ZAC VERDICT !!

[kosifantutti23]

I still don't know what people are appealing against. The "vibe" of the thing.

Here's the relevant piece that has been added to the rules this year, so it wasn't in play for the very similar Clarke / West incident last year.

Add the following dot point under relevant factors
'Rough Conduct'
It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally, recklessly
or negligently engage in rough conduct against an
opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable.
When determining whether or not the conduct was
unreasonable, consideration should be given, but not
limited, to whether the player is not, or would not
reasonably be, expected to influence the contest.

Tha ball had already been kicked. Symes was not influencing or could not influence the contest.

[Bernard Shakey]

We must appeal.

How on earth can a bump like that be classed reckless? It was a shepherd.

[degruch]

I thought it was a stupid decsion to challenge this in the 1st place.

I think the general concensus is that we HAD to appeal it, being such a blatantly ridiculous decision. I wouldn't be upset if we took it further, as the case warrants it...however, I think we'll be concentrating on the game this week from today.

I agree with the post that cited the possible effects on Zac's confidence and his style of play. Given those split seconds again, I would want him to flatten Symes all over, as it showed a dedication to team play that should be encouraged.

[Hurricane]

So a Hawthorn player can punch an opponent in the stomach and get away with it, not to mention Barry Hall punching anyone he wants and get a slap on the wrist but a St Kilda player is given 2 weeks for a shepherd?

Typical tribunal: Punch = ok, shepherd = suspension

BANG BANG

[LTN16]

This is absolute bullsh*t!!

Those clowns at the AFL Tribunal have not got a clue

Can someone please remind them it is a contact sport.. FFS

[St Fidelius]

Dawson's actions were reckless and unnecessary. The actions of the club by appealing were also reckless and unnecessary.

The ball had already been kicked and there was no way that Symes should be expecting contact.

For some reason, not the MRP's fault, an unnecessary bump is considered "Rough Conduct" and is penalised more harshly than a strike or a head butt. The MRP just applied the formula.

I still think they got the Steven King one wrong and that is the one that should have gone to the tribunal. This challenge was never going to be successful.

I somewhat disagree with that...

The umpire called play on and joey was standing still, at the moment of joey kicking the ball contact was made to Simes...

it is also a far different call from the kosi incident (even though the rules have been changed)

The Bulldogs player in that game was on the run with the ball and kosi was in no way going to catch him when he was collected.

In this case Joey was standing still and moved off the line and the umpire called play on and Symes, standing the mark was making a forward movement to add pressure on joey at the moment of kicking the ball Zac bumped into him to allow joey to have a clear kick.

Yes it was a hard bump and that is all, Simes was ready to tackle joey and Zac was there to avoid the tackle IMO

[St Fidelius]

Also....

If Simes was ready for the bump and protected himself would this be an issue??????????

So if a player is not ready for a bump the person that bumps him is liable ???

WHAT A FLOWERING JOKE!

[SainterK]

This is a kid that was remembered for a horror game playing on Rocca, that was too slightly built for his role and not defensive enough, and that couldn't get a game for Hawthorn.

What a turnaround.

Now Rocca cannot get a game, Hawthorn could certainly use him in their backline, and Zac is out for two weeks for rough conduct...

As much as I am annoyed at the decision, how I do love second chances!

[suss]

I take it that you've lifted the charge off the AFL website, kosifantutti23. I think you're being too 'black or white' with your assessment.

The expression 'rough conduct...which in the circumstances is unreasonable' could be interpretted in a multitude of ways to hang a player on a lesser charge one week and let go a more serious charge the next.

What's 'rough conduct'? Was Nick Maxwell's bump earlier in the year rough conduct? Broken jaw? Eight weeks?

And what's reasonable in the circumstances? The ball was a few metres away not 50 metres away ala Kingy a few weeks ago.

The interpretation is harsh for mine. A free kick? Sure. But two weeks? That's f'n laughable.

[maverick]

I take it that you've lifted the charge off the AFL website, kosifantutti23. I think you're being too 'black or white' with your assessment.

The expression 'rough conduct...which in the circumstances is unreasonable' could be interpretted in a multitude of ways to hang a player on a lesser charge one week and let go a more serious charge the next.

What's 'rough conduct'? Was Nick Maxwell's bump earlier in the year rough conduct? Broken jaw? Eight weeks?

And what's reasonable in the circumstances? The ball was a few metres away not 50 metres away ala Kingy a few weeks ago.

The interpretation is harsh for mine. A free kick? Sure. But two weeks? That's f'n laughable.

What would the free kick be for?
It wasn't high, the ball was within 5/10 metres, play on....

[Moccha]

It defies logic when compared to the Nick Maxwell shirtfront which resulted in an Eagles player suffering a broken jaw. If Maxwell can get off on appeal then Dawson will!

[LTN16]

This is a kid that was remembered for a horror game playing on Rocca, that was too slightly built for his role and not defensive enough, and that couldn't get a game for Hawthorn.

What a turnaround.

Now Rocca cannot get a game, Hawthorn could certainly use him in their backline, and Zac is out for two weeks for rough conduct...

As much as I am annoyed at the decision, how I do love second chances!

Yes and isn't it great to see. Every game I've seen him play this year I reckon I have seen him sit someone on their arse. Good to see him throwing his weight around and I hope this issue doesn't make him second guess himself from keeping on doing this in the future. Keep up the good work Zac

[St Fidelius]

Symes left the ground and returned 1 minute later and had a couple of possessions shortly afterwards...

What was the go with Bernie Vince in the same quarter (about 4 minutes later) bumping Roo into the boundary fence AFTER he had taken a mark and nothing at all happened, not even a 50???

[kosifantutti23]

I take it that you've lifted the charge off the AFL website, kosifantutti23. I think you're being too 'black or white' with your assessment.

The expression 'rough conduct...which in the circumstances is unreasonable' could be interpretted in a multitude of ways to hang a player on a lesser charge one week and let go a more serious charge the next.

What's 'rough conduct'? Was Nick Maxwell's bump earlier in the year rough conduct? Broken jaw? Eight weeks?

And what's reasonable in the circumstances? The ball was a few metres away not 50 metres away ala Kingy a few weeks ago.

The interpretation is harsh for mine. A free kick? Sure. But two weeks? That's f'n laughable.

It is a matter of interpretation, but in an appeal you would have to prove that their interpretation is wrong. When I saw it live, I thought he was in trouble.

This whole thing would have gone away if it wasn't for this ridiculous category of rough conduct. I don't know what other types of incidents it is supposed to capture but the penalties are way too high for a bump. Both Zac and Kosi were graded as level 2 offences but Zac got 225 points to Kosi's 125 points because Zac's was classified as "Rough Conduct" but Kosi was only "striking". If Zac had been charged with striking he could have taken a reprimand.

The one they should have challenged was King. He was charged with intentional high contact and high impact when he applied a hip and shoulder. He had no intention of making high contact or high impact so it should have been negligent or reckless.

[jonesy]

Simply pathetic.

Lucky we're undefeated on top,otherwise I'd be outraged and dribbling on about how the AFL have destroyed the game.

[saint75]

As pissed off as I am about this decision (only just starting to cool off now), I think it is best left alone. The team and the club don't need the distraction. The verdict won't be changed now, what's done is done. It may make you and I feel better if the club fight it, but it won't change a damn thing and the team need to concentrate on the bigger prize. The Flag.

The more obstacles thrown at us, the better the team play. They have risen above everything that has been thrown at them this year. Make no mistake, this is an even greater motivator for them to win this week and if I was the bulldogs, I would be shaking in my boots about Saturday night. The Saints will come out hard and tough. I can't wait!!!!

[Enrico_Misso]

I only saw the replay once.
It appeared there was no contact with the head.


So can someone explain how this differs from when Xavier copped a bump off the ball last season (or it might have been 2007).
He had trouble getting to his feet and was clearly more impacted than Symes was.
There was no suspension (I forget who the player was that applied the bump) because the tribunal argued that X should have been expecting a bump.

It is this lack of consistency that really p1sses me off.

[saintbrat]

I only saw the replay once.
It appeared there was no contact with the head.


So can someone explain how this differs from when Xavier copped a bump off the ball last season (or it might have been 2007).
He had trouble getting to his feet and was clearly more impacted than Symes was.
There was no suspension (I forget who the player was that applied the bump) because the tribunal argued that X should have been expecting a bump.

.

it wasn't differant BUT because of X's incident the RULE was CHANGED-- same with the kosi bump

BTW has anyone noticed that Gia has been out for some weeks and will continue to be Whilst Kosi has been doing some of his best work this year

[degruch]

So can someone explain how this differs from when Xavier copped a bump off the ball last season (or it might have been 2007).

Yes, West's bump on X was about 100km's behind play.

The rules were change AFTER this bump...however, it would appear Zac's bump has given birth to a new rule DURING his appeal.

I wonder if they'll trot AA out for a press conference and explanation for this one (ala Brennan's headbutt)...a sure sign the AFL knows they've got it wrong.

[Enrico_Misso]

It's all very ad-hoc policy on the run interpretation changes.
But typical of the AFL.

So bottom line is that a fair (ie no head contact) bump off the ball is now deemed to be illegal and warrants 2 weeks.


But a head-butt is 1 week.
And a full-on punch by a serial offender (Hall) is 2 weeks.


Maybe it's all just passing me by.
But I simply cannot get a handle on it.
There is no consistent frame of reference.

The tribunal lacks programmatic specificity.

[saintbrat]

well the Saints have added another record for this eyar of breaking records- Longest ever deliberation for a tribunal panel.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 42,00.html
Zac Dawson fails tribunal challenge, Kosi also suspended
Bruce Matthews | July 21, 2009 12:00am
ST KILDA'S solid and settled backline last night took a huge hit off the field when full-back Zac Dawson copped a two-game suspension. Dawson's gamble of challenging a rough conduct charge backfired when the AFL Tribunal effectively doubled his penalty.

The Saints defender rejected a match review panel offer of a one-game ban for the bump on Adelaide's Brad Symes in the second quarter at Etihad Stadium last Sunday.

The jury of ex-players, Wayne Henwood, Stewart Loewe and Wayne Schimmelbusch, took 30 minutes -- one of of the longest deliberations in recent tribunal history -- before finding him guilty of reckless conduct with medium impact to the body.

It imposed the match review panel's original assessment of 225 demerit points, condemning Dawson to miss Saturday night's game against the Western Bulldogs at Etihad Stadium and the following round against Sydney at the SCG.

The unbeaten Saints had already lost key forward Justin Koschitzke after he accepted a one-match ban for striking Crow Richard Douglas.

St Kilda today will discuss with its legal advisers whether to request Dawson's case be referred to the AFL Appeals Board.

"We felt it was a case that we would support Zac on and, while we're disappointed with the result, we have to live by it and move on," Saints football manager Greg Hutchison.

"Zac's taken it on the chin like he would and we just have to move on and go forward and, hopefully, get through the next couple of weeks without him."

On the possibility of lodging an appeal, Hutchison said: "It's a bit too soon to say that. We're obviously disappointed, but we'll have a chat to Zac and other people and see where we go."

Dawson argued he bumped Symes to stop him tackling teammate Leigh Montagna who had played on after taking a mark.

The defender had made position to accept a handball from Montagna but Symes blocked his path.

Videotape showed the unsuspecting Symes, armed raised on the mark, take a heavy bump from Dawson.

A medical report by Adelaide Football Club said Symes was winded and that bruising to the lower stomach muscles had restricted his training this week.

"I decided to block because a handball was no longer an option. It was just a regulation block that happens every week. I didn't run through him, I just ran to block him," Dawson said.

AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson SC described it as a "very significant blow".
.................................................................

player code has gone obviously

[Devilhead]

So can someone explain how this differs from when Xavier copped a bump off the ball last season (or it might have been 2007).
He had trouble getting to his feet and was clearly more impacted than Symes was.
There was no suspension (I forget who the player was that applied the bump) because the tribunal argued that X should have been expecting a bump.

It was Trent West who bumped X - way way off the ball mind you

it wasn't differant BUT because of X's incident the RULE was CHANGED-- same with the kosi bump

It seems there have been quite a few incidents where precendents have been set when we have been the victim and the offender has got off scot free - likewise it seems that we have also been on the receiving end of some ridiculously harsh suspensions because of these precendents

Lose / Lose situation

[degruch]

"AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson SC described it as a "very significant blow".

...and Nick Maxwell's jawbreaker was a hug? WTF are these guys on???

[Mr Magic]

"AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson SC described it as a "very significant blow".

...and Nick Maxwell's jawbreaker was a hug? WTF are these guys on???

Maxwell was found guilty by the Tribunal and given 5/6 weeks.
He then appealed and got off.
The AFL (monkeyboy) then changed the rules to state that 'accidental contact' was now the responsibility of the 'bumper'.

I believe that Maxwell got charged with another bump and got off that one (after the rule was changed)?

[Nattens]

Who gives a crap. We have other players to bring in to show that we have depth.