Webster appalling

[Scollop]

Yes, I'd say that suspensions handed out during Michael Christian's tenure have for the most part been hopelessly inadequate. He should have been moved on three years ago. His appalling failure with the Pickett two week suspension last year should have been the final nail in his coffin.

However, it represents a broader failure of the AFL commission and of the rules committee which it employs. They have allowed themselves to be bullied by the thugs who always pop their heads up when a controversial case is being considered. The tired catch cry of " it's a man's game" or " we're turning it into basketball". It's the usual morons like Sam Newman, Dermot Brereton, Cameron Mooney, etc. All thugs during their playing days.

The weakness shown by the Administration in the face of these old thugs is embarrassing and infuriating.

Thank goodness for David King. He has been a champion of this cause for many years and is still the strongest and most sensible voice.

The AFL will fail us again, no doubt, and that saddens me. How awful that the broader football community can have have zero faith in the body that is supposed to be protecting the welfare of its players.

Talk is cheap. Action requires both intelligence and a genuine resolve.

+1

Great post

[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.

This debate has been had, Mackay was clearly going for the ball and actually gets to it the same time as Clark, the collision was just an unfortunate accident between two blokes with their eyes on the ball.

That’s tough footy. Not even in the same ballpark as lining up and hitting a defenceless player late and high.

Jimmy will cop his punishment as he should and move on.

Nah, nah, nah. That's not what we were told by the AFL. The AFL said intent doesn't matter. The head is sancrosanct, That is what they said. He should never have got off. End of story.

[samoht]

That was a 10 week suspension even back then. It was an unrealistic attempt - he could have tackled, but he elected to go in full-bore when he was nowhere near the ball.
The thing is he protected himself, turning his back towards Clark who only had eyes for the ball.
He had time to do that!!

What happened to "reckless/unduly rough play" - that was always a thing, wasn't it?

Unbelievable, really, considering the extent of the injury to Clark - and the weeks out of action.

[Brunswicksainter]

Yes, I'd say that suspensions handed out during Michael Christian's tenure have for the most part been hopelessly inadequate. He should have been moved on three years ago. His appalling failure with the Pickett two week suspension last year should have been the final nail in his coffin.

However, it represents a broader failure of the AFL commission and of the rules committee which it employs. They have allowed themselves to be bullied by the thugs who always pop their heads up when a controversial case is being considered. The tired catch cry of " it's a man's game" or " we're turning it into basketball". It's the usual morons like Sam Newman, Dermot Brereton, Cameron Mooney, etc. All thugs during their playing days.

The weakness shown by the Administration in the face of these old thugs is embarrassing and infuriating.

Thank goodness for David King. He has been a champion of this cause for many years and is still the strongest and most sensible voice.

The AFL will fail us again, no doubt, and that saddens me. How awful that the broader football community can have have zero faith in the body that is supposed to be protecting the welfare of its players.

Talk is cheap. Action requires both intelligence and a genuine resolve.

Tell me your a wanker without telling me your a wanker

[spert]

Yes, I'd say that suspensions handed out during Michael Christian's tenure have for the most part been hopelessly inadequate. He should have been moved on three years ago. His appalling failure with the Pickett two week suspension last year should have been the final nail in his coffin.

However, it represents a broader failure of the AFL commission and of the rules committee which it employs. They have allowed themselves to be bullied by the thugs who always pop their heads up when a controversial case is being considered. The tired catch cry of " it's a man's game" or " we're turning it into basketball". It's the usual morons like Sam Newman, Dermot Brereton, Cameron Mooney, etc. All thugs during their playing days.

The weakness shown by the Administration in the face of these old thugs is embarrassing and infuriating.

Thank goodness for David King. He has been a champion of this cause for many years and is still the strongest and most sensible voice.

The AFL will fail us again, no doubt, and that saddens me. How awful that the broader football community can have have zero faith in the body that is supposed to be protecting the welfare of its players.

Talk is cheap. Action requires both intelligence and a genuine resolve.

Tell me your a wanker without telling me your a wanker

You mean "tell me YOU'RE a wanker" ?

[magnifisaint]

Waleed is a clever dude. He really showed up that idiot Kelly Underwood.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/youre ... 16835605e0

[saynta]

I fail to understand why the Brissie player and the Carscum asrewipe who threw connecting punches at each other were only fined.

That was pure bulls***

[saynta]

Waleed is a clever dude. He really showed up that idiot Kelly Underwood.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/youre ... 16835605e0

A first for me..sticking up for Waleed. Cannot stand Underwood either.

[NickyDal]

Waleed is a clever dude. He really showed up that idiot Kelly Underwood.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/youre ... 16835605e0

A first for me..sticking up for Waleed. Cannot stand Underwood either.

Agreed.

[magnifisaint]

Really who gives a s*** about Jy Simpkin. Who is stupid enough to name their kid Jy. FFS!

[SaintWiki]

Really who gives a s*** about Jy Simpkin. Who is stupid enough to name their kid Jy. FFS!

[Ghost Like]

Yes, I'd say that suspensions handed out during Michael Christian's tenure have for the most part been hopelessly inadequate. He should have been moved on three years ago. His appalling failure with the Pickett two week suspension last year should have been the final nail in his coffin.

However, it represents a broader failure of the AFL commission and of the rules committee which it employs. They have allowed themselves to be bullied by the thugs who always pop their heads up when a controversial case is being considered. The tired catch cry of " it's a man's game" or " we're turning it into basketball". It's the usual morons like Sam Newman, Dermot Brereton, Cameron Mooney, etc. All thugs during their playing days.

The weakness shown by the Administration in the face of these old thugs is embarrassing and infuriating.

Thank goodness for David King. He has been a champion of this cause for many years and is still the strongest and most sensible voice.

The AFL will fail us again, no doubt, and that saddens me. How awful that the broader football community can have have zero faith in the body that is supposed to be protecting the welfare of its players.

Talk is cheap. Action requires both intelligence and a genuine resolve.

Tell me your a wanker without telling me your a wanker

Congrats, you just did.

A well constructed opinion, right or wrong, and you chose this as your epitaph. Well played w@nk3r.

[Life Long Saint]

Waleed is a clever dude. He really showed up that idiot Kelly Underwood.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/youre ... 16835605e0

The thing that doesn't sit well with me here, is that Webster's act was graded as reckless, not intentional.
Seven weeks (more than a quarter of the season) for a football act is totally outrageous.
Intentionally whacking a bloke off the ball when he is not expecting a punch or hit should attract the highest suspensions we have. Numbers like 7 and 8 should be reserved for intentional acts. This act deserved five weeks.
Once again, the club plays the good guy and doesn't challenge. Just like not bringing up the Caminiti racial vilification v Collingwood last season, like never seriously challenging the Sirengate debacle, the Baker-Farmer incident and seven week suspension, and so on.

I'd have had no problem if Jimmy's act was graded as intentional. Everything about his action pionted to that. He lined Simpkin up for a late bump, left the ground, got him high, and knocked him out. That is as intentional as a bump gets.
But if you grade an act as careless, then to equate it with an intentional act is pure inconsistency. But that's nothing new for the AFL.

Also on Kelly's point about the number of concussions Simpkin has had...That is completely irrelevant. Is she expecting players to know, in the heat of the moment, that I'd better be careful with this bloke because he's liable to be punch drunk? What an idiotic argument! That logic should have said that Paddy McCartin should never be touched on the field.
Surely, there's some expectation from the player that's prone to concussions, to consider giving the game away. It's a sad outcome, but there's more to life than playing AFL.

[bigcarl]

I fail to understand why the Brissie player and the Carscum asrewipe who threw connecting punches at each other were only fined.

That was pure bulls***

$3000 fine for Hewett for a punch that connected with Neale’s jaw.

I thought we were in a brave new era in which the head is protected. You know, like SEVEN WEEK suspensions for transgressions.

I think the club must remain vigilant on this. Simply not good enough if the Saints are used as an example pre-season and it becomes a free-for-all in season.

[NickyDal]

I fail to understand why the Brissie player and the Carscum asrewipe who threw connecting punches at each other were only fined.

That was pure bulls***

The punch landed on his arm and slid up into his neck. It did not hurt him at all.

What Webster did deserved a full 12 months suspension IMHFO. Webster shamed our entire club in the eyes of the footy world.

[Scollop]

I fail to understand why the Brissie player and the Carscum asrewipe who threw connecting punches at each other were only fined.

That was pure bulls***

The punch landed on his arm and slid up into his neck. It did not hurt him at all.

What Webster did deserved a full 12 months suspension IMHFO. Webster shamed our entire club in the eyes of the footy world.

Has Webster caused Jy to retire from AFL football?

Is Simpkin ruled out for round 1.

Do you think Collingwood fans feel the same way about Maynard as you do about our beloved Jimmy?

[Life Long Saint]

What Webster did deserved a full 12 months suspension IMHFO.

I somehow doubt that your HFO is very H at all.

[Yorkeys]

Shylock wanted a pound of flesh too.
Some however think it important to balance justice and mercy.
How do you a) justify 12 months and b) limit it to 12 months. Why not lifetime ban, now that would be a precedent, perhaps a public flogging. Proportion, it helps prevent wars occasionally.

[Bin Chicken]

Wow great journalism in that news story link. Twice they had Simpkin and Webster mixed up.

[Yorkeys]

Hi. Who is more "appalling", Jimmy or Houston.
Tribunal says Jimmy is 2 games more appalling. I think they are wrong. Houston should have got 7. His hit on Rankin had far more malice intent, make it 8.

[Big Max]

Personally I thought both penalties were too harsh.

Webster was late and head-high, and it looked deliberate or at best a brain-fade. On precedence I would have thought 4 weeks appropriate.

Houston was only split-second late, he avoided head-high contact and I doubt he had intent. Nevertheless Rankin was hurt when he hit the ground and recent precedence suggests Houston needs to be accountable. I would have thought 3 weeks appropriate.

[Otiman]

About right.

[skeptic]

I actually disliked the Houston one more.

Simpkin obviously didn’t see his coming as it was late but he still had his arms there to defend him.

Rankine had absolutely no ability to save himself as he was taking the mark.
The bump felt more unnecessary to me too. In Webster’s case he commuted and went for it. I don’t understand why Houston went for it

[Mr Magic]

I actually disliked the Houston one more.

The bump felt more unnecessary to me too. In Webster’s case he commuted and went for it. I don’t understand why Houston went for it

There were some media reports about the Power ‘Targeting’ Rankine deliberately.
If true then that may be an explanation of Houston wanting to physically pressure him as part of a concerted pre-game plan
I don’t believe Houston wanted to knock him out.

[Scollop]

Personally, I think it's not appropriate to bring up this old thread. Just fkn start a new one re Houston

Out of respect for Jimmy Webster, why do we need to keep seeing this thread title?

Move on. I know you want to link the two incidents, but you can still do that without everyone reading the same crap title.
............................…............................…...............

Houston doesn't normally play that way. You could see that Port were under instructions to target Rankin physically

Leaders at footy clubs do that. In Dan Houston mind he had an opportunity as a senior player to physically hurt someone from Adelaide and he did it

That's the same sort of thing that happened shortly before Webster ran towards Simpkin. Simpkin tried to rough up one of our players, so Jimmy Webster felt the need to retaliate in a physical way.

Webster obviously made a bad judgement call. He didn't do it legally. He hit Simpkin high plus he bumped late, but everyone makes mistakes.

Webster paid for his indiscretion and now Dan will too. Jimmy copped the longest suspension, but Houston might get the biggest penalty of all - in terms of missing a possible Grand Final.