This has been a pet hate of mine for quite some time, not just this code but in any contact sport, where the player who performs the illegal act is back playing football before his victim can achieve the same. It appears that from the weekend's games, Kade Simpson received a broken jaw and will be sidelined for a minimum of 4 weeks whereas Wellingham will be back playing after 3 weeks.I don't see any justice in that. My answer to this situation and any other similar situation is that the suspension should start once the victim has recovered and is available for selection ie: if Simpson recovers extremely well and is available after only 2 weeks then Wellingham serves those 2 same weeks on the sidelines and then his 3 week suspension begins. Similarly, Hocking got 2 weeks for striking Hayes. Hayes won't miss any games as a result of the incident, so Hocking starts his suspension now. No problems there and St. Kilda are not without one of their stars because of it. Whereas Carlton, I believe, have every right to feel aggrieved. So there it is, I've had my 2 bob's worth, it's up for discussion.
While I agree that it seems unfair that the injured player is out longer than the player doing the injuring, I'm not sure that there is an easy way to fix it. A few problems I could think of: A player pops his shoulder out as a result of a sling-tackle - against the rules but not with malice - and will be out for 6 weeks. The tackler is suspended for 2 for rough conduct, and is out for 8. Another player is king-hit and concussed, but only misses a week. The hitter is suspended for 4, and is back after 5. Here you have one player who has simply let a tackle get away from him, but spends more time suspended than the bloke throwing a haymaker. The other problems I could see popping up are A: If the injured player retires (the incident occurs in the second last round of the season, for example) do you count from the end of his career, or the original medical assessment. What if he doesn't retire, but a 4 week injury is still taken down to 1 because of the season ending. What if the injured player is medically healthy, but the club decides to rest him anyway. I think the main problem is that 2 people could commit the same offence and receive drastically different sentences based on circumstances out of their control.
You've raised quite a few good points there, but my main concern is that when a player commits an"illegal" act as per the rules, then he should not be eligible to play until his victim can. In Welligham's case, if Simpson is out for 4 weeks, then it really means Carlton have lost their player for one more week than Collingwood but didn't break any AFL rules. Where's the justice in that. "A player pops his shoulder out as a result of a sling-tackle - against the rules but not with malice - and will be out for 6 weeks. The tackler is suspended for 2 for rough conduct, and is out for 8." Sling tackles are against AFL rules, whether we agree with that or not. So a player performs an illegal act, his victim is out for 6 but he's allowed back in 2. Where's the justice in that As I said originally, if a player is available for selection, even if his club doesn't select him, then suspension starts then. With regards the retiree: If the suspension is 3 weeks and and its the 2nd last round, the suspension stands. Also if a player is given 4 matches for an illegal act and his victim is back in 2 then the suspension stands. My whole beef with these events is when the person breaking the rules and injuring someone is back playing before the person on the receiving end of the illegal act.
This is just a case of the sequence not quite working out to an appropriate penalty - largely thanks to good record discounts. Probably ended up a week or two shy of what would have been appropriate in the circumstances, but credit needs to be given to a player who doesn't have offences over 5 years. What the system doesn't cater for is that with GWS in the next 3 weeks, he effectively gets 2! If the MRP wanted to make the punishment fit the crime, then they needed to rate it as "Intentional" rather than "Reckless". An argument can be made either way - he did line him up, jump and do his utmost to cause hurt, but intentional seems a little over the top in this case. The thing I find odd is that the loading for "Severe" seems under the odds, but that's the system we have. The only other option is to refer incidents like these straight to the Tribunal so there can be a proper review of all aspects of the collision and impact, and bring down a finding as a specific case rather than a formula. There was supposed to be this option for the MRP, but it never seems to be used. The MRP seem to have this one about right, but perhaps the underlying loading factors need to be looked at when you compare the 5 weeks for this significant infraction vs some of the completely minor incidents that end up with 2 or 3 weeks.
Wellingham was originally going for the mark while he was in mid air he realised that he misjudged it. He then tucked his arms in to protect and then at the last part twisted his and bumped Simpson. A bump is a legal act in AFL.
That last comment should be signed 'Mr Magoo' ! Wellingham going for the mark? What planet do you come from ???
My beef is not with the MRP or the Tribunal or what penalties are handed out, it's just as to when the suspension begins. eg: 2nd last round and a long time player with no record walks up and smashes someones jaw. Because of 10yrs good behaviour,etc. etc. he get maybe 2-3 weeks but, for argument's sake, the victim is out for the rest of the year. He is back for the finals and his victim is gone.............and it just may happen to be a team in the finals that is now without it's star player and the club they're playing in the GF, has the perpetrator on the field. That's my point.
<blockquote>Quote from SuperCoachSuperStar on July 9, 2012, 19:36 Watch the footage and you should see Wellingham originally going for the mark.</blockquote> C'mon mate, not even Wellingham and the Collingwood Football Club are arguing that one.
There was a point during the passage of play that Wellingham was going for the mark and then there was also a point at which this changes when he realises that there will be a collision. Split second stuff, not a premeditated deliberate or intentional act, but a decision nonetheless.
Let's just remember Crameri broke a bulldogs players jaw as well and only got 2 weeks , so it's not just Wellingham we r talking about here. As a Collingwood supporter I reckon he was bloody lucky to get 3 with a plea, 40% discount (I think) for a good record is a bit much, but that's the system.
Wellingham has only played 70 odd games, which hardly seems like enough to justify the size of the discount.
Please don't bring into account the length of the injury when deciding suspensions. Have you already forgotten the ridiculous overreaction when Gary Rohan's leg gave way? Did you know that sometimes injuries occur even without any contact? Roughhead missed half a year last year and nobody even touched him, maybe we should ban the nearest opposition player for revenge. It's a stupid argument and it has no place in the tribunal. You must judge a player for his actions not by the consequence to the victim or the context within the game. Those are too unreliable.
Judging by most responses here, maybe it's me who's missing the point. So I'm sorry for starting this stupid argument, I'll just wander off and smell the roses.
Nah Choppers. It's all good. Everybody has their 50c worth, fix every problem in the game in 15 min and go home happy. One of my pet hates are players who put their heads down to draw a free. If the AFL are serious about this protecting the head bulltish then players who put their heads down should get a free kick against them for dangerous play-for risking a head injury to themselves. And don't even start me on sheperding a player out of the mark. Saw a beauty in the Essendon game. Fletcher blocked metres from the ball so he could not get a run at the marking contest. The blocking player even had his arms out to hold him back. And the ball would have been more than 5m away. No free kick. Nothing. What a joke.
I find myself agreeing with Midge, Jason & The Swert here. More weight should be applied to intent than consequence. If a player deliberately attempts to injure an opponent, even if the opponent isn't severely injured, the offender should be penalised more severely than someone, who with no intent to cause injury, makes that split second decision that could be considered reckless but not intentional, even if it resulted in the victim spending an unfortunate lengthy time on the sidelines. Intent is taken into account by every court in the land for a good reason, In my mind, a person who maims another intentionally, is worse than someone who kills someone accidently. Intent is a most important consideration.
That Wellingham got 3 weeks for his old fashioned shirt front on Simpson is a joke. These cheap hits were outlawed out of the game 20 years ago yet we treat someone with kid gloves because he has no prior. If I shoot someone dead should I get leniency because I have been good up to now? Wellingham should have got at least as much time as Simpson and probably more. I like Choppers suggestion. Add 3-4 weeks to Simpson's 4 weeks and we won't have these type of incidents any more. And don't talk about Roughead doing his knee without touching anyone. This issue is about illegal body contact. So there! Yes he plays for my team... I've just read Patrick Smith's article http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/opinion/so-much-for-players-heads-being-sacrosanct/story-e6frg7t6-1226421984390. He's spot on in my opinion.
Wellingham purposely took out Simpson he could have tried to mark even if in vein , he could of tried to spoil or even absorb the impact when he realized he was not going to make the contest in time, but he chose to jump then shirtfront high which broke simpsons jaw . I agree with chopper it's not fair that he will be back before Simpson .
wellingham not intentional, wow what a comment seeing he said, i did not have intention to hurt him that much. So he admits he had intention just not as much as he did. Anyway back to the real argument here and a great thread. Obviously nearly everyone can argue both ways with this there is for's and against on it, apparently as long as it don't happen to one of your players. But the big problem would be with intent. ie. theres a pack fighting for the ball, the ball comes out, someone from in that pack goes to tackle and cant quiet make it as there was someone on his foot. Instead he accidently trips the player (illegal). That player does a knee or ankle (could go to extreme and say out for season) but the players out for 5 weeks, so the player gets 6 weeks for a trip. Compare that to someone that intentionally trips and they get a week. How is that fair. Or compare it to barry halls king hit which he got 8 weeks for. ^ weeks for trip, 8 weeks for a king hit, don't see justice. I hate collingwood mind you but the punishment was 5 weeks not 3, even though he will be out for 3 only. Im sure carlton players actually every player thats faced the tribunal, have got reduced sentences due to there good records and early pleas, so what goes around comes around. imagine if you have the injury list of say freo last year, your player does any of the above and gets whipped out for a year plus 3 weeks due to a stupid unintentional action but (illegal). They struggled to fill a team last year.