West block of Clarke v Baker on Farmer

[saintwill66]

Articles today in the Herald Sun by Mark Robinson and the Australian by Patrick Smith comparing the blocks by West and Baker and the resulting tribunal decisions warrants further action by all Saints supporters.

I intend to email the AFL today, and I urge as many of you as possible who feel likewise to do so as well. It is absolutely outrageous (and believe me, I'm normally midl-mannered!) that the AFL tribunal can be so blatantly inconsistent in their adjudication of 2 very similar incidents. Steven Baker was obviously penalised because of his short stature, because if he had been taller, like West, it is doubtful that Farmer would have suffered a blood nose because there would not have been head contact.

The inconsistency of these 2 decisions makes it imperative that the whole AFL tribunal system should be handed over to a totally independent panel - I have suggested in the past that the AFL Umpires body would be best qualified to deal with these matters, because if nothing else they can be truly deemed to be act impartially.

Interesting note on this subject is the suggestion discussed "On the Couch" for the player who makes contact occasioning the removal of a player from the game to also be benched for the duration that the injured player is off the field. A form of the ARL and soccer send-off rule that would be both appropriate and workable.

Contact the AFL and let them know that Saints supporters are agrieved by the inconsistency of the incidents cited above.

[my les foote]

In March last year the general manager of football operations at the AFL, Adrian Anderson, introduced new guidelines after Justin Koschitzke suffered a fractured skull when he was bumped by the Bulldogs' Daniel Giansiracusa the previous season.

Anderson said: "It's still fine to execute a legitimate hip and shoulder bump, that is here to stay as part of the game. But if a player suffers an injury to the head or neck from a bump and you had other options then you will be held responsible."

[Mr Magic]

I don't believe the 2 cases can be compared.

There was no vision of the Baker/Farmer clash and as such ther MRP could not adjudicate on it.
The AFL convened an 'Investigation' which, based on the evidence of a Freo trainer, referred it directly to teh Tribunal for adjudication.

West/Clarke was adjudicated by the MRP as 'no case to answer'.

We can and, IMO, should argue that the Triunal decision was a disgrace in that they were convened on a charge based on testimaony that was proved to be incorrect - the Freo trainer admitted under cross-examination that he didn't actually see the contact. The case should have been stopped there and then and dismissed as the only reason it had been brought on was found to be invalid.

The MRP decision, again IMO, is blatantly wrong when you look at the Rules of bothe the AFL and the MRP.

It will be interesting to see how many players avail theemselves of the West/Clarke precedent in future cases?

[bozza1980]

Interesting note on this subject is the suggestion discussed "On the Couch" for the player who makes contact occasioning the removal of a player from the game to also be benched for the duration that the injured player is off the field. A form of the ARL and soccer send-off rule that would be both appropriate and workable.

Hard to police because I would have thought that most people would believe that fair bumps should not result in a player being sent off. For example Guerra on Green in the opening minutes a few seasons back.

If you believe then that fair hits shouldn't be penalised, it would need to be left with the umpire to make the call and on Saturday they felt the hit was fair so it wouldn't have changed a thing.

[ratismeat]

Ox on SEN just pointed out based on TV vision:
distance from the ball 9-12 m
bulk of contact to body (i.e. rest to the head)
no elbow (who cares)
only took 4 steps to take the bump (who cares)

As Ox points out this was a clear case. West had a case to answer. Having had a look at the footage again I tend to agree.

[Richter]

I must admit that at the time I didn't think much of it. Now having seen the replay here...........




I'm inclined to think that at the very at least it was weak and gutless of West taking X out.

[Frankie Boy]

Been thinkin of that all week. BLOODY JOKE!!!!!

[St.Kenny]

Thye point made earlier about a player causing another players removal from the ground automatically necessitating their removal for the same duration is to put it mildly ridiculous and a mere red herring.
How would they determine if the knock was intentional ? (ie BAker Farmer)
Whats to stop a dud player pretending to be knocked out by a champion opposition player? This could lead to more acting.
Just journalistic office gossip[

[avid]

Interesting note on this subject is the suggestion discussed "On the Couch" for the player who makes contact occasioning the removal of a player from the game to also be benched for the duration that the injured player is off the field. A form of the ARL and soccer send-off rule that would be both appropriate and workable.

Hard to police because I would have thought that most people would believe that fair bumps should not result in a player being sent off. For example Guerra on Green in the opening minutes a few seasons back.

If you believe then that fair hits shouldn't be penalised, it would need to be left with the umpire to make the call and on Saturday they felt the hit was fair so it wouldn't have changed a thing.

A totally fair assessment in my opinion. How outraged would we be if a St Kilda player was pinged, or sent off, for such a minor shepherding incident?! If West were a saint, and the roles reversed, I'd be saying good work! (Perhaps with a slight sense of unease that it was relatively far off the ball -- but I tell ya I'd be making allowances!)

I booed geelong full throttle, and booed the umpires for not stopping the game, etc. But I'm not calling for the rules to be rewritten because of it. You have to test it first by how you'd feel in the reverse situation.

[Dan Warna]

yep, last year I thought beauty when farmer got dropped

couldn't believe baker got weeks for it.

baker admitted stopping and propping and letting farmer run into him.

i don't think baker will do anything like that again after this holiday, where as west has been given carte blanche to carry on.

i thought it was a good set up of x, high admittedly and gone for the head, and i would have thought worse than what farmer got.

so all we ask for is consistency.

baker = out for 4 weeks + 3 for for suspended sentences and carry overpoints
west = no charge good bump.

baker will never do it again, and west will, in fact you'd think after the baker incident the coaches would take that out of our game all together.

logic much?

[stinger]

for once smith has gotten it right....west's actions were illegal under the rules as they now stand....the afl match review committee is gutless.....


"
Panel found under carpet with a broom



Patrick Smith | April 16, 2008

THE community must feel concussed, fuzzy around the edges. It has been battered around the head with the image of Sydney's Barry Hall clocking his opponent so many times that even the most thick-headed of us must be seeing double.

Brent Staker, the poor West Coast player who had the temerity to niggle Hall, saw nothing at all. Just felt Hall's left fist smash him on the chin and knock him unconscious. Staker's eyes were rolling uncontrollably before he had even approached the horizontal.

The way the media picked up this moment and ran with it front and back pages, start and end of news broadcasts, spoke to relatives of villain and victim, suggest this was an incident out of the ordinary.

And it was. The AFL has worked diligently to take this thuggery from the game. The blow was as startling as it was despicable. Yet the moment has elements that has taken it from the sport pages to general news.

Hall is football's genuine colourful character. He had been suspended for 16 matches before last night's appearance before the AFL tribunal. He loves to box and is said to be very good at it. His left hook was not the work of an amateur. Staker was unprotected, an innocent and unsuspecting victim. And then there's the vision. The spin, the punch, the lolling eyes.

Mostly, the community has been disturbed because a player could be so violently assaulted on a football field. The fact that the incident happened behind the play and Staker had no chance to defend himself heightened the outrage.

That previously battered players were interviewed, relatives called Hall a mongrel, medical experts sought to diagnose the blow as potentially deadly, columnists and experts demanded capital punishment, have made this the biggest story of the season so far.

If it is the force of the blow, coupled with Staker's defenceless and unaware state that has driven this assault from a football yarn to one of wider community interest, then AFL football laws are ambiguous and hypocritical, as is the response of those who govern the game and those who follow it.

In the same round and on the same day as both Hall and Staker lost their senses, another footballer was concussed after being crunched when he was defenceless and oblivious that he was about to be struck.

St Kilda's Xavier Clarke was not participating in the play as he trailed the ball that was sent some 20 metres ahead of him in the match against Geelong. Yet he was knocked so heavily that he was concussed and taken from the ground on a stretcher. As he followed the ball he could have hardly expected contact yet the AFL has deemed it fair and appropriate that he be knocked stupid and removed from the ground.

As Clarke jogged up the ground Geelong's Trent West ran towards Clarke, striking him with his hip and shoulder. Some contact must have been made to the head because he was unable to walk off the ground and after the game St Kilda named him as an injured player suffering from concussion.

In March last year the general manager of football operations at the AFL, Adrian Anderson, introduced new guidelines after Justin Koschitzke suffered a fractured skull when he was bumped by the Bulldogs' Daniel Giansiracusa the previous season.

Anderson said: "It's still fine to execute a legitimate hip and shoulder bump, that is here to stay as part of the game. But if a player suffers an injury to the head or neck from a bump and you had other options then you will be held responsible."

Clearly, West was not made accountable when he cannoned into the unsuspecting Clarke.

In making its decision the match review panel made these observations: contact was not considered unnecessary in the circumstances as the bulk of the impact was to Clarke's body; West did not use his elbow as part of the contact; West did not leave the ground during his action, and West did not run a great distance to make contact.

By saying that the bulk of the contact was to Clarke's body, the match review panel acknowledges that some contact was made to the head. We figure that's why he was knocked unconscious. At no stage did the panel's published assessment consider whether the ball was within five metres - which it wasn't - or whether Clarke could have reasonably expected contact - which he couldn't.

These are two essential elements of what rule 15.4.4 deems to be a charge but on all published evidence the match review panel ignored them.

The difference might not be the nature of the offences or the brutality of them but the participants. Big Bad Boxing Barry Hall and the Sydney Swans - the AFL thought police are going to be very precious about that. But Trent West, a four-game novice? Where's the broom, where's the carpet? The match review panel has made a very poor decision. So poor that a perplexed St Kilda Football Club sought further explanation from the panel.

There is no justice at all if the public sees the sport administered according to profile and not to the rules and regulations of the league."

[fonz_#15]

im a big fan of the "rough stuff" in footy, but some of the cowardly acts on the weekend (namely hall and west) need too be harshly punished.

the fact that west got off makes my blood boil

[Hard at it]

im a big fan of the "rough stuff" in footy, but some of the cowardly acts on the weekend (namely hall and west) need too be harshly punished.

the fact that west got off makes my blood boil

He probably should have got 1-2 weeks due to it being more than 5m off the ball, and it was a tad too high, but cowardly is a bit strong, we are not playing netball.

[Dan Warna]

im a big fan of the "rough stuff" in footy, but some of the cowardly acts on the weekend (namely hall and west) need too be harshly punished.

the fact that west got off makes my blood boil

He probably should have got 1-2 weeks due to it being more than 5m off the ball, and it was a tad too high, but cowardly is a bit strong, we are not playing netball.

i thought 4 weeks was the standard for that incident

[rodgerfox]

im a big fan of the "rough stuff" in footy, but some of the cowardly acts on the weekend (namely hall and west) need too be harshly punished.

the fact that west got off makes my blood boil

He probably should have got 1-2 weeks due to it being more than 5m off the ball, and it was a tad too high, but cowardly is a bit strong, we are not playing netball.

Since when in netball is it 'tough' to polax someone who isn't looking?

[fonz_#15]

im a big fan of the "rough stuff" in footy, but some of the cowardly acts on the weekend (namely hall and west) need too be harshly punished.

the fact that west got off makes my blood boil

He probably should have got 1-2 weeks due to it being more than 5m off the ball, and it was a tad too high, but cowardly is a bit strong, we are not playing netball.

so you are suggesting that barry hall should have only got 1-2 weeks because it was more than 5 metres off the ball. hitting an unexpecting opponent for little reason is cowardly, and hopefully that prick west gets ironed out by a big bodied opponent this week.

[Hard at it]

im a big fan of the "rough stuff" in footy, but some of the cowardly acts on the weekend (namely hall and west) need too be harshly punished.

the fact that west got off makes my blood boil

He probably should have got 1-2 weeks due to it being more than 5m off the ball, and it was a tad too high, but cowardly is a bit strong, we are not playing netball.

so you are suggesting that barry hall should have only got 1-2 weeks because it was more than 5 metres off the ball. hitting an unexpecting opponent for little reason is cowardly, and hopefully that prick west gets ironed out by a big bodied opponent this week.

Comparing the Hall and West incidents is ridiculous. You cant be serious. When did i suggest Hall should get 1-2 weeks?

[Mr Magic]

The opposite to 'cowardly' is 'heroic' and I'd be a bit concerned that anybody would feel that 'the 'taking out' of an unsuspecting opponent is heroic (not cowardly).

[St. Luke]

for once smith has gotten it right....west's actions were illegal under the rules as they now stand....the afl match review committee is gutless.....


As Clarke jogged up the ground Geelong's Trent West ran towards Clarke, striking him with his hip and shoulder. Some contact must have been made to the head because he was unable to walk off the ground and after the game St Kilda named him as an injured player suffering from concussion.

Around and around we go. West never touched Clarkes head the ground touch Clarkes head - obviously the groundskeeper needs to be brought before the tribunal

in light of the incident the Saints have provided X with this superb piece of safety equipment!

AND one fo these:

[Hard at it]

The opposite to 'cowardly' is 'heroic' and I'd be a bit concerned that anybody would feel that 'the 'taking out' of an unsuspecting opponent is heroic (not cowardly).

Now everything is either cowardly or heroic. This is getting worse

[fonz_#15]

im a big fan of the "rough stuff" in footy, but some of the cowardly acts on the weekend (namely hall and west) need too be harshly punished.

the fact that west got off makes my blood boil

He probably should have got 1-2 weeks due to it being more than 5m off the ball, and it was a tad too high, but cowardly is a bit strong, we are not playing netball.

so you are suggesting that barry hall should have only got 1-2 weeks because it was more than 5 metres off the ball. hitting an unexpecting opponent for little reason is cowardly, and hopefully that prick west gets ironed out by a big bodied opponent this week.

Comparing the Hall and West incidents is ridiculous. You cant be serious. When did i suggest Hall should get 1-2 weeks?

well you mentioned the incident being 5 metres off the ball.

if you cant see that it was a disgusting dog act you obviously have poor vision of what is acceptable.

[Hard at it]

im a big fan of the "rough stuff" in footy, but some of the cowardly acts on the weekend (namely hall and west) need too be harshly punished.

the fact that west got off makes my blood boil

He probably should have got 1-2 weeks due to it being more than 5m off the ball, and it was a tad too high, but cowardly is a bit strong, we are not playing netball.

so you are suggesting that barry hall should have only got 1-2 weeks because it was more than 5 metres off the ball. hitting an unexpecting opponent for little reason is cowardly, and hopefully that prick west gets ironed out by a big bodied opponent this week.

Comparing the Hall and West incidents is ridiculous. You cant be serious. When did i suggest Hall should get 1-2 weeks?

well you mentioned the incident being 5 metres off the ball.

if you cant see that it was a disgusting dog act you obviously have poor vision of what is acceptable.

I said he probably should have got 1-2 weeks, and only because it looked a tad too high. If there wasn't any contact to the head then it is only a free kick at best. Calling it cowardly or comparing it to Barry Hall's incident is idiotic

[Iratedebate]

if you cant see that it was a disgusting dog act you obviously have poor vision of what is acceptable.

Disgusting dog act, you have to be kidding.

[fonz_#15]

if you cant see that it was a disgusting dog act you obviously have poor vision of what is acceptable.

Disgusting dog act, you have to be kidding.

ok then, i will have you stand with your back to me and i will run through you at 100mph and see how it effects you.

nothing tough about that at all

[fonz_#15]

im a big fan of the "rough stuff" in footy, but some of the cowardly acts on the weekend (namely hall and west) need too be harshly punished.

the fact that west got off makes my blood boil

He probably should have got 1-2 weeks due to it being more than 5m off the ball, and it was a tad too high, but cowardly is a bit strong, we are not playing netball.

so you are suggesting that barry hall should have only got 1-2 weeks because it was more than 5 metres off the ball. hitting an unexpecting opponent for little reason is cowardly, and hopefully that prick west gets ironed out by a big bodied opponent this week.

Comparing the Hall and West incidents is ridiculous. You cant be serious. When did i suggest Hall should get 1-2 weeks?

well you mentioned the incident being 5 metres off the ball.

if you cant see that it was a disgusting dog act you obviously have poor vision of what is acceptable.

I said he probably should have got 1-2 weeks, and only because it looked a tad too high. If there wasn't any contact to the head then it is only a free kick at best. Calling it cowardly or comparing it to Barry Hall's incident is idiotic

so a head high hit to an unsuspecting opponent isn't cowardly?

you have confirmed my suspicions that you are a tool.