him etc etc

3 is a tad light but anything more than 5 would've been madness. Was a half punch.

Times have changed, champ. Nobody wants to see this shit on the footy field and it's clear the standard punishments aren't doing enough to dissuade people with poor control of their feelings from punching other people.

 

[tiger_tough]

Which would require you to ignore Richmond's list management is....interesting....at times.

7 years for Hopper

This thread is about Tyler Sonsie son. Nice to know we're still rent free in cats fans heads though.

 

[tiger_tough]

Times have changed, champ. Nobody wants to see this s**t on the footy field and it's clear the standard punishments aren't doing enough to dissuade people with poor control of their feelings from punching other people.

Hence why I said 3 was a tad light....

 

[TheCatStevensExperience]

This thread is about Tyler Sonsie son. Nice to know we're still rent free in cats fans heads though.

Yes, an general interest in the list management of other clubs suggests Geelong fans are obsessed with Richmond.

Delusions of adequacy at Punt Road.

 

[TheCatStevensExperience]

Hence why I said 3 was a tad light....

5 isn't enough either - make it 10.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

At what point on a football field, which is the workplace for at least one of these guys, do you expect to get punched in the head? Never. It's not within the rules and a vast majority of players seem to be able to play the game without resorting to it.

"Otherwise every single unprovoked punch on a footy field could be described as a king hit"

Except not every unprovoked punch on a footy field is to the head, is it?

It doesn't require anyone to be 'struck from behind' in the modern definition. It just needs to be a punch thrown at someone's head, without provocation, who isn't expecting it, with the intent to harm them.

Was there provocation? No. A scuffle beforehand that settled down before one party couldn't control his feelings, decided to escalate, squared up and delivered a single punch to the head of a person who wasn't expecting it. Effectively it's a sucker punch to the head.

I've seen you defend some incredibly dumb s**t in my short time on this forum, but this is easily the dumbest.

Meanings and origins of Australian words and idioms :

View attachment 1782899

Robbo knew full well when he described it as a king hit that would make people of my vintage equate it to Sonsie hitting the opponent to the head from behind where the player had no chance of seeing the blow coming, and this is not true. And he also knew it would make people think it was a full force blow. This is also not true. And this is why Robbo gave the convoluted explanation as to why this should be referred to as a king hit.

If people have somehow altered the meaning of king hit within football from what it used to mean then they should understand that and stipulate it. But punching someone in the face after approaching them from the front was never consider to be a king hit. King hitting was considered basically the worst thing you could do on a football field, maybe along with kicking someone full force to the head.

What Sonsie did is orders of magnitude below those type of acts and so the same term should not be applied, it will only serve to confuse people. He approached the player from the front and struck him about 30% force to the head with the palm side of his clenched fist to the upper neck and jaw region. The North player saw him approaching but would not have reasonably expected to be struck in this fashion. Thus the 3 week ban.

 

[My Tilly]

Protected species.

 

[tiger_tough]

5 isn't enough either - make it 10.

Why stop there? 6 months in Barwon Prison maybe...

 

[SSSSSS]

Lol Sicily should just start swinging next year.

Imagine how Mansell would feel getting done for the same amount of time as his teammate who coward punched his opponent.

Shameful.

 

[SSSSSS]

Geez, this is the sort of wet lettuce slap that has everyone looking at what their club has had to cop for far lesser incidents.

My submission, Willie Rioli from Port v Essendon in May, 2 weeks.

Ridley left sore after Rioli incident | PTV

Cyril got two weeks for 'attempted striking'.

Didn't even land a blow lmao and Sonsie gets three for a straight up king hit.

They are so ****ed.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Language changes. Get with the times, grandpa.

Or do you still have a gay old time on the weekend with your best pals?

If I am grandpa age to you then I knew that language changes long before you were even thought of.

It is not a justification for using hysterical language you know is going to mislead a lot of people who hear what you say.

If walking up to someone and smacking them in the gob is now a king hit, what "changed language" do we now use for running up behind someone and hitting them as hard as you can with a swinging arm?

Or is language better when it is ambiguous and confusing?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Geez, this is the sort of wet lettuce slap that has everyone looking at what their club has had to cop for far lesser incidents.

My submission, Willie Rioli from Port v Essendon in May, 2 weeks.

Ridley left sore after Rioli incident | PTV

The Rioli one on Murphy from Collingwood would be more appropriate. That was absolutely ludicrous to get ore than 2 weeks for that, though it was reduced to 1 on appeal. The thing is though these incidents should have a reverse potential to cause injury tariff subtracted and he should have got just a fine due to the lack of danger involved.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Times have changed, champ. Nobody wants to see this s**t on the footy field and it's clear the standard punishments aren't doing enough to dissuade people with poor control of their feelings from punching other people.

Let's see, but if a Geelong player was the next to ko someone with a full blooded punch, then you would be arguing times have changed as hardly anyone punches anyone any more in footy so it is ok to get a light penalty.

Times have changed lol. When was it ever acceptable to punch someone in the face on a footy field?

 

[Roby]

The AFL will appeal; it can't be any other way.

After last week, when Ziebell ended up in hospital for a king hit, the AFL are happy for this to be 3 weeks? Seriously?

 

[Generalissimo]

Indeed.

If you ignore the 2 more years he's contracted for

Ouch.

 

[tiger_tough]

The AFL will appeal; it can't be any other way.

After last week, when Ziebell ended up in hospital for a king hit, the AFL are happy for this to be 3 weeks? Seriously?

How so? I assume there was a favourable medical report. If there north player wasn't concussed and had no injuries then a impact rating of high rather than severe fits the bill. If they wanted to give him more weeks their MRO should've changed him with an ambiguous charge like serious misconduct where they can go beyond the matrix.

Indeed.


Ouch.

Not really. He's only a 2nd year player and has played good AFL level football ya tool.

 

[sherb]

That 3 weeks has the Richmond persecution tax added too so would be 2 weeks any other club.

I'm old enough to remember when Balme king hit Southby in the 73 Grand Final, helping them win the premiership, so I wouldn't be whinging and whining too much about a "persecution tax" if I were you.

Why is this relevant? Because Balme didn't even get reported. And, yes, it was a king hit.

 

[sherb]

Bullshit, it is a hit you have no reason to expect or no way to defend, and no chance to see coming. None of those were the case here. If you see someone approaching aggressively you have reason to defend yourself. Ok you don't expect to be struck in the face(albeit not a classic punch) on the footy field, but that doesn't make this a king hit. Otherwise every single unprovoked punch on a footy field could be described as a king hit. And that has never been the case. King hitting has always been used mainly to refer to incidents where the player is struck from behind without provocation, or perhaps while tangling with another opponent from the front as the blow is struck from behind.

The Barry Hall or Andrew Gaff incidents are not king hits for example. All of these are to differing extents intolerable incidents, but they are not king hits.

Your definition of "king hit" flies in the face of the definition I've come to understand and the definitions that you find around the internet.

But I get your lack of objectivity here, you're a Richmond supporter and you have a player to defend. "Must play down what he did, no matter what".

This thread is about Tyler Sonsie son. Nice to know we're still rent free in cats fans heads though.

It's also about the mythical Richmond "persecution tax". Just ask your fellow Richmond supporter.

 

[BF Tiger]

I'm old enough to remember when Balme king hit Southby in the 73 Grand Final, helping them win the premiership, so I wouldn't be whinging and whining too much about a "persecution tax" if I were you.

Why is this relevant? Because Balme didn't even get reported. And, yes, it was a king hit.

Which evened things out for Neville Crowe’s “phantom punch” on Jon “Autumn Leaves” Nicholls.

50 years of MCG memories: The Crowe- Nicholls incident

In the fourth of a special richmondfc.com.au nostalgic series celebrating Richmond’s 50 years at home at the MCG, Tony Greenberg looks at the controversial Neville Crowe-John Nicholls incident during the 1967 second semi-final.

www.richmondfc.com.au

But good on you for bringing up 50 year old incidents that bear no relevance to the game today.

 

[sherb]

Three weeks is woefully inadequate when you crack the sads about a tackle and decide to just walk up to your opponent and belt him as a result.

 

[sherb]

Which evened things out for Neville Crowe’s “phantom punch” on Jon “Autumn Leaves” Nicholls.

50 years of MCG memories: The Crowe- Nicholls incident

In the fourth of a special richmondfc.com.au nostalgic series celebrating Richmond’s 50 years at home at the MCG, Tony Greenberg looks at the controversial Neville Crowe-John Nicholls incident during the 1967 second semi-final.

www.richmondfc.com.au

But good on you for bringing up 50 year old incidents that bear no relevance to the game today.

So you refer to an equally old incident in response?

Anyway, I was just talking about the supposed Richmond "persecution tax". Simply pointing out that it hasn't always been the case.

Any idea when the "persecution tax" on the poor old Tigers was brought in?

 

[tiger_tough]

I'm old enough to remember when Balme king hit Southby in the 73 Grand Final, helping them win the premiership, so I wouldn't be whinging and whining too much about a "persecution tax" if I were you.

Why is this relevant? Because Balme didn't even get reported. And, yes, it was a king hit.

Please do keep bring up irrelevant stuff from 50 years ago...