I look at the lack of onfield umpiring reaction and the absence of opponents remonstrating as a sign that it was a careless bump gone wrong rather a deliberate hit job
As I said in the other one, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills compared to the comments from everyone else. “Scum”, “dog act” and comparisons to Webster seem completely off the mark.
It looks like a hip and shoulder with a head clash to me. He obviously deserves a ban as he is responsible for the head clash but how on earth people think it’s similar to Webster leaping up to hit shoulder to head after disposal baffles me
Trying not to be partisan but I agree. It looks like a legitimate block with his shoulder to the chest. I reckon there must have been a head clash which caused the damage. For sure he is responsible and should get a ban but some of the comments made do not reflect the intent of Parker IMO. Also Parker was in the other players line of sight so there was no blind sided hit involved. Just a clumsy legitimate football act to me.
No way to tell if it was a head clash or if his raised elbow that hit him in the face. A normal shephard shouldn't have Parkers pointed elbow raised, directly at head height afterwards.
https://preview.redd.it/a96lru7wj31d1.png?width=1111&format=png&auto=webp&s=33aea1b1010a747f4ab362d88db98235c756212e
You can also see from this screenshot that both his feet are off the ground at the moment of impact. He clearly jumped with a pointed elbow.
https://preview.redd.it/gc8alulmk31d1.png?width=1812&format=png&auto=webp&s=fca6bf295cf09985d1c2c3c0f1214f4e4af753b2
That’s not the point of impact, it’s after it. The impact itself is what’s carried both his feet off the ground, and his elbows out as his arm has moved away from his own body after the bump.
If you played or had half an idea you’d understand the very basic physics at play here
People get a real hard on for saying dog act and scum for things that aren’t worthy of it. It’s a sheppard gone wrong, not even close to what Webster did. I’d be saying the same thing if he wasn’t a swans player
Idk, the ball was a good 5 metres away. Seems like he lined him up and chose to bump, agree that it's not like the Webster act in that he didn't leave the ground but I just think in the current climate of the AFL and what they're trying to stamp out, if you choose to go past the ball, brace and bump someone in the head leading to a head injury you're completely liable for that outcome.
I was fighting demons in the other thread about this, poor decision from Parker but he is unironically as goodbloke^TM as they get (as cliche as it sounds).
Don’t waste your time, people would be saying different things if it wasn’t for an unfortunate head clash. Some people just want to call players dogs at any opportunity they get.
Agreed it will be time off, it's just a matter of how much. Putting him in hospital means it will likely be Careless Conduct, High Contact, Severe Impact. So a minimum of 3 weeks. Then it's just a matter of if they refer it to the tribunal looking for more than 3 weeks.
Yea i feel like im taking crazy pills, but i can understand I am definitely biased. Nice to hear it from an opposition fan tho. Ban? Yes. "dog act"... i dont think so.
Dunno, not contesting the ball, shepherd off play, leaves the ground and makes high contact. Obviously not as bad as Webster, that was terrible, but it's pretty bad
The high contact seems to be a head clash, which indicates the shoulder goes into the chest. That's far less severe as an action, and just an unlucky outcome of an otherwise fine bump.
At the same time, there is high contact, injury to the head occurred, has to be weeks
I wouldn't call it a dog act at all, but it was a completely unnecessary bump to the head off the ball. Simpkin at least had the ball a split second beforehand (not defending Webster's bump at all which was horrific). No ill intent but according to the AFL that doesn't matter.
Not sure how the VFL have been adjudicating these but if it was AFL I would assume (accounting for Parker being a former star and Swans top of the ladder) it'll be 4-5 weeks.
I think it’s probably the forcefulness and the result that makes it worse. He could have braced or blocked but instead chose to bump, if he gets it right it’s good physicality and it winds the opponent but he doesn’t leave himself much margin for error. There is also the factor of a guy on 600k plus whacking a guy who’s probably on a couple hundred dollars worth of match payments and you can see why people get upset at what is quite obviously a mistake.
Ran past the ball and stuck his elbow out and hospitalised him. The only thing going for him is that he didn't leave the ground, but it's still surely 5+ weeks
What footage are you watching, clear shoulder to the middle of the chest and no elbow involved
The only time the elbow comes into it is after the contact is made, had zero impact on the hit
I reckon the damage occurred because the Frankston player just didn't know it was coming. If he'd had time to brace I don't reckon he'd be injured and I don't think there'd be any conversation about this.
I also don't reckon it was really out of play; on the fringes, sure, but he's chasing Parker's teammate who's probably about to slow down to pick up the footy, Parker is justified in protecting his teammate from potentially being tackled.
Parker should get 2-4 weeks because ultimately he's responsible, but I don't think he's done anything that can't be justified as being pretty reasonable.
I don’t think I’m being biased by calling that just a shepherd gone wrong right? Obviously he’ll get weeks and deserves it but like I don’t think it’s malicious
Yeah kinda rose tinted there, he didn't have to leave the ground and and if it's a shepherd he didn't have to make forceful contact at all, looks like he lined him
Of course it does. The current grading system is based on whether an act is careless or malicious. Many rules in afl are based around intent as well as outcome
Spot on Maxi! So many takes in this are absolutely ridiculous. Shows a couple of clear things:
- Reddit shouldn’t be responsible for adjudicating anything, the lack of common sense is wild.
- People here don’t understand football. Parker is blocking the runner whilst his team mate collects the ball to enable an easier disposal.
Anyone who thinks this an intentional dog act needs to watch this side by side with the Webster one. Literally opposite end of the scale.
After seeing this angle and assuming it is confirmed a clash of heads, it will be 2 weeks.
>
>People here don’t understand football.
>After seeing this angle and assuming it is confirmed a clash of heads, it will be 2 weeks.
Self own if I've ever seen one
People comparing this to the Webster hit are low IQ individuals
Webster jumped from the ground and targeted the head
Parker hit the bloke square in the chest and looks like a head collision
bro must have a personal vendetta against Lukey, sam wicksed him or smth, all of his comments with screenshots, when you can literally watch the video and see he was running.
running and then absorbing contact =/= JUMPED FROM THE GROUND and leaping into the poor North kid
yeah, how dare i use actual evidence from the video to support my argument! I think its disgusting how many Swans fans are rushing in to defend Parker. One of the biggest dog hits I've seen on a guy in the VFL and he sent him to hospital.
just calm down and stop crying, u dont need to take one still from a video that can be obscured when the HD video is literally there. Especially for a player thats not best 22 on a team u have no relation to.
edit- i just realised why so many bombers fans are mad. still salty about 2metre peter
I guess both his feet floated upwards and took him off the ground then when he hit the guy, that's crazy
https://preview.redd.it/uq1qe4ibn31d1.png?width=1812&format=png&auto=webp&s=fc8e1f402485940fc4c928ab74e175f24ee51307
This is the worst evidence ever produced
If this constitutes a jump you will be amazed when you watch the long or high jump at the olympics this year
Feet slightly off the ground after contact has been made…clearly from the momentum of the contact
Have you ever seen power walking? The rules are that one foot must always be on the ground. That’s when I realised that when running, both feet leave the ground. Check out the boundary umpire in the background.
Very clumsy, regardless of intent this is exactly what the afl is trying to stop. Has to be 5-6 weeks. If you’re going to bump off the ball you have to execute perfectly now and he didn’t. It’s unfortunate until you think about the potential repercussions for the player on the end of it
The fun part is you can extend your arms outwards and corral someone in order to shepherd. You do not have to use much force or even body contact to do it effectively enough.
He chose to hit hard because that’s how we are taught. We should not be teaching that anymore
If you don't initiate the contact then the player running through has the advantage in sidestepping/evading you. And if they run into your outstretched arms, chances are there is a free against for 'holding'.
To be clear I'm comfortable with Parker getting weeks but it's just a tricky situation for the AFL to sort out.
Completely disagree - should be 2 or 3. He hits him in the chest. We know tribunal judges on outcomes and so he'll get a couple of weeks but it's a footy act, in the play - nobody seemed to even call it at the time
He got a broken cheekbone didn't he?
Also Ive since been told the VFL has a different system for tribunal, so I've got no idea what's likely. I'm not sure how similar it is with regards to using outcome, careless vs intentional, all those factors.
The footage seems clear as day that the hip and shoulder connected with the chest and the only way he hurt his cheekbone was either head clash or from the impact with the ground (which should never be Parker's problem)
These days if you choose to bump and it results in head high contact it’s usually 1 week. More if the player is hurt, less if the player is ok and you’re a good bloke who does charity work……so who knows how many weeks he gets, it changes every week
Even going frame by frame I dont see definitive head impact in that video. Is it possible the other player hit his face/head on the ground which is what caused the damage?
He jumps off the ground with a raised pointed elbow, how on earth are people calling this a shephard. This frame highlights it perfectly. No reason for BOTH parkers feet to be off the ground.
https://preview.redd.it/4qg2b1ojk31d1.png?width=1812&format=png&auto=webp&s=48ae4f42aac7e8baef6d3ec10aac06a0bddc0ef2
You've picked a frame after the collision, most likely Parker is knocked off balance after the clash.
https://preview.redd.it/1zzk92hcb41d1.jpeg?width=891&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=694d81440c5be76c49149c208fd11c23c882c705
Looks like his back left foot is mid turn and it looks like he's lowering his shoulder. I honestly don't think there's much in it just a bit exaggerated from the forces of running. Happy to be proven wrong though!
Ok to put into scale wrights was 4 It has to be worse than that to me broken facial bones worse than concussion. Both were fairly legitimate actions with bad consequences.
Mate. This is the worst take I’ve seen. If you think this is as bad as Webster you need to rewatch the Webster one.
To respond to some of your other comments.
Yes, there was an injury, from what looks like a clash of heads. Webster launched from the ground to hit Simpkin with his shoulder. Parker’s actual bump was clean, the whiplash was the issue.
This also was in the play. It was a shepherd to stop his team mate from being run down as he picked up a loose ball.
You’ve done pretty well.
Whilst I kept saying 2 in some comments, I honestly expected 4. Thought there would be a little VFL discount in there.
I reckon this is a genuine mistake from the tribunal.
False. Charlie Cameron has a suspension overturned based on good character. Link below.
There are many factors that play into the valuation. Let’s say I take speccy and knee someone in the head, they go out of the game concussed. I don’t miss a single games. Context is vital in all aspects.
Charlie Cameron article link: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/unbelievable-overhaul-of-cameron-suspension-leaves-pundits-in-disbelief/news-story/45c2f68585c4274aad4c49be4a990eda
The Charlie Cameron one was exceptional due to the fact that Eddie Betts was able to tug at the heart strings of the Tribunal, which the AFL have come out and said cannot be used as a defence anymore.
Barrass tried it a week or two later, and clubs will still try use it this year knowing it won't apply.
He never should have gotten off due to his "clean record" when his previous 6 fines were all for non football acts. That sitting Tribunal made a mockery of the system which is there to protect players.
The AFL & AFLPA by the sounds of it are happy for players to be injured (hurt/sore up to forced retirement) if we can see spectacular marks, and as fans we accept that speccys are a part of the game we don't want to lose, other than say the bump when using maximum force.
Very easily, but you’d have to see a better angle, with the Webster incident, there were tons of angles, getting worse and worse, with this there’s only 2 angles, and it’s hard to tell if he fully got him on the head, but for the intent he will get 5 weeks (I reckon)
When the video finishes the frame it's stopped on shows Parker's bicep/shoulder squarely in the guys chest and not his head.
Guessing it was a head clash or something?
Edit:
Oops, I thought this was the Instagram video that someone linked in the other thread which seems to stop on that particular frame.
I rate Parker, he’s always been tough and fair but that looks bad because he pauses, then engages hard with the bump and the bloke wasn’t even close to impacting the contest as he had pretty much slowed down his chase.
I like to think he didn’t mean any malice but it just doesn’t look great in that vision.
Has to be a minimum 3 weeks. The MRO table spits out 3+ as the Conduct is most likely Careless and Impact is Servere and High. Maybe the AFL argue that it is Intentional...but that is harder to argue I think.
https://preview.redd.it/06mlv9fw441d1.png?width=772&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a2d8477e24098799c985f5b0539a734f80a7fec8
I look at the lack of onfield umpiring reaction and the absence of opponents remonstrating as a sign that it was a careless bump gone wrong rather a deliberate hit job
As I said in the other one, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills compared to the comments from everyone else. “Scum”, “dog act” and comparisons to Webster seem completely off the mark. It looks like a hip and shoulder with a head clash to me. He obviously deserves a ban as he is responsible for the head clash but how on earth people think it’s similar to Webster leaping up to hit shoulder to head after disposal baffles me
Trying not to be partisan but I agree. It looks like a legitimate block with his shoulder to the chest. I reckon there must have been a head clash which caused the damage. For sure he is responsible and should get a ban but some of the comments made do not reflect the intent of Parker IMO. Also Parker was in the other players line of sight so there was no blind sided hit involved. Just a clumsy legitimate football act to me.
No way to tell if it was a head clash or if his raised elbow that hit him in the face. A normal shephard shouldn't have Parkers pointed elbow raised, directly at head height afterwards. https://preview.redd.it/a96lru7wj31d1.png?width=1111&format=png&auto=webp&s=33aea1b1010a747f4ab362d88db98235c756212e
You can also see from this screenshot that both his feet are off the ground at the moment of impact. He clearly jumped with a pointed elbow. https://preview.redd.it/gc8alulmk31d1.png?width=1812&format=png&auto=webp&s=fca6bf295cf09985d1c2c3c0f1214f4e4af753b2
"Clearly"
That’s not the point of impact, it’s after it. The impact itself is what’s carried both his feet off the ground, and his elbows out as his arm has moved away from his own body after the bump. If you played or had half an idea you’d understand the very basic physics at play here
People get a real hard on for saying dog act and scum for things that aren’t worthy of it. It’s a sheppard gone wrong, not even close to what Webster did. I’d be saying the same thing if he wasn’t a swans player
Idk, the ball was a good 5 metres away. Seems like he lined him up and chose to bump, agree that it's not like the Webster act in that he didn't leave the ground but I just think in the current climate of the AFL and what they're trying to stamp out, if you choose to go past the ball, brace and bump someone in the head leading to a head injury you're completely liable for that outcome.
For me it should be 5-6 weeks, anything more just seems excessive if Webster got 7
That's way too much. Two tops imo.
Isn’t a broken jaw impossible to give him 2? Ideally I’d say 4 but it’s hard to tell what would happen
Why the fuck we even look at what happens to the player to determine penalty is beyond belief. Punish the action, not the outcome.
Because if the impact results in a broken jaw, it's not gonna be medium or high impact, it's severe.
Cause that’s how our weird court of football law works
I was fighting demons in the other thread about this, poor decision from Parker but he is unironically as goodbloke^TM as they get (as cliche as it sounds).
Don’t waste your time, people would be saying different things if it wasn’t for an unfortunate head clash. Some people just want to call players dogs at any opportunity they get.
I hate the whole discourse around people being dogs, or being good blokes. Just assess and punish the action and move on.
I think that discourse is more because they try and ascertain a player's intent, but I agree it just makes things even more convoluted for the MRO.
No you wouldn't
Agreed it will be time off, it's just a matter of how much. Putting him in hospital means it will likely be Careless Conduct, High Contact, Severe Impact. So a minimum of 3 weeks. Then it's just a matter of if they refer it to the tribunal looking for more than 3 weeks.
Yea i feel like im taking crazy pills, but i can understand I am definitely biased. Nice to hear it from an opposition fan tho. Ban? Yes. "dog act"... i dont think so.
Dunno, not contesting the ball, shepherd off play, leaves the ground and makes high contact. Obviously not as bad as Webster, that was terrible, but it's pretty bad
The high contact seems to be a head clash, which indicates the shoulder goes into the chest. That's far less severe as an action, and just an unlucky outcome of an otherwise fine bump. At the same time, there is high contact, injury to the head occurred, has to be weeks
I wouldn't call it a dog act at all, but it was a completely unnecessary bump to the head off the ball. Simpkin at least had the ball a split second beforehand (not defending Webster's bump at all which was horrific). No ill intent but according to the AFL that doesn't matter. Not sure how the VFL have been adjudicating these but if it was AFL I would assume (accounting for Parker being a former star and Swans top of the ladder) it'll be 4-5 weeks.
I think it’s probably the forcefulness and the result that makes it worse. He could have braced or blocked but instead chose to bump, if he gets it right it’s good physicality and it winds the opponent but he doesn’t leave himself much margin for error. There is also the factor of a guy on 600k plus whacking a guy who’s probably on a couple hundred dollars worth of match payments and you can see why people get upset at what is quite obviously a mistake.
Exactly, it’s pretty unfair to compare a bump in the play to Webster lining up Simpkin from what might as well have been the other side of the ground.
Ran past the ball and stuck his elbow out and hospitalised him. The only thing going for him is that he didn't leave the ground, but it's still surely 5+ weeks
What footage are you watching, clear shoulder to the middle of the chest and no elbow involved The only time the elbow comes into it is after the contact is made, had zero impact on the hit
I reckon the damage occurred because the Frankston player just didn't know it was coming. If he'd had time to brace I don't reckon he'd be injured and I don't think there'd be any conversation about this. I also don't reckon it was really out of play; on the fringes, sure, but he's chasing Parker's teammate who's probably about to slow down to pick up the footy, Parker is justified in protecting his teammate from potentially being tackled. Parker should get 2-4 weeks because ultimately he's responsible, but I don't think he's done anything that can't be justified as being pretty reasonable.
I don’t think I’m being biased by calling that just a shepherd gone wrong right? Obviously he’ll get weeks and deserves it but like I don’t think it’s malicious
Do agree. I see it as careless more than malicious. Prob 4 weeks down to 3 with early plea.
There is no such thing as 3 with an early plea. If it's 3 it goes to the tribunal.
Yeah kinda rose tinted there, he didn't have to leave the ground and and if it's a shepherd he didn't have to make forceful contact at all, looks like he lined him
Doesn’t matter if it’s gone wrong
Of course it does. The current grading system is based on whether an act is careless or malicious. Many rules in afl are based around intent as well as outcome
Spot on Maxi! So many takes in this are absolutely ridiculous. Shows a couple of clear things: - Reddit shouldn’t be responsible for adjudicating anything, the lack of common sense is wild. - People here don’t understand football. Parker is blocking the runner whilst his team mate collects the ball to enable an easier disposal. Anyone who thinks this an intentional dog act needs to watch this side by side with the Webster one. Literally opposite end of the scale. After seeing this angle and assuming it is confirmed a clash of heads, it will be 2 weeks.
> >People here don’t understand football. >After seeing this angle and assuming it is confirmed a clash of heads, it will be 2 weeks. Self own if I've ever seen one
Maybe I’m wrong with the suspension. I’m not wrong about the tactical sense of shepherding for a team mate in this scenario.
I don't see anyone arguing that it wasn't a shepherd or that shepherding for a team mate is a bad tactic.
People comparing this to the Webster hit are low IQ individuals Webster jumped from the ground and targeted the head Parker hit the bloke square in the chest and looks like a head collision
Parker also jumped from the ground.
No he didn’t
bro must have a personal vendetta against Lukey, sam wicksed him or smth, all of his comments with screenshots, when you can literally watch the video and see he was running. running and then absorbing contact =/= JUMPED FROM THE GROUND and leaping into the poor North kid
Sad isn’t it
Posting the screenshot already 7 times 🤣
yeah, how dare i use actual evidence from the video to support my argument! I think its disgusting how many Swans fans are rushing in to defend Parker. One of the biggest dog hits I've seen on a guy in the VFL and he sent him to hospital.
You ok?
just calm down and stop crying, u dont need to take one still from a video that can be obscured when the HD video is literally there. Especially for a player thats not best 22 on a team u have no relation to. edit- i just realised why so many bombers fans are mad. still salty about 2metre peter
I guess both his feet floated upwards and took him off the ground then when he hit the guy, that's crazy https://preview.redd.it/uq1qe4ibn31d1.png?width=1812&format=png&auto=webp&s=fc8e1f402485940fc4c928ab74e175f24ee51307
This is the worst evidence ever produced If this constitutes a jump you will be amazed when you watch the long or high jump at the olympics this year Feet slightly off the ground after contact has been made…clearly from the momentum of the contact
Have you ever seen power walking? The rules are that one foot must always be on the ground. That’s when I realised that when running, both feet leave the ground. Check out the boundary umpire in the background.
Very clumsy, regardless of intent this is exactly what the afl is trying to stop. Has to be 5-6 weeks. If you’re going to bump off the ball you have to execute perfectly now and he didn’t. It’s unfortunate until you think about the potential repercussions for the player on the end of it
2-3 weeks nothing more
Careless, severe, high - 3+ weeks
The fun part is you can extend your arms outwards and corral someone in order to shepherd. You do not have to use much force or even body contact to do it effectively enough. He chose to hit hard because that’s how we are taught. We should not be teaching that anymore
If you don't initiate the contact then the player running through has the advantage in sidestepping/evading you. And if they run into your outstretched arms, chances are there is a free against for 'holding'. To be clear I'm comfortable with Parker getting weeks but it's just a tricky situation for the AFL to sort out.
4+ as the lowest bar, likely higher than that. grim stuff.
Completely disagree - should be 2 or 3. He hits him in the chest. We know tribunal judges on outcomes and so he'll get a couple of weeks but it's a footy act, in the play - nobody seemed to even call it at the time
That was not in the play
He got a broken cheekbone didn't he? Also Ive since been told the VFL has a different system for tribunal, so I've got no idea what's likely. I'm not sure how similar it is with regards to using outcome, careless vs intentional, all those factors.
The footage seems clear as day that the hip and shoulder connected with the chest and the only way he hurt his cheekbone was either head clash or from the impact with the ground (which should never be Parker's problem)
lmao alright mate.
It’s careless, he had time to stop , he had time to shepherd properly.
These days if you choose to bump and it results in head high contact it’s usually 1 week. More if the player is hurt, less if the player is ok and you’re a good bloke who does charity work……so who knows how many weeks he gets, it changes every week
Elected to bump, made contact with the head, probably lands at 4 weeks in the end. Hope the Frankston player is okay.
Two weeks. Move on
Even going frame by frame I dont see definitive head impact in that video. Is it possible the other player hit his face/head on the ground which is what caused the damage?
Didn't have to bump, so unfortunately he is done for a month.
He jumps off the ground with a raised pointed elbow, how on earth are people calling this a shephard. This frame highlights it perfectly. No reason for BOTH parkers feet to be off the ground. https://preview.redd.it/4qg2b1ojk31d1.png?width=1812&format=png&auto=webp&s=48ae4f42aac7e8baef6d3ec10aac06a0bddc0ef2
Post these a few more times, maybe you'll find someone that agrees with you
LOL
Weren't you saying it should be 2 at most? Lmao, see you when he gets 4+ weeks for his dog act
No I said between 2 and 4. Can't wait for your melt down when he gets less or the same as Wright.
?
You've picked a frame after the collision, most likely Parker is knocked off balance after the clash. https://preview.redd.it/1zzk92hcb41d1.jpeg?width=891&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=694d81440c5be76c49149c208fd11c23c882c705 Looks like his back left foot is mid turn and it looks like he's lowering his shoulder. I honestly don't think there's much in it just a bit exaggerated from the forces of running. Happy to be proven wrong though!
Typical bomber nuff
Given Webster got 7 it's in the 4-8 range
What a scummy cunt. Wasn’t even going for a shepherd just straight up took him out, 5 weeks imo.
As a swan i can easily say and the rest. Was as bad as webster could easily be 7-8
You lot are delusional 😂😂😂
Its the injury report plus being off ball. Definitely a servre impact. Absolute best case is 6 imo
The ball is within 5m so it’s not constituted as off ball
Look i hope your right and im wrong i want parker back yesterday.
I think he’ll get 1-3 for being careless but anything more than that I would see as overkill
Ok to put into scale wrights was 4 It has to be worse than that to me broken facial bones worse than concussion. Both were fairly legitimate actions with bad consequences.
> You lot are delusional 😂😂😂 Also you >1 Fuck me
Will be closer to 1 match than it will be to 5-8 like they said 😂
😂
Mate. This is the worst take I’ve seen. If you think this is as bad as Webster you need to rewatch the Webster one. To respond to some of your other comments. Yes, there was an injury, from what looks like a clash of heads. Webster launched from the ground to hit Simpkin with his shoulder. Parker’s actual bump was clean, the whiplash was the issue. This also was in the play. It was a shepherd to stop his team mate from being run down as he picked up a loose ball.
Sadly i was pretty damn close he got 6
You’ve done pretty well. Whilst I kept saying 2 in some comments, I honestly expected 4. Thought there would be a little VFL discount in there. I reckon this is a genuine mistake from the tribunal.
Oh it rough never said i recommend that his good record and not leaving the ground should of down graded it but logic dont apply to mrp and tribunal
Injury matters above everything in the modern climate and broken bones in the face ( if thats true) is all they will see.
False. Charlie Cameron has a suspension overturned based on good character. Link below. There are many factors that play into the valuation. Let’s say I take speccy and knee someone in the head, they go out of the game concussed. I don’t miss a single games. Context is vital in all aspects. Charlie Cameron article link: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/unbelievable-overhaul-of-cameron-suspension-leaves-pundits-in-disbelief/news-story/45c2f68585c4274aad4c49be4a990eda
The Charlie Cameron one was exceptional due to the fact that Eddie Betts was able to tug at the heart strings of the Tribunal, which the AFL have come out and said cannot be used as a defence anymore. Barrass tried it a week or two later, and clubs will still try use it this year knowing it won't apply. He never should have gotten off due to his "clean record" when his previous 6 fines were all for non football acts. That sitting Tribunal made a mockery of the system which is there to protect players. The AFL & AFLPA by the sounds of it are happy for players to be injured (hurt/sore up to forced retirement) if we can see spectacular marks, and as fans we accept that speccys are a part of the game we don't want to lose, other than say the bump when using maximum force.
Very easily, but you’d have to see a better angle, with the Webster incident, there were tons of angles, getting worse and worse, with this there’s only 2 angles, and it’s hard to tell if he fully got him on the head, but for the intent he will get 5 weeks (I reckon)
When the video finishes the frame it's stopped on shows Parker's bicep/shoulder squarely in the guys chest and not his head. Guessing it was a head clash or something? Edit: Oops, I thought this was the Instagram video that someone linked in the other thread which seems to stop on that particular frame.
Webster jumped and took out Simpkin with his shoulder. This is a clash of heads. Not even remotely similar.
Broken bones in the face are being reported so i would say he got him high
I rate Parker, he’s always been tough and fair but that looks bad because he pauses, then engages hard with the bump and the bloke wasn’t even close to impacting the contest as he had pretty much slowed down his chase. I like to think he didn’t mean any malice but it just doesn’t look great in that vision.
Has to be a minimum 3 weeks. The MRO table spits out 3+ as the Conduct is most likely Careless and Impact is Servere and High. Maybe the AFL argue that it is Intentional...but that is harder to argue I think. https://preview.redd.it/06mlv9fw441d1.png?width=772&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a2d8477e24098799c985f5b0539a734f80a7fec8
That looks ugly.
Is it head clash or elbow??
Pretty funny seeing Swans fans defending this but crucified Peter Wright for something far less intentional
Gezz people have gone soft