StKilda again the ones that cop it.

[saynta]

I think it's been well established over the years that you manage to "not see" a lot of things that don't suit your agenda when it comes to St Kilda!

The video angle looking down the boundary clearly shows the impact. You see his head shoot back immediately, if it was whiplash his head would move towards Jimmy not away...

Yes The Dud back to his true form.

Yep, a bit like a boil on one's backside and about as relevant to this forum.

[Moods]

Thanks CURLY, you historically post the an opinion I generally agree with, albeit with a colorful flair.

It was my view that the AFL 'penalty model' suggests this incident is worth 3 weeks .. high contact, careless .. force .. etc .. the De Goey penalty a reflection of this policy.

But Webster gets 7 weeks .. that's the 3 weeks (penalty model) + 4 weeks. I've got no issue with the 'standard' 3 week penalty, but like CURLY would like to question where the 4 weeks came from.

Has the AFL introduced a new policy this year in line with community and media standards? If so has this been announced? And the bigger question, is this actually a new policy, will this be the new precedent?

Or is this the AFL and Media just making up new rules?

Like CURLY, I reckon St Kilda has been shafted for 20-30 years by the tribunal. But to be fair, I reckon a few others also get shafted. James Scissly and Toby Greene also cop unfair treatment.

If that’s just careless, I’d hate to see reckless. It was as reckless as they come

[Yorkeys]

Front Bar
Big segment sycophanting to the Daicos dynasty (yes, they are all exceptional- as we keep getting endlessly reminded). But no mention of Maynard (even though the show toasted Angus Brayshaw in its opening), no smart arse comments about DeGoey and Las Vegas. OK, fair enough approach lets keep it civil and, importantly, subservient to the Pie lobby. Yuk yuk yuk, those guys are so funny in the drip tray segment, yawn.

Then a really unfunny monologue to vision of Ross helping move a fridge. Taking cheap and rather malicious long bow drawing shots at Ross and the Saints - boys that isn't comedy or a footy act, I'd wager. See you at the game!

[Scollop]

St Kilda are just a magnet to bad luck.

This is another example of our misfortune.

The tribunal is but one of the many curses.

Until we win our second flag, I believe the curses are real.



….

[The Fireman]

I don’t see it as being misfortunate , more so being challenging.

You only have to look at some of the dickheads that follow sides that win a few premierships we are supporters who have stuck fat, despite such a poor record. So in reality, we are the real supporters

Okay I get it ,we have a few dickheads, there’s a couple on here but nowhere near the same ratio as others , Collingwood for eg
Our next flag will be the sweetest by far

[spert]

As an older Sainter, I know how much this club has been shafted at the tribunal, and our weak administrations over the years just bent over and took it. I also know that we have had too many di#khead players who couldn't control their anger at times. But watching Webster the other day when he lined up the North player, the only thing I could think was "you effing di#khead, you're gone for 8 weeks"..he was lucky with 7.

[1971]

Don't most sides have holes in their team. I understand midfields are vital and Collingwood has a good one but crikey their forward line that day left a lot to be desired.

[Sainter_Dad]

I don’t see it as being misfortunate , more so being challenging.

You only have to look at some of the dickheads that follow sides that win a few premierships we are supporters who have stuck fat, despite such a poor record. So in reality, we are the real supporters

Okay I get it ,we have a few dickheads, there’s a couple on here but nowhere near the same ratio as others , Collingwood for eg
Our next flag will be the sweetest by far

LOL - My son tentatively books the week after the grandfinal as holidays - he reckons it will take that long to 'recover'.

[SinCitySainter]

Perhaps JW should have read the below or should have been briefed on the strong stance the AFL will be taking in 2024 with amendments to high contact.

The article clearly states that the tribunal will not be bound by outcomes of any previous cases.

That is a fairly blatant admission by the AFL because while saying they "will not be bound by the outcomes of any previous cases" are they not also saying there is absolutely no onus on us to be consistent.
They have basically turned around and stated that they will favor and penalize whoever they want and there is no recourse.

[skeptic]

Perhaps JW should have read the below or should have been briefed on the strong stance the AFL will be taking in 2024 with amendments to high contact.

The article clearly states that the tribunal will not be bound by outcomes of any previous cases.

That is a fairly blatant admission by the AFL because while saying they "will not be bound by the outcomes of any previous cases" are they not also saying there is absolutely no onus on us to be consistent.
They have basically turned around and stated that they will favor and penalize whoever they want and there is no recourse.

Stuff like that really annoys me.

The fact that it’s all so inconsistent and seemingly prone to playing favourites is the one thing that periodically makes me think of giving the game up altogether.
It’s one thing if we can’t win by our own ineptitude but if it’s legitimately rigged against you, then what’s the point

[samuraisaint]

Dermott said yesterday on radio that he really hopes we don't see a situation where a big club with influence face a similar consequence and get a watered down sanction due to fear of outcry.

I think that is what we all know will happen.

[Vortex]

Dermott said yesterday on radio that he really hopes we don't see a situation where a big club with influence face a similar consequence and get a watered down sanction due to fear of outcry.

I think that is what we all know will happen.

We had the outcry, it was from our own bloody supporters to stone Jimmy to death.

[B.M]

No we didn’t

He deserved 6-8

Got 7

That’s the penalty when you iron someone out and KO them

Last year
DeGoey got away with it - should’ve been 4-6
Pickett got away with it - should’ve been 3-4

Maynard no case to answer imo

Powell Pepper about 3-4 - he got 4


MacKay on Clark was the one
No case to answer - ran past the ball and shirtfronted Clark
My opinion 4 - 5 weeks

[skeptic]

I don’t think many are legitimately arguing that this couldn’t be 7 week hit or that penalty on its own is absurdly excessive.

It’s just the context.

This is the biggest penalty handed out for this type of hit ever…
And I’m going to be honest, I wouldn’t have it on the top 5 hits for the last few years.

If this is the new norm, I’m okay with it but I don’t like statements/examples being made selectively

[Vortex]

No we didn’t

He deserved 6-8

Got 7

That’s the penalty when you iron someone out and KO them

Last year
DeGoey got away with it - should’ve been 4-6
Pickett got away with it - should’ve been 3-4

Maynard no case to answer imo

Powell Pepper about 3-4 - he got 4


MacKay on Clark was the one
No case to answer - ran past the ball and shirtfronted Clark
My opinion 4 - 5 weeks

Not saying he didn't deserve a consequence, absolutely he should of, the outcry I'm bemoaning is the self righteousness from the AFL media brainwashed who have been led to believe that if you punish illegal acts that cause head trauma then you remove all risk and hazard of head trauma.

When the reality is head trauma at every level of AFL is mostly caused by legal acts and footy acts due to the 360 degree nature and NOT illegal acts. This is especially true at AFL level becaue of how much cleaner the game is than any other level, so much so it is rare in each season to see a situation similar to that caused by Jimmy.

So my point is give away supporting the game of AFL if you have been misguided into a self righteous postion on head trauma believing that if you clean up the illegal acts that you have made the game safer, that belief couldn't be further from the reality.

These players all suffered considerable head trauma as a result of legal acts in the game, yes we know about the famous illegal acts that also caused them head trauma, but those stats are very low by comparison.

Paddy McCartin
Brayshaw
Nathan Murphy

[Devilhead]

Maynard no case to answer for?

What a load a steaming shite

Pie nuffies and some others will say Brayshaw stepped into Maynard's path and that's why Maynard collided with him ... if so why did Maynard brace for a bump when he was supposedly going miss Brayshaw

Ended his career and the intent was there to bump even if he did miss Brayshaw and even if it was a split second decision ..... in that split second he could have easily thrown his arms/hands out forward from the upright smother position to minimise the hit or miss

Endorsed by the AFL as well . .. then they backtracked

Ryder got 2 weeks because Day stepped into his path and Ryder was actually motionless at the time they collided

And now you can punch a player on the chin as long as the punch slips off the upper arm .... though if that was Ben Long or Caminiti .... pretty sure they wouldn't be playing the following week.

Never ending game of Chook Lotto

[Otiman]

It's on us to be kicking and screaming for every future punishment that doesn't match the crime.

Add Baker to the list of Caminiti, Ryder and Long.

I suggest we could build a very good case to accuse the AFL of bias, but that might be best saved for a Grand final week. The AFL have set it up so that individual cases cannot be compared, but a history of similar excessive punishment would be much easier to prove.

The club won't do it, the AFL has us over a barrel.

[whiskers3614]

Any chance poor me threads like this one could be moved to a special sub forum for the conspiracy theorists to congregate?

[Yorkeys]

They in-build inconsistency by rotating people on the panel, not - as far as I know - publish how the panels are instructed, do not get the panels to provide detailed written reasons for the panel's collective decision and the thinking of the individuals on the panel, having M. Christian involved, allowing a bastardised form of legal advocacy, left field biometrics and graphics, free form adversarial questioning, pretending minds can be read after the event and allowing that magic to be retrofitted to what happened, the panel is able to consider how sincere any regret is and if flowers were delivered the next day, and its discretionary whether the outcome of the offence is weighted or not. Its actually amazing there is any correlation between cases of similar type.

[Otiman]

Any chance poor me threads like this one could be moved to a special sub forum for the conspiracy theorists to congregate?

It's OK, you don't have to join in. Just like I don't join in the baiting and personal insults.

[The_Dud]

Any chance poor me threads like this one could be moved to a special sub forum for the conspiracy theorists to congregate?

Love it

[The_Dud]

MacKay on Clark was the one
No case to answer - ran past the ball and shirtfronted Clark
My opinion 4 - 5 weeks

Love how these days ‘facts’ are in the eye of the beholder!

Some say he had no chance of getting to the ball, some say he ran passed the ball!

When the truth it right there in black and white (or full colour?)

[Scollop]

MacKay on Clark was the one
No case to answer - ran past the ball and shirtfronted Clark
My opinion 4 - 5 weeks

Love how these days ‘facts’ are in the eye of the beholder!

Some say he had no chance of getting to the ball, some say he ran passed the ball!

When the truth it right there in black and white (or full colour?)

What was black and white was the resultant aftermath of Mackay's act.

Hunter Clark was hit high and received multiple fractures to the head. That cannot de disputed

You cannot completely ignore ALL facts. The tribunal and the MRO and people like yourself think that it's ok to send someone to hospital in the pursuit of trying to win the footy, however...what sort of realistic chance did Mackay actually have of getting first hands on the ball? This was never discussed at the tribunal.

The still photos are not representative of the reality of the situation. The slo mo showing only the point of impact also doesn't fully represent the probability for each player approaching the ball.. i.e. Who was more likely to get first hands on it?

The guy running from 1.5m away or the guy running from 5-6m away?

You believed at the time of the incident and in the weeks after when we debated here, that Mackay (who started his run from 8-10 metres away) had an equal chance of winning the footy as Hunter who was only 2 metres from the ball. That was never discussed and our legal team were incompetent and basically negligent by ommotting to argue this point.

The fact that the footy didn't bounce truly (seems to be a St Kilda thing) meant that Hunter didn't immediately gain possession. Mackay approached the contest but he knew he only had a small chance of winning the ball. His first intent was to restrict the guy most likely to win it. Mackay had to make it look like he was attempting to go for the footy.

The still photos and some of the slow mo replays ONLY show the point of impact. They didn't focus on where each player was for the fractions of seconds prior to the impact. They also failed to discuss who had first hands on the ball. Fact: Clark had both hands around the ball BEFORE Mackay tried to rip it out of Hunter's grasp.

It is NOT ok for a player to run at full steam towards another player who is bending over to pick up a footy) and has eyes down looking only at the footy. Especially when head high contact is going to occur. The AFL told players the head is sacrosanct.

There is no difference between smashing into someone who has the ball in their hands (and it dislodges) and you make zero attempt to get your hands on the footy AND... what that pr!ck did to Hunter. Mackay's act was reckless and had horrific consequences. So what if he 'tried' to get the ball? He didn't win it because he had an unrealisic chance from the get go! It is NOT ok to risk causing severe head injuries to an opposition player in this situation. Are we going to say it's ok for players left right and centre in every lower league getting away with an act like that?

You and the MRO and all the dinasaurs pretend that what Mackay did was legal within the rules of the game, while ignoring everything we know and everything we knew at the time on CTE and concussion. Everything you reply with will be generalisations and you won't address each specific point. You'll blurt out the repeated crap about two players going for the ball. You'll say that Mackay's intent was the ball...as he did at the tribunal.

[NickyDal]

Webster deserved to be suspended but 7 weeks your taking the piss. Less than 12 months ago DeGoey who ironed out and knocked out cold Elijah Hewitt got 3.

Again the AFL invent a way to use StKilda as its sacrifice to a baying and blood thirsty woke media.

We deserved it this time. What Webster did was appalling and if I was CEO of St Kilda I would ban him for the entire season.

[Scollop]

Pause the video right at the start.

As I said. Clark i2s 2 m from the footy. Mackay is 6-8 m from the footy

Who is more likely to be second to the footy and what would he be thinking at this point? Is he thinking win the ball or is he thinking impact the contest and restrict the guy who is morelikely to have hands on it first?