Geelong coach Chris Scott fears Tom Hawkins’ ill-timed jumper punch could result in the Cats spearhead copping an undeserved suspension for the second time in as many years.
The AFL has flagged its intention to crack down on the practice of jumper punching after Richmond skipper Trent Cotchin controversially escaped with a fine for his blow to Docker Lachie Neale’s face three weeks ago.
Hawkins made contact with Adelaide midfielder’s Matt Crouch’s jaw in a scuffle just before halftime of Friday night’s match at Simonds Stadium which the Cats went on to win by 22 points.
The incident is certain to attract the attention of the match review panel, who could choose to either fine Hawkins or issue him with a one-match ban.
Hawkins was considered unlucky to be suspended for one game last year for a glancing blow to the throat of GWS co-captain Phil Davis.
“I think it will be bigger than it should be or would have been if there wasn’t the focus on it right at the moment,” Scott said on Friday night.
“We are believers that they should be consistent with those things.
“Obviously with Tom the footage will go back to the Phil Davis one – we think it is different to that.
“We thought he was very unlucky then, we think this one is more of a push than anything.”
Scott said he believed a fine was the appropriate penalty for low-level incidents such as the one involving Hawkins and Crouch.
But he could not rule out the prospect of the MRP being swayed by the public furore around jumper punching.
“How could you not be?” he said.
“I actually have a lot of confidence in them but I think they would be aware of the potential to be influenced.”
Hawkins kicked two goals in his 200th game.
The Cats had the match sewn up by midway through the third quarter, at which point they had raced out to a 47-point lead.
The ladder-leading Crows booted the last three goals of the game in junk time but the final score of 13.18 (96) to 10.14 (74) flattered the visitors.
Even though he was adamant that Hawkins did not deserve to be suspended, Scott said the big forward knew he was in the wrong.
“You can’t defend the indefensible,” he said.
“We’re not saying ‘hey, he did nothing wrong’ because clearly he did, based on the vision.
“We’re just saying in our view we’re pretty confident it was insignificant.
“But we open ourselves up to the accusation that you haven’t been reading the play on this stuff.”
John Uhr-Henry
Guest
As I said a few days ago Tom Hawkins should of got and did get his week for punching another player regardless of who started it. He has been a thug for many seasons now .And right now if its brought into a ridged law the punch will go out of the game very, very quickly. All umpires need some backbone and not favour some players against others. The game has gone a long way since the likes of Karl Ditterich who was the biggest punch happy guy ever to play the game and with less umpires and no camera`s following the game he got away with it every week. Instead of changing and adding new rules lets clean up the game and enjoy its present rules.
James
Guest
I never said anything about him getting off, my issue was medium impact. You said medium impact. It was low impact. You said you are never wrong and you were wrong. You were the one that put out that whoever is wrong to take a 2 week break. You clearly lost and now you're not sticking to your word. Extremely poor form! Clearly whatever you say on this forum I now need to take with a pinch of salt.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
That's not what I said at all James. I said: "If Hawkins doesn't get suspended, I'll take a 2 week break', vs you who thought he'd get off. Now what's weird is the fact our conversation has been deleted for some strange reason. I'm guessing you came back after my last comments and said something inappropriate for the entire conversation to be deleted by the mods.
James
Guest
Rick - from Afl.com.au "Hawkins was charged with intentionally striking Crouch in Friday night's clash at Simonds Stadium, with the hit graded as low impact to the head, resulting in a two-match ban that can be reduced to one with an early guilty plea." You said medium impact. I said you'd have to be soft to class it as medium impact. Here is your original comment just so there is no confusion: "My reasoning is based on conclusive vision showing him punching another player in the head with medium force." You said you're never wrong... But you were wrong? You said whoever is wrong takes a 2 week break from this forum... and you were wrong. Like Tom Hawkins having 2 weeks off... enjoy your 2 week break.
Don Freo
Guest
What a strange reaction. I can't imagine what goes through your mind. My point was a nod to JK Watts. Maybe you don't know who he is. I thought you barracked for Geelong.
Cat
Roar Guru
How is Geelong's ground exposed to wind differently than any ground other than the domed Etihad? If it is home state then GC should never host a final (Gabba is bigger) and GWS should never host a final (SCG is bigger). Whats the point of actually winning a home final if you don't get the advantage?
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
I think the other argument is that we don't want to see 90% of games played in one stadium type throughout the year and then hold a final in a ground which is quite different. Apart from the vociferous crowd (which is an okay advantage), Geelong's ground is exposed to the wind and has narrow pockets - this contributes to a much stronger advantage for a team that trains and plays in it regularly compared to other sides that experience it once every couple of years. The point of finals is to determine who is the best team, not hand a team a strong, unfair advantage. I want to see the best teams going at each other under equal conditions. Cat's argument about Geelong being treated the same as GWS is selective. The AFL is trying to generate interest in Sydney, which means they will apply different rules to GWS scheduling. The AFL presumably think this is in the best interests of the game. Why shouldn't the AFL treat Geelong the same as the Bulldogs? Or is Cat arguing that the Cats deserve to be given special treatment? Cat says Geelong's crowds will soon have a capacity of 40,000. Yet the Bulldogs were denied playing at Etihad, their home ground, which has a capacity of 54,000. I can accept the Bulldog's treatment in 2015 as reasonable if the AFL's policy is that you are entitled to a final in your home state, but not necessarily your home ground, and that the ground is selected on the basis of what's best for the sport and the public, not the highest-placed team.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
Makes perfect sense Don. Just remember: Stevie J & Cam Moonie (both premiership players after that 44 year drought) are two of the most suspended players in the history of the game. I'm more an 'actions' are better than 'words' type person, so whatever point you are trying to make with the Cats' theme song, I suggest you think a little harder about it. You might also what to remember who the player we're discussing plays for. Thanks for making my point though.
Aransan
Guest
I think you two guys should bury the hatchet. Following up Don on John Watts: "He went on to play for Geelong Football Club from 1963 until 1965 including their 1963 Premiership win over the Hawthorn Football Club. A Premiership win that Geelong Football Club would not win again until 44 years later in 2007. Although footage of John Watts' single-handed mark in the 3rd quarter of the Premiership match became the signature piece of footage from the 1963 Grand Final at the time, it was the club theme song that he penned for the Club to use if they won (which they did) that would become his lasting legacy. The club theme song is still played today at all home games, away games won and Premiership wins with Watts' original lyrics." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_K._Watts
Aransan
Guest
It is not so much having a home game as having a game in your home state. In Victoria there are options which should take into account likely crowd size -- MCG or Etihad? I will admit that the options are limited interstate but if an interstate team is entitled to a home state game then we have to live with the limited ground options.
Don Freo
Guest
That would say more about you than it does about me, Rick. Here's a sadder, more salutary thought for you Cats fans. Your past champion full back from the days of Polly Farmer and Denis Marshall, the great JK Watts, passed away in Perth today. JK, a very funny man, was the one who rewrote the words to Geelong's theme song. It is the song you have sung since your Grand Final win in 1963 (I think it was).
Cat
Roar Guru
No. Need less blood sucking leech lawyers in the game, not more.
Cat
Roar Guru
No. Just ... no. That is not how it works at all.
Cat
Roar Guru
The same argument can be made about any interstate ground when they host finals. Again why should Geelong be different?
Aransan
Guest
Most teams play multiple games at Etihad stadium and the MCG including Geelong, teams other than Geelong don't average a game a season at Kardinia Park. If the AFL are unwise enough to hold a final at Geelong they had better ensure that half the tickets are made available to supporters of the opposing team, hopefully they would also appoint their most experienced umpires. I, for one, don't want to see it.
Cat
Roar Guru
Better get used to it, if its good enough for GWS (and GCFC when they finally make finals) then the same rules should apply to Geelong. KP now seats 36k and which will fit 40k after stage 5.
Sammy
Guest
I think everyone feels the ump that saw it should be stood down for missing a free kick for the most blatant head high contact you would ever wish to see
Philby
Guest
No, it's not you.
GJ
Guest
Is it just me, or does Chris Scott use the media more than most in an attempt to manipulate outcomes for issues that could effect Geelong?
GJ
Guest
I suspect Cat was making reference to Peter Gordon (as in Slater and Gordon Lawyers). I tend to agree with your assessment of a little more balanced representation on the MRP. As far as I am concerned the whole MRP needs an overhaul though.