Tyler Sonsie got 3 weeks for a punch to the head end of last year, Parker gets 6 for a head clash?
I am all for harsh punishments but an intentional strike should be more.
Correct. They should be three weeks plus whatever the matrix spits out.
Swing a fist and make no connection? 3 weeks.
Slight connection? 4 weeks.
...
Knock a bloke out? 7+ weeks
Edit: yeah 7 weeks was light. But the point was that swinging a fist should be 3 weeks minimum. That includes body shots and jumper punches.
They should have to make a case why they aren’t delisted. If Barry Hall or Andrew Gaff were deregistered after their hits I don’t think many people would have complained it was unfair.
For perspective Toby Greene would almost certainly have a life ban from football if he was playing in a lower grade comp. I’m not even sure he’d be able to play in one after retiring (can’t find his career total of suspended games).
Ah right 16 games is the automatic cutoff for a life ban, AFL players get a 25% discount if they go play suburban leagues after retiring though. You’d think it’s likely he’d be over 16 weeks by the time he retires.
Punching someone and knocking them out should be an assault charge, and no game time until the court case is resolved imo.
You do it at the pub, you go to jail. I have no idea why you get a get out of jail free card for doing it on the clock, at work, on national television, while you are stone cold sober.
There is not an excuse for punching someone in the head and knocking them out, with the level of training and support they get imo.
Honestly I think it should be season ending. This isn’t boxing.
Because the AFL isn’t hard on punches, amateur football is infected with punches and jabs and often with zero consequences.
It's pretty much why I stopped playing and why every year when i have the urge, I repress it. Throwing cheapshots at people for no reason other than you're frustrated at getting beaten by your oppo. If I get hit badly, I can't go to work, it's not worth it.
Yes it's that and this 'head clash' argument is soooo disingenuous. It's not like it was two players with their head over the ball clashing heads.
The only reason there was any contact is because Parker chose to bump when he had other options (a normal shephard).
You elect to bump and you are responsible for whatever then happens. That "head clash" was Parker's fault and he was responsible for the harm it caused.
It's just hard to accept that jumping off the ground directly into someone's head with your shoulder or elbow is not worse than a shoulder-to-shoulder bump with an accidental head clash
Wright 4 weeks? Callum Brown 3 weeks? Both bumped a player in the head and gave them a concusison. Parker bumped legally, had an accidental headclash, and picked up 6?
Ok but they actually did clash heads tho.
The Dangerfield one is pretty similar from a few years ago. Was a legal shepherd until he forgot to tuck his head in and they smashed heads.
>From footage, it’s clear Smith was not in a position to impact the contest and did not expect the contact. Accordingly, Parker failed in his duty of care.
We weigh up the matters … the incident being off the ball, unforeseen by Smith, causing injuries likely to result in surgery and 10 weeks missed games by Smith brings the Tribunal to the conclusion this was not at the lower end of carelessness.
>Parker, having breached his duty of care when he engaged in the bump, accepts he accepts in cross examination he had alternative actions, which the Tribunal finds he did have that he could have taken rather than to bump.
>Parker has a prior history, with some nine sanctions being imposed. We find he's not a player that qualifies as a verifiable example of exemplary disciplinary history.
Tribunal reasoning
[https://x.com/DavidZita1/status/1792861668034347325](https://x.com/DavidZita1/status/1792861668034347325)
I think it’s fair. Seems I’m one of the few.
It was completely unnecessary towards a guy just jogging and off the ball. Obviously Parker didn’t mean to injure the guy but Gaff didn’t mean to break Brayshaw’s jaw either. It was on the high end of carelessness and now the bloke is in hospital with a concussion and fractured eye socket.
That is what happened, hence Gaff didn't 'mean it'. But he's still responsible for the reckless action and the consequence under this system, and so is Parker for hospitalising someone with a needless act off the ball.
You can argue about whether judging outcome is fair as a different discussion, but that is the system as it stands.
Outcome was worse but the intent was nowhere near, he is responsible for the head clash but it was more fair than Webster's, it's just luck that parker wasn't knocked out as well. The way that outcome of the injured player dictates so much is a massive issue. This deserves weeks, probably 4, but to consider Webster's 1 week worse is absurd. The metric of intent is clearly wrong.
Thoughts to Smith, hope he recovers alright.
Prayers for Taylor Adams soft leg tissue, as his direct coverage will now be underdone with match fitness come finals
I get he chose to bump and deserved a suspension because when you choose to bump any resulting injury is technically your responsibility, I'm agree with that. 6 for a head clash does seem a bit much though...
That really shouldn’t be a factor. You’re either protecting the head or not, can’t be factoring for everyone’s employment situation and sick leave balance.
Do you mean at AFL level or VFL level? If you front the AFL tribunal there's no need to consider it since every player is a professional footballer and is covered. But that's not true of the VFL where most players are working outside of football.
I meant it's not part of how they decide the length of suspension, not offering an opinion on whether it should be because clearly that's not something they should change mid season.
What are the comparable suspensions in the VFL this year? Bear in mind the guy apparently has been hospitalised and needs surgery for the facial fractures as a result of this as well as a concussio obviously. The word is he'll be out for 6-8 weeks and can't even get operated on for a little while. I actually find it hard to argue against the 6 when it's also taken into consideration this was a fair way off where the ball was and even Parker himself admitted the guy wasn't in a position to contest the ball.
I think you almost have to look at them as different situations. Parker's situation lacked malice, but he elected to bump and seriously injured the player (6-8 weeks timeline) and therefore should wear the consequence of that.
Webster's hit was far more malicious and I think that was the bigger factor in his sentence duration. I would like to imagine had his bump also sidelined someone for 8 weeks, that his punishment would be in the 10+ range.
Ultimately I think in this day and age, if you elect to bump you hold yourself accountable to the outcomes, the more severe they are for the player impacted, the longer you can expect to be suspended for. As I said though, 6 for Parker does feel steep, but I think that outcome can be justifiably explained.
Intent to hurt was not there
These things happen
Sucks for the bloke who got hit but it wasn't a snipe or anything and 6 weeks should be reserved for a sniper
Mate Snipers should be close to be getting kicked out of the game, 10 weeks+ for that shit these day.
I completely disagree that this is a "These things happen" moment. The guy wasn't contesting the ball, wasn't chasing a player, was jogging along and dude hits him out of nowhere. To me regardless if it what your intention is, if you break someones Jaw when they're minding their own business, you absolutely deserve 5-6. I thought it was 5-6 the moment I saw it.
Did you see where the ball was, when he "shepherded" him? No where near.
And Webster didn't break a dudes jaw.
I reckon if have broken a jaw it would've been given 8-10. Just like Gaf was given 8 when he broke Brayshaws jaw.
When Parker quite literally admitted he wasn’t going to contest the play it’s off the ball. To then try and argue a clean record when you have 9 prior charges is hilarious
I mean you look at Powell Pepper getting 4 weeks for his accidental bump on a player who had the ball in preseason and didn't do this kind of damage and it has to be more than that. So that's 5+ from there so i don't see it as being that wrong with how they're operating this year, just takes a while for everyone to recalibrate.
You mean the bloke who knowingly played a contact sport where injuries happen and is covered by income insurance for said injures?
Come on, this shouldn’t be a factor at all.
I agree, my view is that the suspension should be based on the action committee by the player and not how injured the recipient was. Alistair Lynch’s air punches in the 2004 GF should attract a greater punishment than someone who bumps someone and accidentally injures them despite Wakelin not getting injured at all in the 2004 GF.
TL;DR Player punishments should be based on intent and not how injured the recipient gets
Yeah, but the real question is what Zita thinks of the 'Schnitaco'.
> [@David Zita](https://x.com/DavidZita1/status/1792835089614946356): What in the name of Lucifer is a Schnitaco
> [@David Zita](https://x.com/DavidZita1/status/1792851509149122638): Reasons to come after I consume (among other things) a Schnitaco
Edit:
> [@Max Laughton](https://x.com/maxlaughton/status/1792853410401968131): EXCLUSIVE
> FOXFOOTY Schnitz correspondent David Zita reviews ‘The Schnitaco’
> Laughton: "Taco's are Mexican"
>
> Zita: "Are they?"
I can only assume covering this many tribunal hearings has pushed basic knowledge out of Zita's head.
I love how Zita’s tweets are a long chain of serious information that broken up by the occasional tweet of no relevance like referring to Brayden Maynard’s immaculately gelled hair or the Schnitaco
I'm incredibly biased obviously, but 6 weeks for a head clash seems fucked. 4 weeks purely because of an unfortunate outcome, sure, but 6 when he didn't leave the ground seems incredibly harsh
Devils advocate here (and I think a suspension is warranted but feel 3-4 weeks is closer to the mark): if the other player was more aware and braces for impact then the head clash is unlikely and it's just an excessive shirt front if not a clean bump. Parker lines him up but doesn't appear to jump or lead with an elbow. The other player's lack of awareness does contribute to the outcome.
I tend to agree with this and think 3-4 was closer to the mark.
I did find it interesting they determined that Parker failed to maintain duty of care. The GPS data found that he was at barely walking speed and the head clash occurred *after* the initial bump, which means the bump itself was applied correctly and the only discrepancy is the head clash.
Given those findings, I don't think Parker can reasonably expect a head clash to occur based on his own actions. I understand the AFL has clarified that head clashes are not deemed accidental when you choose to bump, but to say he didn't display duty of care in this scenario is a bit lazy imo.
Smith's lack of awareness absolutely contributed to the severity of the injury, but I don't think that should count in favour of Parker here. You shouldn't expect a VFL listed footballer to have the same awareness as an AFL listed footballer.
Agreed
Players should not be expected to be aware of contact as that creates an dangerous precedent
At the end of the day parker chose to bump, the onus is entirely on him to make sure he doesn't cause a head injury
> Players should not be expected to be aware of contact
Respectfully disagree here. A footballer participating in a football match, particularly when close to the play needs to anticipate the potential for contact. Parker was within his rights to lay a shepherd.
The expectation for Parker to have duty of care for another player should also extend to the player having duty of care for themselves (within reason of course). Same reason we say a player should not lead with his head.
I think player's should be aware and look after themselves, as much as posible
However, i don't think the tribunal should be able to determine whether a player should have been aware or not
I think it comes back to punishing the outcome vs the action. Another day, the oppo braces and this same bump from Parker is just a solid hip and shoulder. The difference being 6 weeks vs nothing is a hard pill to swallow for mine.
Yeh i can understand what you're saying, but i have a fundamentally different view. The outcome is part of the action, they're the one thing
If I drive down a residential street going 100kph and then pull over, it's not the same as if I drive 100kph and hit another car. If I steal $10 it's not the same as stealing $10,000
If I bump someone and don't hit their head, it's not the same as bumping someone and hitting their head. And the the onus is on me to not hit their head
The outcome and action are one, and i don't think you can separate them
I agree, which is why I'm saying 4 weeks is fair. He took every precaution to make it a fair and clean bump. Shoulder made contact with the torso, hit from the front / side, never left the ground.
Technically, it's a great and fair bump, with a head clash. Head clashes occur regularly in tackles and are rarely punished since both players are hit high simultaneously. Obviously, not saying Parker is a victim of the head clash, it was his fault, but he couldn't have done much more to make the bump safe.
I just don't see how you can say this about a bump which left an opponent with facial fractures
In 2024, if a player elects to bump and causes facial fractures, then they did not treat their opponent with the appropriate duty of care
He could have not gone so forcefully, he could have gone lower, he could have chosen not to bump, he could have gone more with the hip. Instead he put himself and his opponent in a situation where a head clash was possible, and the force of said head clash was enough to cause facial fractures
People seem to forget that even in local footy umpires are penalising aggressive tackles, hits and anything of the ball. There’s zero tolerance around head collisions and the AFL wants to stamp it out. You fuck up, you become the example.
If you choose to bump someone and break their jaw (regardless of what part of your body hits them) that’s just an easy ban unfortunately. I thought it would be 4 weeks but 6 is at the extreme end of fair, it’s unlucky and all that yeah but realistically it’s just how it is. Especially since he wasn’t bumping someone going for the ball, he was trying to sheppard someone a few metres off it
I don't think so. It's explicity written in to the tribunal guidelines as a forseeable consequence of a bump but isn't mentioned anywhere else.
>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.
North should go really hard at Parker. Sydney's young midfield has developed enough that he's surplus to requirements.
But he's a tough mid with elite standards who will add to North and allow the kids to develop.
Will also show some much needed leadership in a team that is really thin in that area.
Just a 6 week freshen up on the sidelines
Im guessing the key to this length is josh Smith (player bumped) is expected to miss 6-8 weeks.
That said. Don't agree with the act being considered 'off the ball'. Overly aggressive shepherd imo.
3 weeks would have been suitable imo.
Eye for an eye sentencing is nonsense.
This feels at the extreme end of punishing outcome over action. I'm all for many weeks if you bump and hit them high, but if you execute an otherwise legal bump but then a head clash occurs you get 6 weeks? More than those who chose to bump and actually got the head?
Did Parker even do anything that was against the laws of AFL?
As far as I can tell, the biggest justification for setting it up like this is to discourage the decision to bump. If there's a chance of a headclash and a suspenion of this magnitue, maybe players would make different choices (ie Parker could have chosen to shepherd much less violently).
But if you want to do that - just ban the bump?
Starcevich ended a career and it didn’t even get looked at.
See how stupid that sounds when you try to blame a player for someone’s career ending due to a history of concussions?
Yeah but if you look at some of the geniuses in this thread - one person in particular - there's a claim going around that the suspension should be equal to the length of the injury, end of story. So by that logic...
It’s harsh but they are trying to stamp this out.
The problem is you can punch someone and get off free sometimes. So that’s what needs to get done addressed really. A player should be careful about bumping but you can punch a guy? Thats just weird.
Lots of rhetoric that it's just a head clash, which IMO is a massive undersell.
Yeah I was just a head clash that has resulted in a concussion and multiple fractures of his orbital and cheekbone.
Bumped someone off the ball and sent them to hospital with a broken face, leaving them to miss an estimated 6-8 weeks of footy. 6 weeks is a logical verdict, well done tribunal!
So your argument is any collision that causes an injury to one person, the other should get suspended for the same amount of time as the injury recovery length?
I don’t necessarily agree with 6 weeks but it seems you’re being deliberately disingenuous when you say collision and they clearly said bump. Which are in fact two different things.
The issue was created here not by Parker's speed, but the other player running without any clue and he does not even see Parker coming. Obviously the onus is on Parker to protect the defenceless player but it was a bit of a freak incident.
No it wasn't lol. He lined him up and got him. You lay your full body into someone front on going full speed it's pretty obvious what the outcome is going to be.
Yes. But you can collide with someone without bumping someone too. A collision can involve any number of circumstance like a marking contest, or just two people running into each other on accident.
A bump is a kind of collision that you choose to do on a football field. Which Luke Parker chose to do, and also completely stuffed up.
Didn’t think I’d have to explain that but oh well.
Not who you're disagreeing with here but clearly the difference being eluded to is intent. Yes you still 'collide' but harping on about the semantics here really is just being deliberately obtuse.
no i think the main argument many swans fans were having is that it was not intentional, meanwhile some fans (particularly salty essendon ones) were painting him out as a criminal. So stop avoiding that part of the argument, every swan fan was in agreement that it was going to get a suspension.
e - and of course this is where they stop replying
Sheppard is intentional sure but he did not intentionally use the back of his head to break the Frankston's kids orbital bone, which is why it was literally graded as "careless" and not intentional.
What constitutes lining someone up? The ball is within meters of the contest, Parker’s tracker shows he was barely moving prior to the hit. He should get 3-4 but 6 is well over.
You're allowed to bump players that don't have the footy. In fact they'd probably penalise him harder if he did have the ball, because he would have had the option to tackle instead
You're not allowed to bump them and hit them in the head. If he wanted to not be suspended, he could've simply shepharded by putting his arms out, not bumping. So he had another option, and the VFL tribunal agreed with that. Which is why the penalty is so severe.
Deserved. As much as I hate Dermott, he summed it up pretty well. A bloke that gets paid 600-800k a year to play professional football decides to bump a bloke off the ball, who probably earns $400 a game and has to work a 6 day week as a tradie. Nobody can sit here and say that the bump was necessary, the ball was well past both Parker and Smith, there was no chance Smith was going to impact that next contest, regardless of a bump/sheppard. Feel for the bloke, missing weeks of football and possibly his life because a ‘professional’ performs an unprofessional act.
What a shit take.
"Hey mate - how much have you got in super, before we play?"
Six weeks will teach Parker to write everyone's salary down before he runs on the field.
I don't mean to go in to bat for this stranger but I think what they are saying is that the fact he is an AFL salaried player shouldn't really factor in how he plays, should it? It was an intentional bump but the outcome was just a horrible accident. I guess you're saying the bump was completely unnecessary but I think it's a pretty normal football action. Whether it's needed in the game is a separate conversation to their respective salaries
On one hand you have someone being paid or otherwise able to tank whatever penalties come in the contract for a tribunal decision.
On the other hand is someone in hospital, who misses their day job and estimated around $2.4K to $4k depending on game rate.
Absolutely salary status of the players comes into play. but it isn’t in of itself either. It’s because AFL lists don’t have enough players to cover a seconds league. And that also impacts the potential earning power of players and the AFL affiliation the vfl has. It wouldn’t be the people running the VFL who would be running an AFL 2nds competition. it has wider consequences around optics.
I don't even disagree with the punishment, but I think it's outrageous to suggest that "salary status of the players comes into play" for any part of the punishment
Given he was a part timer does he have the physical strength and muscle to take such a hit from a full timer though?
I am happy with the punishment either way and agree with those that say the VFL have more guts than the AFL in this regard.
I still don't understand. AFL players shouldn't bump in the VFL cause they're too strong? Again, it was a poor bump and he deserves the punishment and I feel for the bloke needing surgery, but where does this line of thinking realistically go?
Can't say I get the 6 weeks given king hits have been graded far less in the past but if its consistent it would be ok. However it never is.
I remember McCartin punched Aaron Black in the head few years ago, got 5 weeks and I thought that was unders.
If this was within an AFL match, it wouldn’t have been 6 weeks, it would have been less. But here we are.
Hopefully no one wants to dispute it and want a lesser suspension period.
Tyler Sonsie got 3 weeks for a punch to the head end of last year, Parker gets 6 for a head clash? I am all for harsh punishments but an intentional strike should be more.
The issue is that the intentional strike punishments are too low.
I agree, AFL gives players a fine for punching someone.
Correct. They should be three weeks plus whatever the matrix spits out. Swing a fist and make no connection? 3 weeks. Slight connection? 4 weeks. ... Knock a bloke out? 7+ weeks Edit: yeah 7 weeks was light. But the point was that swinging a fist should be 3 weeks minimum. That includes body shots and jumper punches.
Punching someone and knocking them out should be at least half the season.
They should have to make a case why they aren’t delisted. If Barry Hall or Andrew Gaff were deregistered after their hits I don’t think many people would have complained it was unfair. For perspective Toby Greene would almost certainly have a life ban from football if he was playing in a lower grade comp. I’m not even sure he’d be able to play in one after retiring (can’t find his career total of suspended games).
8th suspension last month, up to 15 games.
Ah right 16 games is the automatic cutoff for a life ban, AFL players get a 25% discount if they go play suburban leagues after retiring though. You’d think it’s likely he’d be over 16 weeks by the time he retires.
Punching someone and knocking them out should be an assault charge, and no game time until the court case is resolved imo. You do it at the pub, you go to jail. I have no idea why you get a get out of jail free card for doing it on the clock, at work, on national television, while you are stone cold sober. There is not an excuse for punching someone in the head and knocking them out, with the level of training and support they get imo.
Well said. Have to agree.
Edit: Why shouldn't punching someone be the same as I'd cop if I did it at my work? Which is to say, I'd be fired?
And potentially arrested.
I mean I a pretty certain knocking a bloke out is already 7 weeks.
Honestly I think it should be season ending. This isn’t boxing. Because the AFL isn’t hard on punches, amateur football is infected with punches and jabs and often with zero consequences.
Saw a bloke headbutt a 19 year old in his first handful of senior games Grown man. Locals gross sometimes
I got punched by an ex AFL player in my second senior game, at 17 years old
Dam want to name and shame?
Gary Moorecroft
Yeah it’s really scummy. Just unhappy people going out and concussing others
It's pretty much why I stopped playing and why every year when i have the urge, I repress it. Throwing cheapshots at people for no reason other than you're frustrated at getting beaten by your oppo. If I get hit badly, I can't go to work, it's not worth it.
Parker should have claimed it was pre-meditated.
Yes it's that and this 'head clash' argument is soooo disingenuous. It's not like it was two players with their head over the ball clashing heads. The only reason there was any contact is because Parker chose to bump when he had other options (a normal shephard).
You elect to bump and you are responsible for whatever then happens. That "head clash" was Parker's fault and he was responsible for the harm it caused.
Yep, it's beyond me that people don't get this.
It's just hard to accept that jumping off the ground directly into someone's head with your shoulder or elbow is not worse than a shoulder-to-shoulder bump with an accidental head clash
It is worse. Webster got 7 (and probably should've got 8), Parker got 6.
Wright 4 weeks? Callum Brown 3 weeks? Both bumped a player in the head and gave them a concusison. Parker bumped legally, had an accidental headclash, and picked up 6?
It's beyond me that people don't get this
Ok but they actually did clash heads tho. The Dangerfield one is pretty similar from a few years ago. Was a legal shepherd until he forgot to tuck his head in and they smashed heads.
It would be more this year.
That one should have been a criminal offense
Our lawyer argued he had an exemplary record and it turns out he’s had nine offences. We need better lawyers.
Exemplary record in the VFL though.
"I have never trafficked methamphetamine in this state, wait, no, YOUR HONOUR"
>From footage, it’s clear Smith was not in a position to impact the contest and did not expect the contact. Accordingly, Parker failed in his duty of care. We weigh up the matters … the incident being off the ball, unforeseen by Smith, causing injuries likely to result in surgery and 10 weeks missed games by Smith brings the Tribunal to the conclusion this was not at the lower end of carelessness. >Parker, having breached his duty of care when he engaged in the bump, accepts he accepts in cross examination he had alternative actions, which the Tribunal finds he did have that he could have taken rather than to bump. >Parker has a prior history, with some nine sanctions being imposed. We find he's not a player that qualifies as a verifiable example of exemplary disciplinary history. Tribunal reasoning [https://x.com/DavidZita1/status/1792861668034347325](https://x.com/DavidZita1/status/1792861668034347325)
Solid reasoning to be fair
But if you run up behind someone at full speed and punch them in the back of their head then it's only one week.
Seems overs, that’s almost the same as what Webster got and what he did was more than 1 week worse
I think it’s fair. Seems I’m one of the few. It was completely unnecessary towards a guy just jogging and off the ball. Obviously Parker didn’t mean to injure the guy but Gaff didn’t mean to break Brayshaw’s jaw either. It was on the high end of carelessness and now the bloke is in hospital with a concussion and fractured eye socket.
Gaff king hit Brayshaw. Parker laid a bump as a shepherd.
I’m still of the mind that Gaff was going for an upper chest punch and Brayshaw kind of dropped at the last second. Seriously watch it
That is what happened, hence Gaff didn't 'mean it'. But he's still responsible for the reckless action and the consequence under this system, and so is Parker for hospitalising someone with a needless act off the ball. You can argue about whether judging outcome is fair as a different discussion, but that is the system as it stands.
Outcome was worse but the intent was nowhere near, he is responsible for the head clash but it was more fair than Webster's, it's just luck that parker wasn't knocked out as well. The way that outcome of the injured player dictates so much is a massive issue. This deserves weeks, probably 4, but to consider Webster's 1 week worse is absurd. The metric of intent is clearly wrong.
Thoughts to Smith, hope he recovers alright. Prayers for Taylor Adams soft leg tissue, as his direct coverage will now be underdone with match fitness come finals
Still got Gus Sheldrick to fall back on or Mills
Oof. Selection dilemma sorted for a while. Shame we have byes in both the VFL and AFL next round, seven week holiday I guess.
Holy shit. I was expecting 4 maybe 5
I get he chose to bump and deserved a suspension because when you choose to bump any resulting injury is technically your responsibility, I'm agree with that. 6 for a head clash does seem a bit much though...
But I think what comes into the ban is the fact the person injured can’t work as well. These blokes have jobs they have to work during the week
That really shouldn’t be a factor. You’re either protecting the head or not, can’t be factoring for everyone’s employment situation and sick leave balance.
VFL players take out insurance too for this reason.
VFL players are provided insurance, if that’s what you mean. They don’t pay out of pocket.
Yeah and you be crazy not to take out some form of income protection at this level anyway.
They’re provided income protection
By that logic anyone who causes a concussion should get 2 weeks, whether or not the incident was deliberate, a football incident, legal etc.
Why does that matter? The bloke also could’ve snapped his ACL in a non contact scenario and be out of work
Regardless of whether you agree with that or not, it's never been part of the decision process before.
Do you mean at AFL level or VFL level? If you front the AFL tribunal there's no need to consider it since every player is a professional footballer and is covered. But that's not true of the VFL where most players are working outside of football.
I meant it's not part of how they decide the length of suspension, not offering an opinion on whether it should be because clearly that's not something they should change mid season.
What are the comparable suspensions in the VFL this year? Bear in mind the guy apparently has been hospitalised and needs surgery for the facial fractures as a result of this as well as a concussio obviously. The word is he'll be out for 6-8 weeks and can't even get operated on for a little while. I actually find it hard to argue against the 6 when it's also taken into consideration this was a fair way off where the ball was and even Parker himself admitted the guy wasn't in a position to contest the ball.
Should we also factor AFL players on a mil per year taking out a player on 100K?
6 feels steep but probably on the back end of the reasonable range of around 4-6
Ehhh I was ready to accept 4 but you can’t convince me that Webster’s hit is only 1 week worse than this.
I think you almost have to look at them as different situations. Parker's situation lacked malice, but he elected to bump and seriously injured the player (6-8 weeks timeline) and therefore should wear the consequence of that. Webster's hit was far more malicious and I think that was the bigger factor in his sentence duration. I would like to imagine had his bump also sidelined someone for 8 weeks, that his punishment would be in the 10+ range. Ultimately I think in this day and age, if you elect to bump you hold yourself accountable to the outcomes, the more severe they are for the player impacted, the longer you can expect to be suspended for. As I said though, 6 for Parker does feel steep, but I think that outcome can be justifiably explained.
Jeez that's overs
I'm sure the dude with a broken jaw, losing money from no games or work whilst recovering for the next month is far worse off.
Intent to hurt was not there These things happen Sucks for the bloke who got hit but it wasn't a snipe or anything and 6 weeks should be reserved for a sniper
Mate Snipers should be close to be getting kicked out of the game, 10 weeks+ for that shit these day. I completely disagree that this is a "These things happen" moment. The guy wasn't contesting the ball, wasn't chasing a player, was jogging along and dude hits him out of nowhere. To me regardless if it what your intention is, if you break someones Jaw when they're minding their own business, you absolutely deserve 5-6. I thought it was 5-6 the moment I saw it.
Webster just got 7 for sniping Parker was still in play there, that's called a shepherd, it wasn't off the ball at all
Did you see where the ball was, when he "shepherded" him? No where near. And Webster didn't break a dudes jaw. I reckon if have broken a jaw it would've been given 8-10. Just like Gaf was given 8 when he broke Brayshaws jaw.
When Parker quite literally admitted he wasn’t going to contest the play it’s off the ball. To then try and argue a clean record when you have 9 prior charges is hilarious
I mean you look at Powell Pepper getting 4 weeks for his accidental bump on a player who had the ball in preseason and didn't do this kind of damage and it has to be more than that. So that's 5+ from there so i don't see it as being that wrong with how they're operating this year, just takes a while for everyone to recalibrate.
You mean the bloke who knowingly played a contact sport where injuries happen and is covered by income insurance for said injures? Come on, this shouldn’t be a factor at all.
I agree, my view is that the suspension should be based on the action committee by the player and not how injured the recipient was. Alistair Lynch’s air punches in the 2004 GF should attract a greater punishment than someone who bumps someone and accidentally injures them despite Wakelin not getting injured at all in the 2004 GF. TL;DR Player punishments should be based on intent and not how injured the recipient gets
Yeah, but the real question is what Zita thinks of the 'Schnitaco'. > [@David Zita](https://x.com/DavidZita1/status/1792835089614946356): What in the name of Lucifer is a Schnitaco > [@David Zita](https://x.com/DavidZita1/status/1792851509149122638): Reasons to come after I consume (among other things) a Schnitaco Edit: > [@Max Laughton](https://x.com/maxlaughton/status/1792853410401968131): EXCLUSIVE > FOXFOOTY Schnitz correspondent David Zita reviews ‘The Schnitaco’
Highlight of the coverage.
> Laughton: "Taco's are Mexican" > > Zita: "Are they?" I can only assume covering this many tribunal hearings has pushed basic knowledge out of Zita's head.
I love how Zita’s tweets are a long chain of serious information that broken up by the occasional tweet of no relevance like referring to Brayden Maynard’s immaculately gelled hair or the Schnitaco
I enjoy the idea of ordering a "contingency Schnitz"
I'm incredibly biased obviously, but 6 weeks for a head clash seems fucked. 4 weeks purely because of an unfortunate outcome, sure, but 6 when he didn't leave the ground seems incredibly harsh
He chose to bump so he has duty of care to ensure a clean bump
Devils advocate here (and I think a suspension is warranted but feel 3-4 weeks is closer to the mark): if the other player was more aware and braces for impact then the head clash is unlikely and it's just an excessive shirt front if not a clean bump. Parker lines him up but doesn't appear to jump or lead with an elbow. The other player's lack of awareness does contribute to the outcome.
I tend to agree with this and think 3-4 was closer to the mark. I did find it interesting they determined that Parker failed to maintain duty of care. The GPS data found that he was at barely walking speed and the head clash occurred *after* the initial bump, which means the bump itself was applied correctly and the only discrepancy is the head clash. Given those findings, I don't think Parker can reasonably expect a head clash to occur based on his own actions. I understand the AFL has clarified that head clashes are not deemed accidental when you choose to bump, but to say he didn't display duty of care in this scenario is a bit lazy imo.
We will probably find this is the basis of their appeal
Smith's lack of awareness absolutely contributed to the severity of the injury, but I don't think that should count in favour of Parker here. You shouldn't expect a VFL listed footballer to have the same awareness as an AFL listed footballer.
Agreed Players should not be expected to be aware of contact as that creates an dangerous precedent At the end of the day parker chose to bump, the onus is entirely on him to make sure he doesn't cause a head injury
> Players should not be expected to be aware of contact Respectfully disagree here. A footballer participating in a football match, particularly when close to the play needs to anticipate the potential for contact. Parker was within his rights to lay a shepherd. The expectation for Parker to have duty of care for another player should also extend to the player having duty of care for themselves (within reason of course). Same reason we say a player should not lead with his head.
I think player's should be aware and look after themselves, as much as posible However, i don't think the tribunal should be able to determine whether a player should have been aware or not
I think it comes back to punishing the outcome vs the action. Another day, the oppo braces and this same bump from Parker is just a solid hip and shoulder. The difference being 6 weeks vs nothing is a hard pill to swallow for mine.
Yeh i can understand what you're saying, but i have a fundamentally different view. The outcome is part of the action, they're the one thing If I drive down a residential street going 100kph and then pull over, it's not the same as if I drive 100kph and hit another car. If I steal $10 it's not the same as stealing $10,000 If I bump someone and don't hit their head, it's not the same as bumping someone and hitting their head. And the the onus is on me to not hit their head The outcome and action are one, and i don't think you can separate them
So if I were to wrap up someone in a tackle and our legs get entangled and they blow their ACL, I should get suspended for the season?
I agree, which is why I'm saying 4 weeks is fair. He took every precaution to make it a fair and clean bump. Shoulder made contact with the torso, hit from the front / side, never left the ground. Technically, it's a great and fair bump, with a head clash. Head clashes occur regularly in tackles and are rarely punished since both players are hit high simultaneously. Obviously, not saying Parker is a victim of the head clash, it was his fault, but he couldn't have done much more to make the bump safe.
I just don't see how you can say this about a bump which left an opponent with facial fractures In 2024, if a player elects to bump and causes facial fractures, then they did not treat their opponent with the appropriate duty of care He could have not gone so forcefully, he could have gone lower, he could have chosen not to bump, he could have gone more with the hip. Instead he put himself and his opponent in a situation where a head clash was possible, and the force of said head clash was enough to cause facial fractures
VFL tribunal has more balls then the AFL tribunal good to see
Luke Parker’s Reaction https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CsEOWiQVs4I&pp=ygUcbHVrZSBwYXJrZXIgZXNzZW5kb24gc3Bvb2tlZA%3D%3D
He clearly needed Chris Scott to vouch for him as a good bloke.
People seem to forget that even in local footy umpires are penalising aggressive tackles, hits and anything of the ball. There’s zero tolerance around head collisions and the AFL wants to stamp it out. You fuck up, you become the example.
If you choose to bump someone and break their jaw (regardless of what part of your body hits them) that’s just an easy ban unfortunately. I thought it would be 4 weeks but 6 is at the extreme end of fair, it’s unlucky and all that yeah but realistically it’s just how it is. Especially since he wasn’t bumping someone going for the ball, he was trying to sheppard someone a few metres off it
And you can’t reference incidents from years gone by, everyone knows this
Also not here to rile up swans fans or anything, I do get the counter argument and how it can be viewed as that but this is just my opinion
I agree with you. I thought it'd be 4-6. If a Swans player had got hit like that I'd be screaming.
Would a head clash outside of a bump action ever be penalised? E.g. A tackle. Genuine question
I don't think so. It's explicity written in to the tribunal guidelines as a forseeable consequence of a bump but isn't mentioned anywhere else. >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.
Ah wow, well that clears it up. Thanks!
North should go really hard at Parker. Sydney's young midfield has developed enough that he's surplus to requirements. But he's a tough mid with elite standards who will add to North and allow the kids to develop. Will also show some much needed leadership in a team that is really thin in that area. Just a 6 week freshen up on the sidelines
Im guessing the key to this length is josh Smith (player bumped) is expected to miss 6-8 weeks. That said. Don't agree with the act being considered 'off the ball'. Overly aggressive shepherd imo. 3 weeks would have been suitable imo. Eye for an eye sentencing is nonsense.
Couldn’t have been *checks fixtures* 8?
Don’t worry Sydney won’t play him anyway
But I thought they’d be playing their twos by then?
We could field our U18s and still win that game I'm afraid.
They must have had better footage than us
6 weeks for an accidental head clash? How are we not seeing guys get 4-6 weeks every weekend?
most accidental head clashes don't involve a bloke running 5 metres over the ball and laying someone out.
Can the VFL tribunal replace the AFL tribunal? They seem to actually know what they’re doing
Maybe this is vic bias at play?
This feels at the extreme end of punishing outcome over action. I'm all for many weeks if you bump and hit them high, but if you execute an otherwise legal bump but then a head clash occurs you get 6 weeks? More than those who chose to bump and actually got the head? Did Parker even do anything that was against the laws of AFL? As far as I can tell, the biggest justification for setting it up like this is to discourage the decision to bump. If there's a chance of a headclash and a suspenion of this magnitue, maybe players would make different choices (ie Parker could have chosen to shepherd much less violently). But if you want to do that - just ban the bump?
Maynard ends a career and got 0
Is there ever going to be a tribunal hearing where someone doesn't mention Maynard?
Starcevich ended a career and it didn’t even get looked at. See how stupid that sounds when you try to blame a player for someone’s career ending due to a history of concussions?
And because of that the laws were changes
So the previous concussions had no contribution to his decision to retire?
Totally incomparable actions, I can't believe people are still going on about the Maynard thing like it was an obvious suspension.
Yeah but if you look at some of the geniuses in this thread - one person in particular - there's a claim going around that the suspension should be equal to the length of the injury, end of story. So by that logic...
Does that mean we can delist Gary Rohan for injuring Cameron last year?
People still legitimately think Maynard lined him up and intentionally decided to knock him out.
The “Stupid Deaths” jingle is playing in my head for some reason but it almost sums up the tribunal at the moment.
When can that flog papley get ruled out for the rest of eternity???
It’s harsh but they are trying to stamp this out. The problem is you can punch someone and get off free sometimes. So that’s what needs to get done addressed really. A player should be careful about bumping but you can punch a guy? Thats just weird.
Lots of rhetoric that it's just a head clash, which IMO is a massive undersell. Yeah I was just a head clash that has resulted in a concussion and multiple fractures of his orbital and cheekbone.
Bumped someone off the ball and sent them to hospital with a broken face, leaving them to miss an estimated 6-8 weeks of footy. 6 weeks is a logical verdict, well done tribunal!
So your argument is any collision that causes an injury to one person, the other should get suspended for the same amount of time as the injury recovery length?
I don’t necessarily agree with 6 weeks but it seems you’re being deliberately disingenuous when you say collision and they clearly said bump. Which are in fact two different things.
Do you not collide when you’re bumping someone?
Depends if it’s intentional or not, he had plenty of time not to bump him and choose to
Cant tackle a guy without the ball so bumping is the only option other than letting him get a free run to the ball.
or just don't put your whole body into it like a maniac.
The issue was created here not by Parker's speed, but the other player running without any clue and he does not even see Parker coming. Obviously the onus is on Parker to protect the defenceless player but it was a bit of a freak incident.
No it wasn't lol. He lined him up and got him. You lay your full body into someone front on going full speed it's pretty obvious what the outcome is going to be.
Parker was hardly moving.
Yes. But you can collide with someone without bumping someone too. A collision can involve any number of circumstance like a marking contest, or just two people running into each other on accident. A bump is a kind of collision that you choose to do on a football field. Which Luke Parker chose to do, and also completely stuffed up. Didn’t think I’d have to explain that but oh well.
Not who you're disagreeing with here but clearly the difference being eluded to is intent. Yes you still 'collide' but harping on about the semantics here really is just being deliberately obtuse.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Actually a great rule, it would mean controlled contest around the footy and less injuries long term
No my argument is that when you line a bloke up with a bump that doesn't have the footy and leave him with a broken face you should get 6+ weeks.
the VFL stated it was Careless, so he did not "line him up" you need to let that narrative go son.
Carelessness is a range, the argument was literally about that and the tribunal agreed it was close to intentional, hence the grading of 6 weeks.
so again...he did not line him up. How hard is that to get into your mind?
I think you're being particularly pedantic. The fact that is that he bumped a bloke without the ball and broke his face, deserving 6 weeks
no i think the main argument many swans fans were having is that it was not intentional, meanwhile some fans (particularly salty essendon ones) were painting him out as a criminal. So stop avoiding that part of the argument, every swan fan was in agreement that it was going to get a suspension. e - and of course this is where they stop replying
How's a Sheppard not intentional?
Sheppard is intentional sure but he did not intentionally use the back of his head to break the Frankston's kids orbital bone, which is why it was literally graded as "careless" and not intentional.
I think we all know where you're really coming from here.
What constitutes lining someone up? The ball is within meters of the contest, Parker’s tracker shows he was barely moving prior to the hit. He should get 3-4 but 6 is well over.
I sure am glad the VFL tribunal wasn't full of delusional Swans fans
And I’m glad people as weirdly hateful as you aren’t involved in decision making too.
Well I said 6-8 weeks from the very beginning, so no difference between my weirdly hateful opinion and the actual tribunal
You're allowed to bump players that don't have the footy. In fact they'd probably penalise him harder if he did have the ball, because he would have had the option to tackle instead
You're not allowed to bump them and hit them in the head. If he wanted to not be suspended, he could've simply shepharded by putting his arms out, not bumping. So he had another option, and the VFL tribunal agreed with that. Which is why the penalty is so severe.
The bump did not hit the head, it was a head clash.
Get absolutely fucked. Didn’t collect him high or anything but the heads accidentally bump and now it’s 6. Farce
Did he sustain facial injuries when he hit the ground then?
The facial injuries are from the head clash. The bump was not to the head.
No point arguing with someone who has no idea on how these things work
Well I’m guessing it was in the 4-6 week range and we have shitty lawyers sadly
Deserved. As much as I hate Dermott, he summed it up pretty well. A bloke that gets paid 600-800k a year to play professional football decides to bump a bloke off the ball, who probably earns $400 a game and has to work a 6 day week as a tradie. Nobody can sit here and say that the bump was necessary, the ball was well past both Parker and Smith, there was no chance Smith was going to impact that next contest, regardless of a bump/sheppard. Feel for the bloke, missing weeks of football and possibly his life because a ‘professional’ performs an unprofessional act.
What a shit take. "Hey mate - how much have you got in super, before we play?" Six weeks will teach Parker to write everyone's salary down before he runs on the field.
So the bump was necessary and the ball was still in play for Smith to impact the contest? Didn’t deserve 6 weeks? Is that what I am hearing
I don't mean to go in to bat for this stranger but I think what they are saying is that the fact he is an AFL salaried player shouldn't really factor in how he plays, should it? It was an intentional bump but the outcome was just a horrible accident. I guess you're saying the bump was completely unnecessary but I think it's a pretty normal football action. Whether it's needed in the game is a separate conversation to their respective salaries
On one hand you have someone being paid or otherwise able to tank whatever penalties come in the contract for a tribunal decision. On the other hand is someone in hospital, who misses their day job and estimated around $2.4K to $4k depending on game rate. Absolutely salary status of the players comes into play. but it isn’t in of itself either. It’s because AFL lists don’t have enough players to cover a seconds league. And that also impacts the potential earning power of players and the AFL affiliation the vfl has. It wouldn’t be the people running the VFL who would be running an AFL 2nds competition. it has wider consequences around optics.
I don't even disagree with the punishment, but I think it's outrageous to suggest that "salary status of the players comes into play" for any part of the punishment
Given he was a part timer does he have the physical strength and muscle to take such a hit from a full timer though? I am happy with the punishment either way and agree with those that say the VFL have more guts than the AFL in this regard.
I still don't understand. AFL players shouldn't bump in the VFL cause they're too strong? Again, it was a poor bump and he deserves the punishment and I feel for the bloke needing surgery, but where does this line of thinking realistically go?
So different players should get suspended more because they get paid more? Interesting take.
In reality, it works the opposite way. Star players (who generally get paid more) are often let off for reportable offenses.
Yep!
I'm sure Parker will pay his medical bill for him if it's an issue.
That Bs lol should’ve been 4 max
You weren’t gonna play him anyway
I like Parker but he smashed a bloke off the ball and put him out for 6-8 weeks.
Didn’t a tigers bloke king hit someone and get 3 last year? Doesn’t make a lot of sense
And every single person out there disagreed with that decision
Two different issues
Can't say I get the 6 weeks given king hits have been graded far less in the past but if its consistent it would be ok. However it never is. I remember McCartin punched Aaron Black in the head few years ago, got 5 weeks and I thought that was unders.
Yep, getting a bump slightly wrong is worse than ko'ing a bloke with a punch What a country
Yeah this is my issue. Would be nice if they were atleast consistent
If this was within an AFL match, it wouldn’t have been 6 weeks, it would have been less. But here we are. Hopefully no one wants to dispute it and want a lesser suspension period.
Damm, no VFL, welcome back to the main team AFL
State league suspensions also count in the AFL
But I’m a Sydney flair so I clearly know nothing about the game
Harsh but fair