Sorry but that’s a bizarre interpretation. Put a Blues guernsey on him and there’s no way you’d be saying the same thing.

In that shot he’s already pushing off to jump. It’s about 0.2 seconds pre-contact. Unless his arm is already completely tucked in – which it isn’t, since you can see his right hand is still cupped out in front of his body (look at the shadow on his other arm) – then there’s no way you can sensibly point to this as a conscious decision to hit his opponent.

The other thing you need to factor in is that Wright seriously injured his right shoulder 12 months earlier. There is absolutely no chance he intentionally leads with that shoulder if he wants the contact. It doesn’t even make sense to turn in that direction with a perfectly healthy shoulder.

“The fact the Tribunal downgraded the tackle from ‘medium’ to ‘low’ impact in itself was not the contentious part that had the footy world up in arms and scratching their heads”

But they DIDN’T downgrade it. That’s the mystifying part. If they thought Cameron didn’t deserve a ban then it was open to them to call it low impact (and it arguably was, since Lever seemed to play up the impact on the turf to get the free kick), which would have resulted in a fine. Instead, they insisted that the impact was medium and then accepted what should be an irrelevant argument to let Charlie off.

There are absolutely things wrong with the system that need to be changed, such as placing a greater weight on potential to cause injury and creating harsher penalties for certain non-footy actions. However, this was an occasion where the mechanics of the system actually allowed them to reach what they clearly thought was the right outcome, and instead they went and set a nonsense precedent.

Also, a quick shout-out to the AFL for being too cowardly to appeal a decision with such unnecessary ramifications for their own system.

Here he is on his launch step, eyes still on the footy, arms still in front as if anticipating a chest mark. So, no. It was only when he was already committed that he changed his mind and protected himself.

I honestly find the whole narrative about Wright playing the man pretty strange, given his good record as a fair player (and conversely, the Toby sympathy is just as odd, since his record is as spotty as Wright’s is clean).

https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/432214634_10163822328272846_6888950266869099236_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=uzUdQvWg3z4Ab78JoIh&_nc_ht=scontent-syd2-1.xx&oh=00_AfBokhIzR9GGBKGKZweIoWaIpVqkCstA6O9-0yXbNy69mg&oe=662CB5FA

I really don’t understand the last part of your comment, Macca, because I don’t see that at all when I watch the two incidents (even tryng to pry my other eye open). Wright realised too late that he couldn’t mark the ball and braced. I think Greene actually *could* have tried to mark the ball – which literally bounced off him – and opted to brace instead. Also, I know still images can be a bit misleading but this one doesn’t look great lol:

https://library.sportingnews.com/styles/crop_style_16_9_desktop/s3/2024-04/Toby%20Greene%20Jordan%20Boyd%20042024%20crop.jpg?h=9eca8fe3&itok=Cljfgnry

Wright did absolutely not lead with his forearm or elbow. A quick google image/video search makes this obvious. He tucked his arm in, the same as Greene. The difference is that Wright was slightly higher and more front-on when contact was made, so unlike with the Greene incident it wasn’t the point of the shoulder that hit Cunningham. It was partly bicep/chest.

Also, unlike Wright, who was caught out of position in the contest, Greene probably could have marked the ball. It actually bounced off him right as the impact occurred. I honestly think you could mount an argument that this makes the action itself worse, since he had a clear alternative to bracing for contact, whereas Wright was stuffed as soon as he left the ground.

Greene is ultimately just lucky his opponent was okay, especially since he’s been offered the minimum sanction where Wright got an extra week. I think they’d be playing with fire if they challenged.

“a far less imposing Bombers on-ball brigade had torn the Dogs asunder”

Are we talking about the same Saints midfield?!? The one that lost the clearances and contested ball to Essendon a few games ago?

When you’re ridiculously outmatched in height and wieght by a key forward, it’s hard to call conceding 1 goal a loss. Darcy played pretty well (mainly in setting up others) but Essendon would have taken that at the start of the night.

That’s the bit I don’t get. It was open to them to call it low impact (which it arguably was) and get the same result. Yet instead they go out on a limb and set a bizarre new ‘good bloke discount’ precedent – the very thing that the current system was designed to eradicate.

Peter Wright had played 121 games before ever being reported and still got more than the minimum 3-week penalty for the grading of his incident, let alone a discount. Where do you draw the line here?

Essendon’s failure to do much since Sheedy has nothing to do with moving him on and everything to do with their unwillingness to establish a culture of proper process. All four coaches between Knights and Scott were captain’s picks. The behaviour of the club’s heirarchy through that period was driven by a hubris that ultimately resulted in woeful standards in player welfare, development and conditioning.

I have no information about what goes in inside the Kennell but from the outside this doesn’t look like a harmonious club. The fact that Josh Dunkley twice requested a trade out (one to Essendon, ironically) seems to indicate that not everyone adores being a Bulldog under Bevo, even if there is a solid core of players right behind him.

Boy I expected some garbage takes in the comments but this is sad. The mental gymnastics and whataboutery people use to excuse this sort of abusive behaviour is mind-boggling…

It was Adrian Anderson, the former AFL GM who actually established the current tribunal system 😂 😂 😂

I don’t think those issues with Bellerive are insurmountable though. It would only need to be able to host ~2 night games per year anyway, with other home games being day games. Parking is terrible, yes, but there is no parking factored into the concept design for the new stadium either. Parking in town is already appalling so I can’t imagine it will be much better once 20k people are trying to get into a stadium. If the Government is willing to significantly improve ferry and bus options to get to Bellerive on game days then it is still workable, and there is room within the current footprint to add more seating.

There is a third option, though, that no one seems to want to contemplate – upgrade the TCA ground (or the nearby Crossroads sporting precinct) on Hobart’s Domain. Admittedly that would come with its own set of problems – such as being an uphill hike from town and having to expand into a reserve to cater for the stands and parking – but again, those aren’t insurmountable. There is already a basic ground to work with, there is space around it, it would be part of a greater sporting precinct with an adjacent athletics track and tennis centre, it is walkable from the city (importantly, downhill on the return leg), and with some road upgrades it would have multiple access points to/from highways. They also wouldn’t have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to relocate a sewage treatment plant before starting the build.

The only reasons Bellerive isn’t ideal are convenience and transport. It’s not really within walking distance from town and parking is a bit of a nightmare. These obstacles can be overcome in other ways though. Setting up better bus and ferry services would go a long way. There’s plenty of room to increase/upgrade seating if that’s an issue.

I love the concept of the stadium (and if it got built I’d be walking through the gates for the first game) but it’s such a pie in the sky idea.

It’s not really near Salmanca Place, which is on the other side of the harbour. It would overshadow the historic jam factory buildings along Evans St but they aren’t really a hub of activity anyway. There are good reasons why the current proposal shouldn’t go ahead, but protecting Salmanca Place isn’t really one of them.

Not strictly forced, but they’ve made the new stadium a condition of having a team.

A walking distance stadium is a nice idea, but it shouldn’t be a requirement. It definitely wasn’t for GC or GWS.

The problem with the current location is that the ground would barely fit and there’s no room for parking. They also need to relocate the existing sewage works, the most recent cost estimate of which is rumoured at about $300m. If they are going to target a location adjacent to the city then they should be using the site of the TCA ground on the Domain, or even slightly further north at the Crossroads Ground. There would still be objections because the construction and parking would eat into the reserve , but the important part is that the ground and the space are already there, as well as direct accesses out onto the surrounding highways.

That said, there are also easy ways to address the transport issues with Bellerive Oval, like buses and ferries. And half the games would be played at York Park anyway, which is getting a $130m upgrade.

I don’t think the edge stuff had anything to do with the Wright incident, though. Wright’s not a rough player, he’s a big lumbering guy who got himself into a bad situation and didn’t handle it well. It was clumsiness, not malice.

The incidents that should be drawing the most ire are Draper’s hit and Hind’s attempted elbow. Those are examples of taking the physicality too far and hopefully they’ve been quietly put in their place.

“As any North Melbourne fan will tell you, it won’t be through anything the coach does, tactical dullard that he is.”

That ‘tactical dullard’ took an average North list to consecutive prelims, so he must have done something right.

Essendon’s problem is that they haven’t had anything resembling a successful culture in an age. Trying to encourage more physicality is just a part of showing this list that the bruise-free, unfit brand of footy they’ve played of late isn’t going to cut it. Whether or not they tell people that they’re trying to be physical is pretty irrelevant. In this media-saturated era we shoot people down when they don’t offer up insights about their club, and then shoot them down when they do.

“At no point is Wright playing the ball”

This is just manifestly untrue. If you slow down the front on vision, he CLEARLY has his eyes on the ball, arms cupped below his chest to take the ball, as he goes to take off. The decision to brace for contact happens after he has already committed to the jump. I genuinely think he was oblivious until the last moment. Cunninham came more from the side than in front of him.

I don’t have an issue with an argument that says the should have been more aware of Cunningham, or that his reaction to protect himself put Cunningham in more danger than if he’d just kept his arms out. The problem I have is with comments like “you can’y just tuck the arm in and jump into the guy” because that’s not what happened. It’s the reverse. He went to jump and then tucked the arm in as a split second reaction. Again, if you want to ‘jump into a guy’ you don’t turn in the direction he did.

He’ll go for at least 3 weeks (unless he can get the impact downgraded from severe to high), as as much as I’m disappointed for him, I get it. The AFL wants players to do more to protect the head, and incidents that were fine a couple of years ago will no longer fly. I’m just sick of the character assassination. These suggestions that he lined Cunningham up or made a conscious decision to play the man defy all available evidence, not to mention Wright’s squeaky clean character.

I don’t fundamentally disagree with that, I just think some of the claims about Wright’s actions are going too far. I accept that he will be out for at least a couple of weeks; more, if Essendon can’t get the impact downgraded from severe.

Lol here is an image of Wright taking off on his launch foot. Eyes on the ball. forearms in front preparing for a chest mark. If Cunningham hadn’t been there he was in a perfect position to take it.

https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/432214634_10163822328272846_6888950266869099236_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=1fKmoGlErQ8AX8uFyY4&_nc_ht=scontent-syd2-1.xx&oh=00_AfBLCt8lhrRFCsIoBYlNF7IuA1zhvFuilAMmX1eSeZK2Gw&oe=6605613A

Laughably incorrect.

Thank you for a more rational take on the Wright incident. All these people saying he chose to bump, or didn’t intend to mark the ball. It’s ludicrous. Wright will get a holiday because he’s clumsy, not because there was any malice involved.

The only part I tend to disagree with is that the impact was definitely ‘severe’ That’s the absolute worst grading it can be given. So where does the MRO then go if Wright had actually dropped his left shoulder (rather than turning chest-on) and breaks Cunningham’s jaw? I think there’s at least a reasonable argument for the Bombers that the impact level was high, not severe, which in my view should be reserved for the worst of incidents.

There is danger colliding with any opponent at speed. And bracing to protect yourself isn’t a thought-out decision. There’s no time to analyse it, let alone sum up the opponent’s height and weight.

Powell-Pepper’s problem was that he approached the contest intending to bump. He might not have meant to collect his opponent high, but it wasn’t about self-preservation. That said, it looks like Wright will end up with a similar punishment.

Also, Wright sought Cunningham and Longmire out immediately after the game to apologise. The guy is a kitten (often to the frustration of Bomber fans). He doesn’t have a malicious bone in his body.