Webster appalling

[Moods]

Forgive me for sniffing the raw stench of hypocrisy again.

Now Webster was stupid and deserves to be rubbed out.

But it wasn't long ago that Thug Maynard ironed out Brayshaw in a career-ending act and got ... absolutely no penalty.

Now the same geniuses who claimed that was "a defensive action" are howling for an 8-10 week penalty for Webster.

They will get their wish.

And ten weeks down the track a player from a more powerful club will do exactly the same and get 4 weeks.

[shrodes]

Forgive me for sniffing the raw stench of hypocrisy again.

Now Webster was stupid and deserves to be rubbed out.

But it wasn't long ago that Thug Maynard ironed out Brayshaw in a career-ending act and got ... absolutely no penalty.

Now the same geniuses who claimed that was "a defensive action" are howling for an 8-10 week penalty for Webster.

They will get their wish.

And ten weeks down the track a player from a more powerful club will do exactly the same and get 4 weeks.

Again... the AFL changed the rules after the Maynard bump/smother as it wasn't punishable before (hence, no punishment).

the AFL has acted after a Commission meeting on Monday, with the change for smothers meaning that when a player leaves the ground in an attempt to make a smother, the player's act will be deemed careless at a minimum "unless the player has taken all reasonable steps to avoid that high contact and/or minimise the force of that high contact (for example, by adopting a body position that minimises the force of the high contact)".

"We weren't comfortable with the outcome of the tribunal and the changes today are taking steps to change that," AFL football boss Laura Kane said after the changes were announced on Tuesday.

But the Maynard bump has zero bearing on this incident as Webster clearly wasn't trying to smother the ball. Let's try comparing apples to apples

[SaintWiki]

“I deeply regret my actions in yesterday’s game. I’ve reached out to Jy and cannot understate my remorse. My thoughts are with Jy and his family, and I hope he has a speedy and successful recovery. I fully recognise the importance of protecting players' heads and in this instance, I failed to meet that much-needed standard. I will present to the Tribunal and understand there will be consequences for my actions.”

- Jimmy Webster

... But on and on it goes. Most of us realised that Jimmy was in deep s*** straight away and those who didn't see that have been bombarded by the media anyway. Then we still get supporters that seem to think some of us are not capable of understanding the situation without the 'rub him out' messages being repeated over and over for days and days ...

[BringBackMadDog]

So if Simpkin plays R1 is is worth 6 or 8 that the Media are screaming for?

It seems now that outcome is no longer pertinent?

As long as the AFL are consistent from here on in .... no issue from me

Unfortunately, the "outcome" may not be known for a few years yet. I love Jimmy Webster, but these acts have to be removed from the game otherwise we won't have a game to watch soon.

[cwrcyn]

Agreed Bringbackmaddog

The important thing here is to give a big penalty and then use it properly as a precedent for future incidents. If the AFL fails in that consistency from this point forward it will leave it open to future Legal action from players. I can just see it now in court. "You had the opportunity to be consistent with your deterrents, but by not doing so you left footballers with a belief that they could potentially get away with these incidents with little or no penalty"

I know it's our player here, but this has to be a line in the sand moment. Enough is enough. Player's futures are at risk and we've seen what happened to Paddy McCartin, Angus Brayshaw, Justin Koschitzke, and a few other in recent times. If it's our club and our player who has to be at the centre of that turning point, then so bit.

Unfortunately, I hold little hope our AFL Tribunal maintaining consistency in application of the rules and penalties. They have failed us for decades. It's a sorry situation. Most of us on here would have done a far better job.

[Otiman]

The sooner the AFL removes the clubs abilities to bring legal cases to the tribunal the better. Remove the right to appeal as well.

Put the player(s) involved on the spot, that's it. No pre-prepared statements.

This way the intention of the rules can be enacted, without having to tie the game up in legalese rules.

[Life Long Saint]

The sooner the AFL removes the clubs abilities to bring legal cases to the tribunal the better. Remove the right to appeal as well.

Put the player(s) involved on the spot, that's it. No pre-prepared statements.

This way the intention of the rules can be enacted, without having to tie the game up in legalese rules.

Great sentiment and would have been good when it was a part time competition and not affecting livelihoods.
The fact is that AFL is now a workplace and not a recreational activity.
If you're going to affect people's ability to work, you need your rules, policies, and procedures to be air tight to hold up. If we don't allow a proper pathway for grievances, then all the cases will end up in court...And we don't want that.

[Vortex]

Agreed Bringbackmaddog

The important thing here is to give a big penalty and then use it properly as a precedent for future incidents. If the AFL fails in that consistency from this point forward it will leave it open to future Legal action from players. I can just see it now in court. "You had the opportunity to be consistent with your deterrents, but by not doing so you left footballers with a belief that they could potentially get away with these incidents with little or no penalty"

I know it's our player here, but this has to be a line in the sand moment. Enough is enough. Player's futures are at risk and we've seen what happened to Paddy McCartin, Angus Brayshaw, Justin Koschitzke, and a few other in recent times. If it's our club and our player who has to be at the centre of that turning point, then so bit.

Unfortunately, I hold little hope our AFL Tribunal maintaining consistency in application of the rules and penalties. They have failed us for decades. It's a sorry situation. Most of us on here would have done a far better job.

Giving Jimmy a lengthy suspension will not change anything while the game is designed to be a collision sport where contact can be expected from 360 degrees. There are so many more events in a game of AFL that cause head injuries.

If you are truly genuine in taking a stand as a supporter then you must give up supporting the AFL until the AFL completely redesign the game to mitigate ALL collisions capable of causing head trauma.

All of this brainwashed grandstanding by footy followers is exactly what the AFL have created to ensure the public place responsibility on the player rather than the AFL who know damn well the responsibility to re design the game is that of the AFLs. They know it and they will take their time doing it, possibly over many decades and only to protect their financial interests.

So please enough with running the knives into Jimmy to virtue signal on one of the most hypocritical issues an AFL supporter can grand stand on.

[skeptic]

The hysteria is very annoying

In terms of range, I’m hearing anything (from fans) from 4 weeks to 15 weeks + a police action.

Wasn’t the whole point of this grading system that we changed to to bring a bit of consistency to proceedings?

Based on what this has been for 5+ years… it’s a 4 week hit

[cwrcyn]

Vortex, no one is running knives into Jimmy as a virtue signalling exercise.

Remember the hit on Koschitzke by Giansiracusa? Absolutely appalling. One of worst things I've seen done to a player. And what happened? Everyone blamed the victim. And what was the impact on Kosi? Terrible. I was outraged like all St Kilda supporters, but I was more outraged at the AFL for not suspending Giansiracusa at the time. To me it was an 8 week penalty. He got nothing! As for Kosi, he missed 10 matches and was never the same again.

So....is that what you want?

It's not virtue signalling. What next? The 'W' word?

The reality is that the AFL has been a farce when it comes to this stuff, one example being the ridiculously soft penalty on Pickett last year when he turned himself into a human missile aimed at the head of Bailey Smith.

They talk the tough talk every preseason, yet when the real season starts they go weak at the knees and behave like dithering fools afraid to consistently make the hard call for fear of criticism from old thugs who bring out the old chestnut "it's a man's game"

[Ghost Like]

Vortex, no one is running knives into Jimmy as a virtue signalling exercise.

Remember the hit on Koschitzke by Giansiracusa? Absolutely appalling. One of worst things I've seen done to a player. And what happened? Everyone blamed the victim. And what was the impact on Kosi? Terrible. I was outraged like all St Kilda supporters, but I was more outraged at the AFL for not suspending Giansiracusa at the time. To me it was an 8 week penalty. He got nothing! As for Kosi, he missed 10 matches and was never the same again.

So....is that what you want?

It's not virtue signalling. What next? The 'W' word?

The reality is that the AFL has been a farce when it comes to this stuff, one example being the ridiculously soft penalty on Pickett last year when he turned himself into a human missile aimed at the head of Bailey Smith.

They talk the tough talk every preseason, yet when the real season starts they go weak at the knees and behave like dithering fools afraid to consistently make the hard call for fear of criticism from old thugs who bring out the old chestnut "it's a man's game"

Well said.

Webster's intent was to hurt a player, take a defenceless player out (in a practice game). Intellectually that is incredibly flawed. He was an important player for our backline, especially as Paton was out. He has not done his team mates or the club any favours. Simply stupid.

Webster was always known as being as hard as a cat's head. That was to do with his ability to put himself in danger to mark spoil or effect a tackle. Sunday's incident had nothing to do with being hard or tough. Anyone who believes others will hear footsteps are kidding themselves and it says more about them and how they played, if they played.

No AFL player will think twice about Jimmy being on the field because of that act. The one's who "hear footsteps" are those who have a decision to make. Simpkin had no decision other than to centre / dispose of the ball.

What else did Jimmy need to hear before Sunday's game to not do what he did? He will be made an example of. That should not be his legacy, but sadly, it may well be. His family have not helped.

I find what he did disgusting, others only find it disgusting when the St Kilda player was the recipient of the action.

If he gets 6, good luck to him. Jimmy has spoken of remorse, let's hope he knows why he's remorseful.

[Scollop]

This one didn't get weeks.

Times have changed.

And Webster’s action was worse, lucky he didn’t cause more damage.

That's a crock of manure mate. You and others continue to miss the point. CTE and concussion are the issue. Not whether one player does it within the play or not. Mackay deliberately and opportunistically took out a player. Stupidly...so did Jimmy.

Mackay inflicted multiple head fractures and caused a player to be concussed. When there is a very high probability of impact to the head, there is a responsibility on every player to exercise a duty of care or at least a certain degree of caution.

The impact from Mackay's action had the potential to cause a lot more damage and it did!! It was basically a head on collision with one guy having eyes only for the ball... while the other had a secondary intent.

The AFL has flip flopped for the last decade. No wonder Mackay got off. No wonder Maynard got off

[Scollop]

Incidentally...they won't ask Jimmy what his intentions were. I don't know why the fu*k they needed to ask Mackay.

He was obviously going to say he was going for the footy. Yes...he had some small chance of winning the ball...but HE KNEW he had a very high chance of knocking out Hunter Clark and giving his team a much better chance of winning the game

[Vortex]

Vortex, no one is running knives into Jimmy as a virtue signalling exercise.

Remember the hit on Koschitzke by Giansiracusa? Absolutely appalling. One of worst things I've seen done to a player. And what happened? Everyone blamed the victim. And what was the impact on Kosi? Terrible. I was outraged like all St Kilda supporters, but I was more outraged at the AFL for not suspending Giansiracusa at the time. To me it was an 8 week penalty. He got nothing! As for Kosi, he missed 10 matches and was never the same again.

So....is that what you want?

It's not virtue signalling. What next? The 'W' word?

The reality is that the AFL has been a farce when it comes to this stuff, one example being the ridiculously soft penalty on Pickett last year when he turned himself into a human missile aimed at the head of Bailey Smith.

They talk the tough talk every preseason, yet when the real season starts they go weak at the knees and behave like dithering fools afraid to consistently make the hard call for fear of criticism from old thugs who bring out the old chestnut "it's a man's game"

But you are missing the whole point, why does Jimmy have to be used to soothe the public luste for blood all the meanwhile being used as a scape goat when giving him an excessive penalty will not solve the problem of head trauma from a contact sport where you can expect contact from 360 degrees. There are so many examples that make my point, McCartin and Murphy the most recent, their head traumas were not all caused by illegal acts. You can sustain head traumas in the game from way more possibilities than illegal acts yet the AFL want the public to believe all responsibility lies with the player to rid the game of head trauma.

So as I say, if you are truly concerned for the welfare of AFL players then it is the game itself that is the biggest risk to head trauma so you are being a hypocrit by not comdeming the game of AFL and refusing to follow AFL as a sport.

Spewing froth and bubble at Jimmy is nothing more than virtue signalling to cleanse your concious.

And why are our own supportes wanting Jimmy to be used for a public stoning when it wont remove the source of the risk, all its doing is serving as a convenient distraction for the AFL by deflecting responsibility for removing all possible ways to sustain head trauma in the game.

An uncomfortable truth but it's reality and you need to understand you are being manipulated.

[Otiman]

No it's pretty simple, the AFL are the arbiter of who can and cannot play. If they decide a player is ineligible, then there's no reason why they should be allowed to play.

It takes significant cost from the soft caps of the teams, and compromises the intent of the rules.

How many times have players got off on technicalities when the action and intent was obvious?

[saynta]

This one didn't get weeks.

Times have changed.

And Webster’s action was worse, lucky he didn’t cause more damage.

That's a crock of manure mate. You and others continue to miss the point. CTE and concussion are the issue. Not whether one player does it within the play or not. Mackay deliberately and opportunistically took out a player. Stupidly...so did Jimmy.

Mackay inflicted multiple head fractures and caused a player to be concussed. When there is a very high probability of impact to the head, there is a responsibility on every player to exercise a duty of care or at least a certain degree of caution.

The impact from Mackay's action had the potential to cause a lot more damage and it did!! It was basically a head on collision with one guy having eyes only for the ball... while the other had a secondary intent.

The AFL has flip flopped for the last decade. No wonder Mackay got off. No wonder Maynard got off

Good post.

[Devilhead]

No issue with Jimmy being suspended as we have plenty of depth to cover

Suspensions can sometimes be blessing allowing a player rest and recuperation ...... its a long season

[Scollop]

Reported on 9 news that the AFL are pushing for an 8 week ban. St Kilda counsel arguing for 3 weeks

If he gets 8, I agree with Vortex. He's the AFL's scapegoat and people are being are hoodwinked that the AFL 'care' about player welfare

[cwrcyn]

Vortex, your logic is interesting.

The whole point of applying hard penalties is to make a deterrent to players who think they might want a bet each way when an opponent is in a vulnerable position.

The whole point is to eliminate these reckless and opportunistic hits on players who are not in a position to protect themselves.

This whole thing isn't about Jimmy Webster, it's about the welfare of all players now and in the future.

The AFL has been pathetic around this issue, and we've had players who've fallen victim to opportunistic and damaging hits ( the Clark reference is a good one). I'm calling out the AFL itself to finally get this right. That's all.

It is way overdue

[samuraisaint]

This one didn't get weeks.

Times have changed.

And Webster’s action was worse, lucky he didn’t cause more damage.

Times have changed - 2 years ago? Yeah, nah.

Worse? Really?? Last time I heard, Clark had his jaw broken. Pretty serious. How badly hurt is Simpkin?

I remember when this happened, the media was screaming 'Save The Bump' and when the transgressor got off, it was seen as a win for common sense.

I'm not saying Jimmy won't get weeks, but I'm also saying that there is a double standard at play.

[Vortex]

Vortex, your logic is interesting.

The whole point of applying hard penalties is to make a deterrent to players who think they might want a bet each way when an opponent is in a vulnerable position.

The whole point is to eliminate these reckless and opportunistic hits on players who are not in a position to protect themselves.

This whole thing isn't about Jimmy Webster, it's about the welfare of all players now and in the future.

The AFL has been pathetic around this issue, and we've had players who've fallen victim to opportunistic and damaging hits ( the Clark reference is a good one). I'm calling out the AFL itself to finally get this right. That's all.

It is way overdue

You are conveniently ignoring the fact the head trauma caused from non illegal football acts being the most common way a players sustains head trauma.

Why doesn't this concern you at all?

Yet you are convinced illegal acts like Jimmy's be given excessively long suspensions in the belief it will remove all harm to a players head

Don't get me wrong he should be penalised but don't carry on in such a self righteous manner to convince yourself Jimmy getting a few extra weeks to his illegal act will remove the hazard from the game, it wont even go close.

Hello Paddy McCartin.

[Otiman]

We can't argue the past, times have changed.

But we will certainly be up in arms if another Maynard incident gets off, or other players get lenient sentences.

[cwrcyn]

Okay Vortex.

Maybe it then comes down to adjusting the actual rules of the game. It would help

Ban all front on bumps immediately.

The only legal bump is a shoulder to shoulder, hip to hip bump when two players are pursuing the ball running in the same direction

In all other instances a player can only be pushed out of the way using the hands or tackled if he has possession of the ball

Apply these rule changes and the rate of concussions reduce dramatically

[Vortex]

We can't argue the past, times have changed.

But we will certainly be up in arms if another Maynard incident gets off, or other players get lenient sentences.

And so what about the players who sustain serious head trauma like Paddy, remind me how much or Paddy's head trauma was caused by illegal acts?

What about Brayshaw and Murphy? How many of their concussions were from non illegal acts?

[MC Gusto]

8 weeks