AFL tribunal right on Judd, slightly wrong on Ziebell
Columnist By Michael DiFabrizio, 18 Jul 2012 Michael DiFabrizio is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- AFL, AFL match review panel, AFL Tribunal, Chris Judd, Jack Ziebell, Leigh Adams
Leigh Adams recovers after Chris Judd's "chicken wing" tackle. (Slattery Images)
Related coverage
The AFL tribunal had a busy evening last night, with two names in particular causing plenty of debate: Chris Judd and Jack Ziebell.
Judd was given four weeks for his infamous “chicken wing” tackle on North Melbourne’s Leigh Adams. In the end, the Carlton star copped a fair punishment.
He claimed that he did not intentionally twist Adams’ arm and that he was trying to prevent a handball. But it was hard for anyone watching the vision not to view his act as unnecessary.
He didn’t need to do it.
He certainly didn’t need to pull the arm back as far as he did.
He most definitely didn’t need to hold it back for as long as he did.
It was a dirty act that sent his opponent to the sidelines and only able to return after painkillers. For all that, a month on the sidelines seems about right.
The real outrage to come out of last night surrounded North’s Jack Ziebell, following an incident in the same game.
Ziebell collided with Carlton’s Aaron Joseph in a high bump. It was initially deemed worthy of a three-week ban by the match review panel, but last night the Roos decided to appeal.
The unsuccessful tribunal hearing meant the penalty went up to four weeks.
What has infuriated so many about this decision is that Ziebell was going for the footy. The incident in question came as Ziebell went to receive a handball. Joseph got a hand to it, but was soon crunched by Ziebell.
Cries of “he was just going for the footy” have been rife over the past few days. And it’s true that’s what he was doing, at least to an extent.
Unfortunately, it can’t be denied that Ziebell did make contact with the head of Joseph, a red flag these days given the consequences of concussion.
It also can’t be denied that he turned his body at the last second, which included dropping his right elbow, a terrible decision with the hindsight of a slow-motion replay.
Yes, he was going for the “mark”. But the combination of high contact and a loose elbow meant that some kind of penalty had to be handed down.
That said, it’s hard not to agree with the angry mob of footy fans saying a four-week penalty is too harsh.
Ziebell did suffer because of an existing bad record, but he doesn’t deserve to miss a month of footy that will be critical for North’s finals chances.
Certainly, that the golden boy Judd received the same penalty for a worse act on the exact same night will no doubt provide plenty of ammunition for match review panel and tribunal detractors.
All in all, while the game’s penalty-deciders did manage to get something right, once again they gave fans reason to be bemused.
It’s almost like a weekly ritual.
Michael DiFabrizio is completing his journalism degree. As an AFL writer, he has been an expert columnist at The Roar since 2009, and appeared in The Age and on ABC television and radio. Follow Michael on twitter @mdifabrizio
- Explore:
- AFL, AFL match review panel, AFL Tribunal, Chris Judd, Jack Ziebell, Leigh Adams
July 18th 2012 @ 5:47am
AndyMack said | July 18th 2012 @ 5:47am | Report comment
In motor sport you would call that a “racing incident”. Ziebell wasnt at fault, unlucky for Joseph, but it happens in footy. Agree the head has to be protected, but he was clearly going for the ball.
July 20th 2012 @ 1:59am
jh said | July 20th 2012 @ 1:59am | Report comment
Zeibell charged Joseph, simple !. It was late,it was high and he was not looking at the ball. 4 weeks!?. I wouild have thought 2 weeks was appropriate. It was definately a way less aggressive charge than that of wellingham who copped three weeks ! ?.To say it deserved nothing is just stupid. I’m a carlton fan and I believe judd got off easy!, 6 weeks would have been appropriate !. Open your eyes roos fans.
July 20th 2012 @ 8:20am
MyLeftFoot said | July 20th 2012 @ 8:20am | Report comment
Ziebell has form for getting his big fat buttock up too high off the ground so as a North fan it looked clumsy and he does need to adjust a tad.
However – for me, the recognition of the attack on the ball by all levels of the review process and this airy fairy reference to an alternative – combined with the way the loading works. These are the issues that get to me.
Firstly – Joseph, going back with the flight of the ball for a classic ‘hospital pass’ was always wide open. Ziebell looks like he was caught in two minds anyway – as, he turned slightly side on rather than smashing Joseph front on with his knee. What looks a bit dodgey is that one arm stayed down and the other went the ball. It was probably just one of those split second things where he realised he’d be a fraction late and that’s all it takes.
The loading element – we saw the other day that Wellingham had too great a benefit from the reductions – both levels of reduction – applied to a pretty serious action. One could argue that because the loading is a percentage – that, the more heavily loaded (activation points) an offence – the greater a points value reduction is gained.
This doesn’t make any sense. The more serious an offence then surely there should be a scaling down of the reductions able to be applied.
The flipside is – that for Ziebell – he’s been butchered on this one due to loadings that get applied with no scaling. At the end of the day, he gets 4 wks and Wellingham gets 3 wks and that’s the system. But, is it justice???
Seeking justice and launching an appeal is presently incentivised against by the system. And that’s not right.
July 18th 2012 @ 8:21am
josh said | July 18th 2012 @ 8:21am | Report comment
What I couldn’t believe, especially on Twitter, was the amount of Carlton fans who thought Judd’s actions were nothing. Judd’s actions were uncalled for, he wasn’t active in the play; the play was, for all intents and purposes over, then Judd deiced to try his latest move.
But I guess, they may have had a point. Judd won the Brownlow after elbowing Pavlich in the nose, compared to that the chicken was nothing really… What a joke, Carlton should have thrown out of the AFL years ago.
However, the AFL got it right with Judd. A little heavy with Ziebell. Don’t forget, Merret was in tehre toot; they got that right. As Meatloaf says 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.
July 18th 2012 @ 8:47am
Cameron Rose said | July 18th 2012 @ 8:47am | Report comment
And that’s your mistake right there Josh – Carlton fans opinions on Judd’s case were irrlevant because they couldn’t separate emotion. Neither could North’s fans for that matter, but they are generally a more reasonable bunch anyway.
It was the same for Collingwood supporters with Wellingham on Simpson the week before, barely able to understand that he had been charged.
You just have to laugh at the fact that Carlton people wanted Wellingham to get 6-8 weeks, if not 10, yet the couldn’t see that Judd did anything majorly wrong.
In my mind, and I might be in the minority here, Judd’s actions were worse than Wellingham.
Judd’s 4 weeks was a fair call, Wellingham’s 5 was harsh, but the fact that he’ll serve 3 is probably about right, and don’t even get me started on Ziebell.
July 18th 2012 @ 8:58am
josh said | July 18th 2012 @ 8:58am | Report comment
I’m with you Judd’s were worse. Any rough conduct in the field of play is less worse, as they are generally unintentional compared to going after someone behind play, after play has stopped etc.. Judd’s actions were the latter and deliberately intentional.
July 18th 2012 @ 9:50am
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 9:50am | Report comment
CAmeron “In my mind, and I might be in the minority here, Judd’s actions were worse than Wellingham.
Judd’s 4 weeks was a fair call, Wellingham’s 5 was harsh”
That is the stupidest thing I have heard, running 30m and jumping to intentionally split a wide open opponent is a cheap shot and the reulst was a player missing at least a month of footy with a broken jaw.
Judd actions were stupid but his opponent missed 10 minutes of football and that is after he already had a weak shoulder that was booked in for year end surgery.
July 18th 2012 @ 10:33pm
Holty said | July 18th 2012 @ 10:33pm | Report comment
Well and accuratley stated
July 18th 2012 @ 10:10am
Hawks9108 said | July 18th 2012 @ 10:10am | Report comment
you have just confirmed they hand out the tag expert to just about anyone on this forum….
I am with Macca….how can someone essentially end up with a higher penalty for twisting an arm as opposed to breaking a jaw??
He is guilty of stupidity…Wellingham was wrongly judged to not be acting in an intentional manner….when he actually had every intent to take out Simpson with a crude attack.
July 18th 2012 @ 10:33am
josh said | July 18th 2012 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Sure Wellingham’s actions were deliberate. But the outcome wasn’t. I doubt he deliberately set out to break someones jaw. His aim was to make contact with an opposition player. What resulted wasn’t planned.
Judd had every intention in the world to grab Adams’ arm with both hands and lift it beyond its normal range. There was never going to be a handball considering the ball was wrapped up by another Carlton player. It was 2 on 1. That is what makes it worse.
July 18th 2012 @ 10:40am
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 10:40am | Report comment
Josh – The result shouldn’t be what is punished, it is the act. Was his act intentional, yes he actually said “I didn’t maena to hurt him THAT MUCH”. The result then gets treated under the “impact” clause which was deemed to be severe.
Judd had every intention to grab the players arm yes, but did he know the player couldn’t handball (or what is more important “make the attempt to handball”, which is the distinction the umpire makes when awarding free kicks) I don’t think so.
Review the season so far and see how many 2 on 1 tackles there have been and see how many have involved pinning a players arm. I think from memory Riloi did one against carton just 3 weeks ago.
July 18th 2012 @ 10:50am
Hawks9108 said | July 18th 2012 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Josh…I do disagree with you on that. When Wellingham jumped to make contcat and tucked his arm to make serious contact he had every intent of hurting simpson…..granted he did not expect to break his jaw but that is a side issue as that was the result of his intentional action.
Judd twisted an arm….resultant injury is what?? a sore shoulder?? To me this is a major AFL over reaction
July 19th 2012 @ 11:49pm
floreat pica said | July 19th 2012 @ 11:49pm | Report comment
He was not twisting ‘an arm’, but a heavily strapped shoulder of a pinned and helpless opponent. It was a slow, deliberate and multi-actioned attempt to cause a permanent injury in a weak joint. Dog act, deserved his month out and maybe more.
July 18th 2012 @ 10:45am
Cameron Rose said | July 18th 2012 @ 10:45am | Report comment
Macca – Wellingham was running 30m to contest the ball (and it’s been forgotten that Wellingham actually got to the ball at the same time as Simpson, if not fractionally before). He made his mistake in the heat of battle, and three weeks was a fair outcome.
Also, you have replied to Josh that ‘the result shouldn’t be what is punished’, yet you cry about Simpson breaking a jaw and missing a month of football.
As previously stated, you’re a Carlton supporter, so your opinion in either case is irrelevant to me.
July 18th 2012 @ 10:54am
Hawks9108 said | July 18th 2012 @ 10:54am | Report comment
if he arrived at the same time well why did he then make the decision to take the player out with such a crude hit??had he had any courage he would have tried to mark the ball….but that wasn’t his intent…his intent was to maim the player and he did so….in my opinion even the full 5 weeks was a blight on the AFL and its match review panel…10 weeks for him would have been the correct outcome!!
July 18th 2012 @ 11:09am
Cameron Rose said | July 18th 2012 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Sorry Hawks, I can’t agree that someone needs such a major penalty for what was the most split-second decision to turn his body, made in the heat of battle.
I’ve been watching the replay over and over against this morning, and his eyes are on the ball up until the very last moment. Not everyone is Glenn Archer and never worries about where an opponent is, most players react instinctively if they think they’re about to get hit.
If anything, what’s been lost in all of this is the lack of awareness shown by Simpson. Most players running back with the flight like he was know enough to have a quick look, and then they commit to the contest aware of where the danger is coming from so they can try to protect themselves accordingly.
July 18th 2012 @ 11:17am
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 11:17am | Report comment
SO Simpson keeping his eyes on the ball to take the mark shows a lack of awareness but Wellingham deciding to take out the man shows courage, you really do live in an alternate universe don’t you.
Wellingham, made this “split second decision” maters away from the contact” at no stage did he even look like taking the mark or attempting the spoil.
And the whole issue of “split second decision” is over blown how many decision during a game of football are taken after minutes of consideration? Even Judd decsion was “split second” because I am sure he didn’t sit down and write a list of pro’s and cons.
I don’t know what footage you re looking at but the footage the rest of the world has seen show the last time Wellingham looked at the ball was at least 5-10m off the contest and he braced for impact well before he jumped. Ziebell Jumped to contest then braced, Wellingham did the exact opposite.
July 18th 2012 @ 11:02am
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Cameron – At what stage did Wellingham even look like he was attempting the mark, by his own admission his intent was to hurt Simpson. He dedide a long way out from the contest that he couldn’t make it and had his eye fixed on Simpson and not the ball.
As for my statement “‘the result shouldn’t be what is punished’ it might be poorly expressed but if you had of read the rest of my comment I think you could of deduced that I meant the result is not what should be assessed went assessing intent, the result somes under the “impact” clause. The impact was severe in Wellinghams case, not so in Judds, but the intent in Wellinghams was clearly there.
And you may dismiss my opinion as being biased but I would suggest Hawks 9108 is not a Carlton fan and neither are many of the people I know who support my view. After all you your self said “I might be in the minority here”.
July 18th 2012 @ 10:58am
Cameron Rose said | July 18th 2012 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Ah, my old friend Hawks9108 making an appearance.
Forgetting the incidents we’ve already seen, let’s ask the question about which of the two following random acts you would deem more worthy of punishment if you saw them at any level of football:
- Two courageous players running with the flight of the ball colliding at the same time the ball arrives, which because of one of them arriving at a greater speed than the other and on a slightly more favourable angle, means that one player was knocked to the ground and accidentally suffered a broken jaw.
- One player grabbing the ball is tackled to the ground by an opponent, thus ending the contest. A third player, not immediately involved in the play, arrives at the scene and with cold calculation grabs the defenceless player (who already has the opponent pinned to the ground with no means of escape) by the arm, twisting it behind his back with enough force to dislocate it, only letting go when beset upon and thrown to the ground by three players.
Most supporters are frustrated that the final injury outcome plays such a crucial role in how long a player serves.
So, which act would you say was worse?
July 18th 2012 @ 11:05am
Hawks9108 said | July 18th 2012 @ 11:05am | Report comment
simple….the one where he took him out…the one where he had every intent of causing serious injury. Wellingham could have turned his body to attempt to mark and thus shown courage (he showed no courage in this instance whatsoever) but he elected to take the player out and had no eyes for the ball.
Judd and any player who did the same thing would be considered to be guilty of stupidity….
I am not saying that Judd should have got off, all i am saying is that the 2 events are poles apart and as aresult the one where the intent to cause injury to the head should be considered worse than twisting an arm.
So tell me how does one be granted the “Expert” title afterall?? Is it found in the weeties box??
July 18th 2012 @ 11:18am
Cameron Rose said | July 18th 2012 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Actually, I was at McDonald’s one time and they asked “Do you want an Expert title with that?” How could I refuse!
I wasn’t aware that Weeties were doing the same thing.
Here’s the thing – I actually believe your points of view (and even Macca’s, although he’s too emotionally attached) are valid, I just disagree with them, and strongly in this case. These sorts of issues are contentious for a reason, because there are many acceptable points of view.
I’m trying to change your mind, and it doesn’t seem to be working. You and Macca are trying to change my mind, and it’s definitely not working!
July 18th 2012 @ 11:24am
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Cameron – Your points of view that Judd’s act was “cald and calculated” and “he arrived on the scene after the event” together with the assertion that Wellingham “arrived at the contest at the same time” and was “courageous” are not supported by facts.
you can have the opinion that the moon is made of cheese, but even the most basic analysis shows that opinion is false. The same in this case.
July 18th 2012 @ 11:39am
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Oh and Cameron, we currently have Josh, Hawks and I all saying Wellinghams act was deliberate, you saying it was courageous.
We have Hawks, Matt F and I all saying Judd’s act was in the play, you saying it was cold and calculated.
You can’t write all 3 opinions off as “biased”.
July 18th 2012 @ 11:08am
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 11:08am | Report comment
Cameron – You assume Wellingham was courageous but in fact it was anything but, he didn’t have eyes for the ball, saw an opponent wide open and made the decision, again in his own words, to hurt him. If that is courageous I’ll go hee.
And if you look at the footage of the judd Incident, Adams hadn’t hit the ground when Judd grabbed his arm.
So you seem to be completely changing the facts to justify a point of view I believe you hold just to be contentious (or at least I hope you do because the alternative is that you have lost your mind).
July 18th 2012 @ 2:06pm
Hawks9108 said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Wellingham was an act of thuggery…never ever in that contest was he considered courageous. when you run back with your eyes on the ball and contest the mark that is courageous….when you run back with the flight of the ball and clean up a bloke who has his eyes on the ball that is weak as pis%!!
As for your expert tag well yes i would agree that it defintely comes from McDonalds as you have written nothing here that makesme think you have a good comprehension of the game.
July 18th 2012 @ 11:16am
Matt F said | July 18th 2012 @ 11:16am | Report comment
Judd grabbed the arm before Adams hit he ground but he lifted and twisted the arm after Adams was on the ground. There was no reason why he couldn’t have just held the arm on the ground.
Besides, Wellinghama actually got 5 weeks for the incident. His good record got him a reduction. That’s been covered here before.
July 18th 2012 @ 11:20am
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 11:20am | Report comment
Matt F – Agree with you there and that is why I am not saying he should of got off, but it does paint the act in much more of a “split second decision” light than Cameron would have us believe and more in line with it being reckless that intentional. Wellingham getting weeks off for good behaviour is a seperate issue, his self confessed intentional act was deemed reckless by the MRP, but Judd’s act was deemed intentional.
July 18th 2012 @ 2:36pm
Redb said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
Cam,
I think Hawks9108 and macca might be one in the same dolt.
July 18th 2012 @ 2:42pm
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
Redb- Yeah because I am so afraid of voicing my opinion under the reasonbly anonymous name of Macca I invented a nom de plume!
July 18th 2012 @ 2:58pm
Hawks9108 said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
haha yeah good one Redb….so how does one get the title Guru?? out of the same box as Cam gets his Expert tag haha
July 18th 2012 @ 3:15pm
Redb said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
Sorry you feel so inferior Hawks9108. Call 1800 beyond blue at your earliest opportunity.
July 18th 2012 @ 3:20pm
Hawks9108 said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
No one can answer this simple question?? Do you give it to yourself if you think your knowledge is far superior to everyone else???
July 18th 2012 @ 9:35am
Winston said | July 18th 2012 @ 9:35am | Report comment
It’s just a dumb thing to do. I can understand sending in a crap player to hurt the opposition’s good player. In this case, carlton’s best player went in to attack the opposition’s crap player. It makes no sense to me whatsoever. If I had things my way I would just rub him out for 10 weeks just for being dumb.
July 18th 2012 @ 9:42am
mds1970 said | July 18th 2012 @ 9:42am | Report comment
Tweet of the day :
“A chicken wing tackle is fowl play”.
July 18th 2012 @ 9:45am
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 9:45am | Report comment
would point out that when Judd grabbed the arm Adams was still on his way down to the ground so the idea that he was trying to prevent the handball at least initially is feasible.
This means that the issue comes down to intent, ie was it intentional or reckless. Given just last week a player who ran 20m and jumped to clean up an opponent and break his jaw and later said in an interview “I didn’t mean to hurt him THAT MUCH” was deemed to have acted without intent but simply in a reckless manner.
I would also like to reflect on the different attitude of the media in the 2 incidents, last week all we heard was how “out of character” it was and that it was a “split second decision” (like any decision on during a football game a made after minutes of contemplation) this week we had Mark Robinson saying Judd will “be remembered as a thug of the game”, Neil Mitchell calling for 6 weeks plus and generally a whole lot of hysteria.
I agree whole heartedly with Judd’s manager comments, 2-4 is in the range of expectation but the media and the AFL have been pushing for 6 plus and the comments from Fraser pre hearing are odd to say the least
It will be interesting to see the next few weeks unfold and see whether any other tackles on an opponents arm come under scrutiny. After all surely it is the act not the result that appals people here.
You then look at Ziebell (where there wasn’t even a free kick paid by the way) and compare that to Wellingham and the idea that they could initially be offered the same penalty is laughable. When Ziebell jumped he did intend to contest the ball, when Wellingham jumped he intended to clean Simpson up.
July 18th 2012 @ 12:00pm
Redb said | July 18th 2012 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
Judd 6 weeks.
Ziebel 2 weeks.
Common sense.
July 18th 2012 @ 1:03pm
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
6 weeks for Judd is far from common sense RedB. On that scale Wellingham would be missing at least a dozen.
July 18th 2012 @ 2:02pm
Hawks9108 said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Redb doesn’t have a history of talking common sense Macca…why would he start now lol
July 18th 2012 @ 2:07pm
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:07pm | Report comment
To true.
July 18th 2012 @ 8:21pm
sheek said | July 18th 2012 @ 8:21pm | Report comment
Redb,,
You’re not going to take this lying down, are you……….?
July 19th 2012 @ 11:45am
Redb said | July 19th 2012 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Hmmm Sheek its tough in the clinches I might have to whack these keyboard warriors with a #{@{} – take that lol
July 19th 2012 @ 11:59am
Macca said | July 19th 2012 @ 11:59am | Report comment
Or you could just start making sense!
July 18th 2012 @ 1:47pm
Nathan of Perth said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Well, to be fair, I think Ziebell would have gotten three reduced to two if it wasn’t for his bad record (remember that hit on Reiwoldt last year?).
The more I look at the challenge the more many elements look sour to me.
July 18th 2012 @ 2:13pm
Redb said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
He was going for the ball, unlike Judd who was ‘tackling’ a man who face down on the ground.
July 18th 2012 @ 2:20pm
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
Look at the vision REdb, Adams was not on the ground when Judd initiated the tackle. Ziebell was going for the ball initially, Wellingham was not.
July 18th 2012 @ 2:35pm
Redb said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
Suggest you look at the vision. Judd’s action was a dog act.
July 18th 2012 @ 2:46pm
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
Redb – I have seen the vision and dog act is going a bit too far. The initial act was clearly to prevent the handball the subsequent action was stupid but it was much better than Wellinghams effort.
And I would suggest that judd isn’t the first bloke to do this, if Adams hadn’t already had a weak shoulder and it hadn’t poped out we would not of heard much about this. Have a look over the season and see how many tackles are executed with one bloke grabbing another by the arm and pulling.
July 18th 2012 @ 2:55pm
Hawks9108 said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
Dog act like Hocking hitting Hayes in the head when he wasn’t expecting it??? That what you mean Redb??
July 18th 2012 @ 3:06pm
Redb said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
Hey Hawks9108/Macca,
Was Hocking refered to the tribunal for bringing the game into disrepute?
No. Reality check dolts.
July 18th 2012 @ 3:10pm
Hawks9108 said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
No but it was a dog act?? Wellinghams was a dog act also but it wasn’t referred to the Tribunal, even though it should have been!!
Where to now GURU?? LOL
July 18th 2012 @ 3:14pm
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
Judd’s “dog act” was assessed as only having 425 activation points, Wellingham got 550, Ziebell must of been over 400 as well.
And why was Judd referred straight to the tribunal if they only assessed it as 425 points?
And Hawks you went after the wrong Bomber, of all people you should remember the diving dog called Lloyd!
July 18th 2012 @ 3:18pm
Hawks9108 said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
Arrrh yes that old KING of dog acts Lloyd…yes how did i forget??
he even used a forearm guard to smash Josh Thurgood’s nose across his face…yes he was a dog of a thing wasn’t he…but his apprentice Hocking is doing quite a good job of being a dog also!!!
Interested to see what the Guru and the Expert have to say about activation points and the fcat that others should have been referrd before Judd??….oh this’ll be good to read lol
July 18th 2012 @ 1:10pm
Pope Paul VII said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
I go for North but Jack was never going to win the appeal. I don’t agree with previous good behaviour as an excuse for a downgraded penalty though. Wellingham’s hit was a shocker.
July 18th 2012 @ 1:19pm
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
Good behaviour could be taken into account for ssome more minor offences but there has to be a point where the act is just to bad.
But again for me it wasn’t the reductions for Wellingham, it was deeming it reckless rather than intentional.
Andother issue is that Judd was refferred straight to the tribunal and the offence he was charged with ended up having 425 (I think) activation points. Wellingham was deemed to have 550 activation points but not referred straight through so he got the 25% discount and Judd didn’t.
July 18th 2012 @ 1:30pm
Matt F said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
You can still get a discount for a plea at the tribunal but it is at their discretion . Either way it’s irrelevant as Judd didn’t plead guity. Well he did for parts of it but he faought the intentional ruling. You can’t get a discount for a guilty plea if you fight the charge.
If it went to the MRP then Judd would have also had his 30% loading from previous offences included so it actually could have been worse.
July 18th 2012 @ 1:52pm
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Matt F – If it’s at their discretion I wouldn’t be counting on it and mount some sort of defence. Fronm what I have seen he only contested the intent.
Do the tribunal completely disregard the loading? If so it’s another excample of the system needing an overhaul.
July 18th 2012 @ 2:27pm
Matt F said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
They say that it’s up to their discretion but if a player does plead guilty to all aspects of the charge then they will generally give you a reduction for the guilty plea. Even Barry Hall got a discount for pleading guilty to his king hit!
Intent is part of the act. If you contest one part of the incident then you’re not really pleading guilty. Judd told them that he would plead guilty to reckless but not intentional. Because the trubunal judged it as intentional he therefore contested the charge. If the tribunal came back and said “fair enough, we actually think it was reckless and we’ll downgrade you on that” then he would have been entitled to a guilty plea.
They don’t completely disregard the loading but they have discretion in that regard. If they feel that this incident is comletely seperate from previous incidents then they can disregard it. In Judd’s case it could be (purely speculative) because, whilst he didn’t plead guilty to the whole incident, he did acknowledge his error to a point and they cut him some slack for this.
July 18th 2012 @ 1:48pm
Nathan of Perth said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
I do agree on your point that the good behaviour bonus should cease to apply after a certain level of offence – three or four, say.
July 19th 2012 @ 1:10pm
Ben Pobjie said | July 19th 2012 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
I believe Judd was assessed as having something like “between 425-550″ points by the MRP; they couldn’t determine exactly because they considered it an unusual case – so they referred it on. I think the prosecutor recommended 450 points. It wasn’t teh severity that made them refer one and not the other, it was that Judd’s action was such an unusual case to try to assess.
July 19th 2012 @ 1:25pm
Macca said | July 19th 2012 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
Ben – So being unusual means you can’t get a reduction for pleading guilty but commiting a severe impact act you can?
If Juddd was offered 450 points straight from the MRP and had the ability to get a 25% discount for pleading guilty he would of jumped at thte 3 weeks I believe, and it would of ended up right in the middle of my expectations.
July 18th 2012 @ 1:23pm
Bayman said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
One thing that has always fascinated me is why a player should be additionally penalised for contesting the original penalty. It reeks of the AFL saying, “How dare you challenge our authority”. All power corrupts, etc.
If the incident is deemed by the AFL to be a three week ban then surely it’s not a four week ban – otherwise he would have got four weeks already. Or am I missing something?
And what the hell is “good behaviour”? Why should it matter? If a player commits a reportable offence, and inflicts a certain amount of damage, why does it matter that he’s never done it before? He’s done it now. Perhaps he’s never done it before because he’s been waiting for the right moment to inflict the maximum damage. Just saying.
The tribunal decisions this year, like most years, are many and varied. Personally, I’ve never fully understood the rationale behind several of the decisions that are handed down.
The idea, for example, that Jack Ziebell should be more heavily penalised than Sharrod Wellingham is incomprehensible – and yes I’m ignoring the so-called “good behaviour” reduction. The fact is one got three for breaking a player’s jaw and the other got four for no damage done.
Both Ziebell and Wellingham were in the air when the collision occurred. In Ziebell’s case he was leaping to take possession of a high ball which Joseph was also going for. While in the air he realised contact was inevitable and turned his body to protect himself.
In Wellingham’s case both he and Simpson would have reached the ball at about the same time. The difference was that metres off the ball Wellingham understood this but Simpson, with eyes on the ball over his shoulder, did not. Unlike Ziebell, who was in the air in a contest for the ball, Wellingham chose to jump before making contact with Simpson. We all know the result.
Both players, I am sure, made a decision based on a certain degree of self preservation. Ziebell was already in a slightly advantageous position, being higher in the contest, than Joseph so it was no great surprise that Joseph bore the brunt of the collision rather than Ziebell (who had already slightly turned his body in preparation). When Ziebell entered the contest, however, his leap into the air was not to hit Joseph but to get the ball.
Wellingham, on the other hand, jumped precisely for the collision. No doubt, his intention was to make contact, deliberately, but it also was to get his own head out of the way. Had he stayed on his feet he ran the risk of a head clash with Simpson which may well have been equally catastrophic for both players. So he jumped which, unfortunately, put Simpson’s head in line with Wellingham’s shoulder and, well, we know what happened. The tribunal judged the act reckless. No argument there. But it was also intentional even if it was driven by self preservation.
Mind you, I’m not sure what the tribunal, or the AFL, thinks a player should do in those circumstances. Presumably, if Wellingham had just chosen to keep going but stay on the ground and knock himself out the AFL would have accepted it as being just a footy accident. Who knows how the AFL really thinks or how it arrives at certain decisions. I certainly wouldn’t try to second guess them.
Of course, in Adelaide recently McKernan had his jaw broken in a marking contest. Clearly high contact, clearly no free kick was given and clearly the AFL felt there was no case to answer. So, is the head sacrosanct or not? Some days it is, some days it’s not.
One day when it was sacrosanct involved a sling tackle from Taylor Walker. Harry Taylor was slightly concussed and sat out the rest of the game though he played the following week. Walker got two weeks.
A few weeks later Walker again applied a heavy tackle on the Richmond player, Morris. The result was that Morris got up and wanted to fight. Walker got a free kick and three more weeks rest. There was no damage done to Morris although damage looked a possibility as his head did make contact with the ground. Presumably Walker got three because he had recently been given two. This must be what good behaviour is all about.
In both cases, however, the combined damage result was a player (Taylor) sitting out half a game. Five weeks in all for that. Curiously, as far as I know, the sling tackle has not been banned. It might be politically incorrect but it’s not banned. So is it the tackle, or the damage done, which resulted in Walker’s rest. It can’t be the tackle since it’s still allowed and if it’s the damage how do we explain the three weeks following the Morris tackle?
Wellingham got three for breaking a player’s jaw and putting him out for most of, if not all, of the season. Ziebell got four for giving a player a good shake-up and a hell of a fright.
Then we have Lindsay Thomas diving low at the legs of oncoming traffic and a) breaking a player’s leg and b) giving another player a full knee reconstruction. Both victims are out for the year – and maybe some of next year. Thomas, however, is free to run around each week apparently showing that “good behaviour” that the AFL loves to see. Just saying!
Now, I’m not suggesting for a minute that Thomas should be rubbed out. He is, after all, just indulging in tactics which the AFL itself has encouraged by making the head sacrosanct. Thomas’ method has several advantages. The possibility of him getting a high contact free kick by diving into the opponent’s legs, the possibility of getting an in the back free when his opponent falls on him because his legs have been taken out from under and he still has the option of releasing the ball to a teammate if no free is forthcoming. Low risk, high reward.
Of course, if Thomas gets knocked out by his own act of diving at the legs will the AFL punish the man with the legs for inflicting concussion? Who knows but nothing would surprise me.
We can see from all this that the AFL has placed itself in a tricky position. Trying to be nice, and protecting all heads, it has forgotten that sometimes accidents happen. It’s fine for the AFL to say players have a duty of care but where is their duty of care when they fiddle the rules and the interpretations which encourage the duckers, the divers, the knee droppers and the charlatans. Apparently, accidents do happen. Just ask Rohan and Tape……and McKernan.
The Ziebell/Joseph clash was an accident too. The Wellingham/Simpson incident was not. And neither was Juddy’s “chicken wing” tackle. It was deliberate and premeditated.
Yes, he had grabbed the arm as the North player fell – but then he thought for a bit and then remembered what his wrestling coach had told him. “Ah yes, I’ll just bend this back a bit like this and….what the” as he was sat on his backside by some irate North teammates of the hapless victim.
Old Juddy, he’s a character. What with chicken wings, eye gouging, elbows to the head and pressure points – what will he come up with next?
Just a final comment. I think Cameron Rose (comments above) is being slightly mischievous with his implication that somehow Simpson is responsible for his own broken jaw by being “unaware”. Players who take their eye off the ball to look around usually don’t end up getting the ball. Especially if it’s a marking contest and the ball is coming over your shoulder.
Simpson should be applauded for his focus and his courage. Like Nick Riewoldt’s famous mark against the Swans years ago, or Wayne Carey on several occasions, or Jonathan Brown or Jason Porplyzia against Richmond a few weeks ago. They marked the ball precisely because they did not look around to see what was coming. Like Simpson, they just went for it. More power to them. Not everyone is like Glen Archer, Cameron, but several players are just like him.
We know Macca is a mad Blues man, I’m a Crows man – you wouldn’t be a Magpie fan, would you Cameron?
July 18th 2012 @ 1:42pm
Matt F said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
They don’t give you extra weeks for fighting the charge, they give you a discount if you plead guilty as it’s “showing remorse.” That’s a key difference. Just like how if you plead guilty to something in court you have a better chance of a reduced sentence than if you claimed to be innocent and are found to be guilty anyway.
Good behaviour is there for a first offender. I think that it makes sense to go a bit easier on a person who hasn’t had an incident for 5 years then a person who is charged on a regular basis. Just like if you are caught speeding you get a fine and lose points (unless you’re a mile over the limit then it can be a lot worse) but if you get caught repeatedly you’ll eventually lose your license.
re the Thomas incident – The AFL’s position on sliding seems pretty clear. If you slide in and are first to the ball then you are OK but if you’re late and second to the ball then you’re in trouble. I have no issue with players sliding if they are genuinely going for the ball but I didn’t like Thomas’ slide on Rohan because he had his studs up. Ask anyone who watches or plays soccer and they’ll tell you that connecting with your studs has a far greater chance of causing injury than with studs down.
As I found out in his last article, Cameron is unfortunate enough to be a Tigers’s man……the poor bastard
July 18th 2012 @ 3:05pm
Bayman said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:05pm | Report comment
MattF,
I accept your explanation on the penalty structure – it does make a certain amount of sense which is more than can be said for the some of the decisions. And you’re right, there’s a difference between a loading and a discount.
On the good behaviour thing I was being a bit mischievous. I understand the concept, and I guess it’s reasonable, but does it get applied to a second year player in the same way. How long does someone have to play without blemish before good behaviour becomes a factor? I guess my real problem is that I have no real faith in the judiciary being consistent or even sensible.
On the sliding issue I have a problem. We were taught that being on your feet, head over the ball, required the real courage. Sliding was described earlier this year by Chris McDermott (one of the bravest players I’ve ever seen) as “a cowardly act”. Which is not to say sliders are cowards, which is a different thing. Malcolm Blight agreed with Chris and I agree with both of them. Sliding is a “cheats” way of playing footy. Unfortunately, at least for Rohan and Tape, it is allowed by the rules as they stand.
It is also now implicitly encouraged by the AFL’s insistence that the head is sacrosanct. Players are now initiating the high contact to get the free (you’ll note I did not say “earn the free”). This is part of what drives the Thomas’ of this world to dive in low (although the feet first method is fraught with obvious danger).
I’m not sure the AFL intended this development but it is a natural by-product of all players, coaches and teams trying to get some sort of advantage. It is a very good reason why the AFL should not only stop tweaking the rules but undo some of the tweaks that have already been put in place. They make a change to “fix” something and, surprise, surprise, the players find a way to take advantage.
On Cameron I can only say….”Oh dear!” Still, look on the bright side. He probably enjoyed 119 minutes and 55 seconds of that game against the Suns. Probably. Great song though and unashamedly pinched by my old club Glenelg in the SANFL.
July 18th 2012 @ 3:26pm
Matt F said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
No the good record discount doesn’t apply to a second year player. They have to be clean for 5 years to get a good behaviour discount. If a player has been in the game for less than 5 years then he does not qualify for a good behaviour discount.
I probably should have been a bit clearer in my last post. I don’t mind a player diving to get to the ball first but i do have an issue with sliding in with their knees and feet first.
I also agree with you about players duckng their heads. I understand that we have to protect the head but umpire’s need to be more alert to players ducking their heads for free kicks. Thankfully the umpires seem to falling for this less than they were before
July 18th 2012 @ 3:43pm
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
Matt F – The umpires seem to have something against players diving for the ball, he generally get’s penalised with the umpire saying “you dived on it”.
On ducking their heads did anyone else see “Daisy” bedn at the waist in the hope he would be hit in the head and get a free on the weekend, this act must be stamped out.
Similarly I almost smashed my TV on Friday when Joseph didn’t get a free in the Ziebell incident but the resulting ball up lead to Goldstein getting a free after hed bumped into someone with his head while trying to pick up the ball.
July 18th 2012 @ 4:17pm
Matt F said | July 18th 2012 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
I’m not talking about players who dive on the ball and hold it in. I’m talking about players who dive in to get the ball and then get it out quickly. If they dive on it then hold the ball in a tackle then they’re quite rightly holding the ball.
It was very heartening to see the umpire not fall for daisy’s obvious ducking. I really don’t see it as any better than diving, or “staging” as the AFL calls it, of course it is harder to prove in most cases.
July 18th 2012 @ 4:23pm
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
Matt F but the player doesn’t decide I am going to dive on this and hold it in, they decide I am going to get that ball, dive and have three bloke jump on them, generally one of the tacklers get’s hold of the ball and hold it underneath the bloke who dived and the umpire simply says, you dived I am paying it against you.
Look at Joseph against the Eagles for just one such example.
For mine the bloke going for the ball needs to be encouraged.
July 18th 2012 @ 11:21pm
Bayman said | July 18th 2012 @ 11:21pm | Report comment
Macca,
I watched Daisy Thomas duck into that tackle with a degree of horror and fascination. Like watching a car crash. I knew it wasn’t good but I couldn’t take my eyes off it.
Even as it happened I was thinking of Neil Sasche who ducked and became a a quadraplegic. I’ve seen ducking before and felt a bit anxious but that one from Thomas was the most blatant attempt to commit virtual suicide as I’ve ever seen. It was appalling.
One would hope his coach, and the AFL, would have a word and tell him never to even think about that sort of thing again. It emphasised the danger of the AFL’s blanket approach to making the head sacrosanct.
I would hope, that if Thomas had been hammered, that the AFL would consider the poor bugger who ran into Thomas would have no case to answer. I wouldn’t bet on it – but I would hope.
July 18th 2012 @ 8:20pm
sheek said | July 18th 2012 @ 8:20pm | Report comment
Bayman,
Great stuff. Now that you’re apparently retired, you can give The Roar the goodly benefit of your mostly sensible posts more often.
And yes, I’m sucking up before our next luncheon…..
July 18th 2012 @ 9:46pm
Bayman said | July 18th 2012 @ 9:46pm | Report comment
Sheek,
“mostly sensible”…..what are you trying to say?
No worries, Sheek, the first drink is on me!
July 18th 2012 @ 1:49pm
Nathan of Perth said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
” It reeks of the AFL saying, “How dare you challenge our authority”. All power corrupts, etc.”
I wonder if they’re cranky after last week’s challenges by the Eagles players. I thought it was very strange how they went about their reasoning and results last week to fix things at the same penalties as the MRP handed down. Perhaps this is their “stop challenging the MRP” moment?
July 18th 2012 @ 2:07pm
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:07pm | Report comment
Bayman – Good summary except Joseph did have memory loss and had to sit out the rest of the game so it was a bit more than “a good shake-up and a hell of a fright.” Also Wellingham could of decided not to contest the mark once he bacem aware he could not legally dos so, which was at least 5-10m before contact.
Nathan – Anyone who thiks the MRP and tribunal aren’t operating under AFL orders is more than a bit naive.
Cameron – That’s another “opinion” contradicting yours, they really are mounting up.
July 18th 2012 @ 2:45pm
Bayman said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Macca,
Fair call on the Joseph result. I watched the game but didn’t notice any comment on the outcome of his collision. I accept he probably got a bit more punishment than I described.
On Wellingham “not contesting” I agree, sort of. From memory, the other Collingwood player in the vicinity did seem to make that choice and seemed genuinely surprised when Wellingham flashed past him. I suspect, looking at the replay again, it was really going to be a dead heat between Simpson and Wellingham. Wellingham knew it, Simpson did not, but Wellingham ignored the ball and decided to take him out. I’ve no doubt it was intentional – not the damage but the act.
Had Wellingham not contested however Simpson would surely have taken the mark and Carlton would have controlled the ball. I think this fact made the choice for Wellingham pretty simple. As I said previously, I do believe the method used was as much about self-preservation as a deliberate desire to take Simpson’s head.
July 18th 2012 @ 2:58pm
Macca said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
Bayman – The fact that Carlton would of controlled the ball doesn’t mean you get to choose to act outside the rules. Wellingham himself confessed to wanting to hurt Simpson, he wanted to make him earn it, to then get away with saying it was reckless, out of character and a split second decision it ludicrous.
July 18th 2012 @ 3:21pm
Bayman said | July 18th 2012 @ 3:21pm | Report comment
Macca,
No argument from me, son. I merely was trying to point out a possible explanation for Wellingham choosing to “contest” rather than stay out.
One point, though. The evidence would suggest that a player, in this case Wellingham, can indeed “choose” to act outside the rules. There are, however, consequences for making that choice.
I think if you read what I said earlier you’ll find, or I hope you will, that in my opinion the act was intentional. Reckless is the AFL’s politically correct explanation. Everyone knows it was intentional otherwise it would not have happened. The jump off the ground suggested to me that a concious decision had been made to collide with Simpson. The jump protected Wellingham’s head but put Simpson’s head in danger. It was reckless…but it was also intentional – although I accept that Wellingham was not thinking “broken jaw” at the time.
July 18th 2012 @ 7:59pm
Bayman said | July 18th 2012 @ 7:59pm | Report comment
Macca,
Just one thing….and I admit I’m something of a pedant…..
Just for a minute pretend nobody is watching…..
“The fact that Carlton would of controlled the ball” ………
I know it’s a modern interpretation but……..would’ve is an abbreviation of “would have”, not “would of”. I understand that “would’ve” sounds like “would of” but really it’s “would have”.
Don’t worry about it now but for future reference……..
P.S. Take no offence – I’m a Bayman and we’ve contributed greatly in the last 25 years to Carlton’s cause. I’ve fond memories of being kicked out of the Carlton members social club (after a Carlton vs North Melbourne game) for wearing runners. As soon as the security guard had turned his back – so was I. Back, that is! Stayed there for another three hours without complaint. Great days.
July 19th 2012 @ 8:45am
Macca said | July 19th 2012 @ 8:45am | Report comment
No worries Baymen, strangle my brother chipped me on that yesterday too.
July 18th 2012 @ 2:30pm
Hawks9108 said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
Macca…Wellingham didn’t contest the mark, he blatantly cleaned him up in an act of thuggery. Had he turned his body and made an attempt to mark i dare say there would not be the level of discussion on the issue.
Agree with your comment to Nathan too, i have no doubt that the AFL dictate the level of penalties they want applied in each and every case.
and go easy on the Expert too please…after all he is an expert with a far greater knowledge of the game than everyone else on here…LOL….NOT