Gotta be a chunky spell you'd reckon? it's exactly how everything else has been handled, if you elect to bump, you're fucked if you hurt the other bloke.
Dunno if I'm being an idiot but it seems pretty open and shut
It’s kind of the death of the bump isn’t it? Players rarely do it anymore due to the punishments being doled out, even if it is a legal play. Just not worth it.
Regardless of what I personally think is a legal play with an accidental head clash, I feel like it’s going to be graded like prior bumps and due to the injury of the opposition player he’ll be out for 2 or so
> It’s kind of the death of the bump isn’t it?
No it's the death of reckless bumps, plenty of players still go for it, it was a Bunga staple, Duggan has seemed to inherit it cause he has laid out some *nasty* hits and not once been cited, it's really simple, don't hit the head and you're fine
Too many players still almost jump up to get the extra power in the bump. Just gotta get as low as possible into the body to avoid as much chance of a head contact as possible
Fair enough re: reckless, however this adjudication should be telling; he technically didn’t aim for the head as it was an accidental head clash. Will that still be viewed as a black and white case of “doesn’t matter, hit the head, X weeks”? Or is it a situational variable that requires a bit of sympathy on part of the tribunal? Will be interesting to see for sure
he elected to bump, he threw his body (potentially his elbow based off of the screenshot /u/petrifygwent posted) at the player, got them high and now the bloke is in hospital, using the AFLs grading matrix it's careless, high contact, severe impact, it's 3+ weeks (so sent to the tribunal) and I reckon he gets 4 or 5 for it
Fair play. Wonder if the head clash comes into it at all, as well as Parker’s relatively clean prior record.
I reckon he’ll get 2-4 depending on his defense
Just as an example of what I was talking about with Duggan earlier
https://twitter.com/themongrelpunt/status/1641243647516774401
and I would not get my hopes up for 2, bare minimum will be 3, they've shown with Wright that bumps tend to be forgiven a bit less than a dangerous tackle when it comes to a good guy defence
Solid call. Don’t really know what effect ‘good guy credits’ has on the defense (doesn’t seem like much as you have noted) but if they go off grading alone (which they very may well do given the result of the injury), then you’re probably right
People have been calling it "The Death Of The Bump" for well over a decade now, and guess what?
Here we are talking about a bump still!
The bump is alive and going nowhere. You just get in trouble if you fuck it up.
Doesn’t seem as bad as people are making it out to be but definitely a couple of week ban and silly of him to do when he’s trying to win his spot back. But it’s just a shepherd gone wrong not a dog act
I mean, the guy isn't chasing, he's jogging after the ball has left the area. Gets hit hard enough that it fractures his cheekbone and needs to go to hospital.
I don't think it's an overreaction to say it's instantly 3+.
I think you're being very generous calling it a Sheppard gone wrong.
Edit: I went and watched it again and the ball is 5 metres away. The dude is trotting. This is not just a Sheppard gone wrong.
I believe he'll get 5 as a guess.
It's because the majority of people here haven't played footy at a senior level anywhere.
Not for a second going to say that that means they don't deserve a say in all things footy, but it lends a different perspective to those that have.
The days of blasting someone in a shepherd are gone. This was way worse than “silly”. You use your body to stop them getting past but don’t try to nail them with a big hit, especially in the twos.
Some big hits need to happen, like if you’re both going for the ball. A shepherd can be successful just by getting in the way.
It’s an unnecessarily large hit and it’s even worse in the twos because those blokes don’t get paid to sit on the injured list for 3 weeks, they often lose their jobs or go unpaid until they can work again.
Brother please. A fair bump is a fair bump no matter how hard it is. We arent taking away legal actions (obviously this wasn’t legal because it got him high)
Look it’s just my opinion and it’s obviously an unpopular one, but I think an AFL player with 10 years of preseasons hitting a semi-pro who has to go to work on Monday and sending him to hospital is worse than if he did it in the AFL and the bloke could just a few weeks off but still get paid.
At senior level, if you expect any contest to not be at maximum physical intensity, you will get hurt. It's the nature of a full contact sport.
There's always going to be someone bigger, faster, stronger. If you expect them to not give 100%, again, you're going to get hurt.
It's fine you have that opinion, but that's not the reality. Tell me, do you think amateur mma fighters hold back on a punch, so they don't stop dave from laying brick on monday?
Because an amateur boxer never competes against a pro. And if they did, and the pro injured them with an illegal strike, there would be massive outrage
> an amateur boxer never competes against a pro
Huh? Yeah, they do. Anyways a good amateur can beat a bad pro, so it's a bit redundant anyways.
And I'm not defending an illegal move in any situation, but to not expect full effort because it's a lower grade, is delusional at best, and downright dangerous at worst.
Jimmy Webster did same thing to north’s captain, didn’t he get 7 weeks?
Regardless if it used to be a footy play, they’re ruling it out. You get penalised even if you’re running backwards towards the ball and connect with someone running the opposite way. Front on contact.
Either they really really really care about the players safety, or it’s costing them a shit ton in legal money with all the medical issues the older footy players are having.
There’s probably Country footy leagues that still play the classic way with older generation umpires, but they aren’t getting sued
I think this will be more nuanced that first impressions would indicate.
He is blocking for his teammate so you could argue it’s within the play.
This guy is taller and Parker doesn’t jump. By the way that Parker falls forward it will be interesting to see how the contact is made. Is it a high elbow or a head knock?
Parker is clearly in the guys line of sight and doesn’t appear to leave the ground so that rules out the Webster style suspension.
At the point of contact, Parker has slowed his momentum and appears to almost turn the other way. What doesn’t look good though is the elbow that emerges after the fact.
Key detail here will be what part of the body actually made contact.
It will likely be a few weeks, but not the monster suspension that some people are calling for.
He'd be pretty stiff to be graded intentional for what looks like a head clash, which rules out the Webster length penalty anyway.
Between 2 and 4 probably
I think what hurts Parker is that he seems to choose to bump instead of trying to do something where the ball is, and rather than shepherding wings out to simply block/control a player, he's elected to bump, and those two things mean this is likely 3 weeks or more if the player has serious enough injuries.
You should have added “ignore flair” to your summary I think. Maybe Josh Smith should be suspended for being on the field of play without Parker’s written authority. Don’t worry, the “Barry Hall and Sydney FC rules” will come into play and he will get off with a limp lettuce leaf.
[Clearer footage here](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7Frn6OSX6v/?igsh=a2ZreXZlM3drb2M2)
Really don’t think there’s much in this tbh, VIC media scraping the barrel at this point.
Looks to me like he raised his elbow and it potentially got him in the face. Hard to tell from that angle. Either way he's definitely gone for a long holiday.
Why are we suspending players for their opponents having zero situational awareness?
If you rolled in Bathurst and Craig Lowndes got his elbows out and you ended up in the wall that would be your fault.
Parker’s shorter, comes in low and at a very controlled pace, he’s not the one who’s responsible for the injury here.
It's unfortunate, no one deserves injury, but there's always going to be collisions. We can tell players not to bump or block in any way but it will always happen. Even if Parker just tries to get in his way with his arms out they might collide. I'd rather issue a warning to the entire code to have some awareness around the ball.
Off ball or late hits are a different scenario.
He was disposing of the ball and didn't have a lot of time to react to a player flying through at head height, but he got a career ending lesson in not protecting himself too.
Footage here. You'd think similar weeks to Webster. [https://x.com/RalphyHeraldSun/status/1791461372985024570](https://x.com/RalphyHeraldSun/status/1791461372985024570)
Thanks for the footage. Really hard to tell from it but it’s definitely after the ball and I’m pretty sure you can’t fracture a cheekbone from hitting the ground so LP should consider booking a holiday.
Also it’s crazy to me that 7 made a whole article discussing it without footage on it.
It doesn't really matter if the fractured cheekbone was from Parker's contact directly or from subsequent contact with the ground anyway, Parker's still responsible for the consequence of the bump.
All they need to see is he bumped off the ball, which he did, which resulted in a player going to hospital with a fractured cheekbone. Don't need any more info than that and he's getting a long spell
I agree with you. I think this will be 5-6 weeks. Parker can say he was trying to shepherd the ball so it was more of a football act, whereas in Webster's case it was always going to be a late hit well after the ball had left the area.
If Parker can successfully argue it was a football act (fair chance imo) then no way it's 5-6. Deserves a suspension for sure, you just can't be that careless these days, but if they accept it's a football act and the fact he didn't leave the ground then no way it's more than 3-4.
I think 4 would be reasonable. It's careless high and severe which is 3+, but again he didn't leave the ground which will be his saving grace here. Also hard to tell on the footage but may be a head clash and not a shoulder impact which again may mean it's less that 5.
Absolutely, not trying to defend it as a reason he'll get a light suspension, but it will be part of an argument if we do decide to appeal it. Again I think 4 would be reasonable, the more relevant argument will be whether it was a shepherd in play or not, and the fact he didn't leave the ground will also play in his favour to it being less than 5 imo.
3 is the minimum for hits like this so it’ll be above that due to the injury caused. I think 4 will be the starting point, but because he targeted a player that didn’t have the ball and wasn’t all that close when the impact happened, it’s likely it’s above 4
The argument will be whether he was shepherding therefore footy action in play, or late hit off the ball that's worth more that 4. Who tf knows what the mro will decide there, not gonna try and guess.
You’re spot on. This shit system makes it impossible to know so he could get anything from 3 onwards. I quite like Parker and think he’s an honest player so I don’t think there was intent to injure
Don't think there is anything in the rule book that says you can't leave the ground, just one of those things fans say like 'oh he went past the ball', so? You can go last the ball and leave the ground to bump someone and the bump can still be legal, if you hit the head and it's suddenly illegal it's not automatically worse because you went past the ball or left the ground.
IMO this bump didn't seem that hard but the other player was obviously completely unaware which usually makes it worse because they don't have any reflex protective actions.
Solely based on the fact the guy got a fractured bone or whatever it's very likely he will get somewhere between 4-7 weeks you'd think.
>Don't think there is anything in the rule book that says you can't leave the ground
Just to clarify, when people mention leaving the ground to bump, it's more an indicator that they launched at the player and/or didn't attempt to get low and bump body-on-body
Mm, doesn't seem to jump at the player like Webster does, and shepherding is legal, jumping at a player who has just kicked it is not
Has to be responsible for the high contact though if he chooses to bump so probably 2 - 3 weeks. Not sure if VFL runs the same gradings as AFL, but careless high high is 2 weeks, careless high severe is 3(+)
Wouldn't be graded intentional for a head clash surely
I don’t think the player was in as vulnerable position as Simpkin was for Webster but impact from Parker looks more severe so agree it’s probs similar suspension
No he’s not. Or at least he shouldn’t be.
Play didn’t even stop, split him straight down the middle, perfect shepherd from the vision. If he got him high then it’s a suspension, it’s a fine line but it’s a very important one.
> If he got him high
How's this in doubt? The article says that the opponent
> was sent to hospital with facial injuries. It's believed he suffered a cheekbone injury.
May have been a head clash -- I'm not saying it was malicious or necessarily a shoulder or elbow to the head -- but when you're breaking a guy's cheekbone you're definitely not executing a 'perfect shepherd'.
The actual footage is pretty grainy, but he chose to bump after the ball had gone past him and put the bloke in hospital with facial injuries.
That's gonna be a holiday for Parker. With Warner looking at holiday as well as Fox doing his shoulder this would have been his chance to get back into the team too.
I guess Cleary, Campbell, or Sheldrick get a run instead
Why not just shepherd?
Would’ve had the desired effect of slowing down the oppo with the added bonus of not breaking their face and giving yourself weeks.
He had no eyes for the ball, and shirt fronted a bloke not actually in the contest. It's precisely the action the AFL is trying to stamp out, and anyone who wants us to keep physicality on the ball in the game needs to recognise that having needless violence off the ball is a risk. CTE and life changing injuries for fucking no real reason in the twos is a shit thing to see in footy, just no need to blast a bloke meters off the ball who's not seriously in the play into tomorrow.
Going hard for a shepherd, doesn't leave the ground. Super careless, deserves a suspension, but I really wouldn't call it a dog act. Just because he fractured a cheekbone doesn't mean his intent was to do something that merits a "dog act".
How’s that fickle? The contest had been and gone, bumps him after the ball had well and truly passed. The player clearly wasn’t suspecting it and ends up in hospital.
Club champion or not for the team you support, it was dirty and exactly what needs to be stamped out of the game.
Young players careers are getting ended over head knocks.
That would be a classic Sheppard back in the day. I understand he will get banned for it but calling it a dog act and comparing it to the Saints player is laughable. Talk about overreaction for online forums.
And calling someone a homophobic slur was a classic sledge back in the day, times change.
Knowing what we know now about CTE, concussion and players having their careers ended early due to head knock, this is absolutely a dog act. It was completely intentional and the player was no where near the contest.
Lmao the Internet. What a straw man. don't worry go for it. Get worked up over this. But calling your club champion a dog after 13 years of being one of the best and fairest players is Fickle. I'm not saying it wasn't wrong of Parker, but that reaction I'm calling a spade a spade.
Seems like you don't know there's more than one definition for words.
You sound like you lack stability. You were very quick to turn on your clubs fans. Fickle, some might say.
If you want surface level, maybe you're just a wanker.
See below for dictionary definition:
> wanker
> UK /ˈwæŋ.kər/ US /ˈwæŋ.kɚ/
> noun: wanker; plural noun: wankers
> a contemptible person (used as a general term of abuse).
Yea you seem like a huge one too. I'll get over someone on the Internet's disagreement. Not once have I abused or called names to anyone like you have. Enjoy your week thanks for the effort to educate yourself.
Respectfully disagree, I understand that Parker made a mistake here but I feel like he deserves a bit of slack from "absolute dog act". Feel like there's a big difference to the Webster one. Your criticism is fair but yea just felt it was a bit strong to not give Parks the benefit of the doubt.
I'd like to see some better quality footage because it almost looks like he doesn't get him head high, although that clearly can't be the case if he broke his cheekbone. Considering that the other guy is hospitalised he'll probably be looking at 4 or 5 weeks, not as bad as the Webster incident like some are saying.
Best quality footage looks like he's bumped him in the chest, so guessing it was a head clash? If so, you'd think 2-3. Standard is set, he'll have to get weeks, but it's not an egregious incident. Good bump with an unfortunate accidental head knock.
6 down to 4 with the good bloke clause. Personally, I think it always looks worse when a bloke of Parker's obvious quality who plays the game a good step above those in the VFL does something like this. Not only does he know better, but he's mentally and physically the superior athlete. Not slagging Parker off directly, but this kind of thing always comes off as punching down pretty hard to me.
Hang on, most bombers fans were arguing he was just going for the ball and it should have been no weeks. Is anyone in here claiming that it shouldn't be looked at at all?
Go grind your axe somewhere else
Parker bumped a bloke off the ball and sent him to hospital with a fractured cheekbone. That was always trouble even before the afl cracked down on head injuries but everyone seems to be downplaying it a fair bit
Will be 4 weeks but geez, the injured player has to be one of the most unaware players ever. Its like he thinks he is the only player on the field. At no stage did he even try to protect himself. It's a contact sport ffs.
He's chasing trying to put pressure on the Swans player running after the footy, more than 5 metres away from the footy. Then Parker comes around for the bump, he'd have less than half a second to react. How do you suggest he pre-emptively protect himself?
That's one way to get out of playing in the 2's
Suspended from VFL- forced to play back in the AFL this week
Gotta be a chunky spell you'd reckon? it's exactly how everything else has been handled, if you elect to bump, you're fucked if you hurt the other bloke. Dunno if I'm being an idiot but it seems pretty open and shut
If VFL run the same gradings, careless high high is 2 weeks, careless high severe is 3(+) Wouldn't be graded intentional for a head clash surely
Would definitely be 3+ no way it's not severe impact
> no way it's not severe impact old mate ended up in the hospital with a broken cheekbone apparently, severe for sure
Yeah... that's what I said?
Yeah, I was agreeing with you, with some extra context for other readers. No need to get your back up mate
Just reply with your comment, quoting a one sentence comment is weird.
Yeah probably
Considering the part where the other player ended up in the hospital, then yeah, severe impact for sure
I said severe too?
I agree, I’d be expecting 2-3 weeks. Guy didn’t have the ball, and even though it appears Parker stayed low.. the head was hit regardless
It’s kind of the death of the bump isn’t it? Players rarely do it anymore due to the punishments being doled out, even if it is a legal play. Just not worth it. Regardless of what I personally think is a legal play with an accidental head clash, I feel like it’s going to be graded like prior bumps and due to the injury of the opposition player he’ll be out for 2 or so
> It’s kind of the death of the bump isn’t it? No it's the death of reckless bumps, plenty of players still go for it, it was a Bunga staple, Duggan has seemed to inherit it cause he has laid out some *nasty* hits and not once been cited, it's really simple, don't hit the head and you're fine
Too many players still almost jump up to get the extra power in the bump. Just gotta get as low as possible into the body to avoid as much chance of a head contact as possible
Fair enough re: reckless, however this adjudication should be telling; he technically didn’t aim for the head as it was an accidental head clash. Will that still be viewed as a black and white case of “doesn’t matter, hit the head, X weeks”? Or is it a situational variable that requires a bit of sympathy on part of the tribunal? Will be interesting to see for sure
If you *elect to bump* (and Parker did) and hit the head you will be rubbed out, if it's an accidental clash it will most likely be forgiven
So which would this fall under in your opinion? Accidental clash during the bump or electing to bump and hitting the head, therefore rub out?
he elected to bump, he threw his body (potentially his elbow based off of the screenshot /u/petrifygwent posted) at the player, got them high and now the bloke is in hospital, using the AFLs grading matrix it's careless, high contact, severe impact, it's 3+ weeks (so sent to the tribunal) and I reckon he gets 4 or 5 for it
Yep. He did everything wrong. This is 4-6 weeks.
Fair play. Wonder if the head clash comes into it at all, as well as Parker’s relatively clean prior record. I reckon he’ll get 2-4 depending on his defense
Just as an example of what I was talking about with Duggan earlier https://twitter.com/themongrelpunt/status/1641243647516774401 and I would not get my hopes up for 2, bare minimum will be 3, they've shown with Wright that bumps tend to be forgiven a bit less than a dangerous tackle when it comes to a good guy defence
Solid call. Don’t really know what effect ‘good guy credits’ has on the defense (doesn’t seem like much as you have noted) but if they go off grading alone (which they very may well do given the result of the injury), then you’re probably right
People have been calling it "The Death Of The Bump" for well over a decade now, and guess what? Here we are talking about a bump still! The bump is alive and going nowhere. You just get in trouble if you fuck it up.
Doesn’t seem as bad as people are making it out to be but definitely a couple of week ban and silly of him to do when he’s trying to win his spot back. But it’s just a shepherd gone wrong not a dog act
I mean, the guy isn't chasing, he's jogging after the ball has left the area. Gets hit hard enough that it fractures his cheekbone and needs to go to hospital. I don't think it's an overreaction to say it's instantly 3+. I think you're being very generous calling it a Sheppard gone wrong. Edit: I went and watched it again and the ball is 5 metres away. The dude is trotting. This is not just a Sheppard gone wrong. I believe he'll get 5 as a guess.
This sub always overreacts with suspensions.
It's because the majority of people here haven't played footy at a senior level anywhere. Not for a second going to say that that means they don't deserve a say in all things footy, but it lends a different perspective to those that have.
Watching afl players do it makes you forget how hard they actually hit each other and how careful they need to be to not injure someone
\*collingwood suspensions
The days of blasting someone in a shepherd are gone. This was way worse than “silly”. You use your body to stop them getting past but don’t try to nail them with a big hit, especially in the twos.
Yeah no big hits in the twos please 🤡🤡🤡
Nah, you play footy in the 2’s the same as you’d play it in the seniors. The moment you don’t, it’s time to give it up.
Some big hits need to happen, like if you’re both going for the ball. A shepherd can be successful just by getting in the way. It’s an unnecessarily large hit and it’s even worse in the twos because those blokes don’t get paid to sit on the injured list for 3 weeks, they often lose their jobs or go unpaid until they can work again.
Brother please. A fair bump is a fair bump no matter how hard it is. We arent taking away legal actions (obviously this wasn’t legal because it got him high)
> especially in the twos what does this mean exactly?
Look it’s just my opinion and it’s obviously an unpopular one, but I think an AFL player with 10 years of preseasons hitting a semi-pro who has to go to work on Monday and sending him to hospital is worse than if he did it in the AFL and the bloke could just a few weeks off but still get paid.
At senior level, if you expect any contest to not be at maximum physical intensity, you will get hurt. It's the nature of a full contact sport. There's always going to be someone bigger, faster, stronger. If you expect them to not give 100%, again, you're going to get hurt. It's fine you have that opinion, but that's not the reality. Tell me, do you think amateur mma fighters hold back on a punch, so they don't stop dave from laying brick on monday?
Amatuer MMA is a ridiculous comparison.
how so? insert amatuer boxing, or even rugby, same difference
Because an amateur boxer never competes against a pro. And if they did, and the pro injured them with an illegal strike, there would be massive outrage
> an amateur boxer never competes against a pro Huh? Yeah, they do. Anyways a good amateur can beat a bad pro, so it's a bit redundant anyways. And I'm not defending an illegal move in any situation, but to not expect full effort because it's a lower grade, is delusional at best, and downright dangerous at worst.
I’m not talking about effort though. You can have 100% effort without sending someone to hospital.
Jimmy Webster did same thing to north’s captain, didn’t he get 7 weeks? Regardless if it used to be a footy play, they’re ruling it out. You get penalised even if you’re running backwards towards the ball and connect with someone running the opposite way. Front on contact. Either they really really really care about the players safety, or it’s costing them a shit ton in legal money with all the medical issues the older footy players are having. There’s probably Country footy leagues that still play the classic way with older generation umpires, but they aren’t getting sued
Jimmy Webster did not do the same thing. Not even close
I think this will be more nuanced that first impressions would indicate. He is blocking for his teammate so you could argue it’s within the play. This guy is taller and Parker doesn’t jump. By the way that Parker falls forward it will be interesting to see how the contact is made. Is it a high elbow or a head knock? Parker is clearly in the guys line of sight and doesn’t appear to leave the ground so that rules out the Webster style suspension. At the point of contact, Parker has slowed his momentum and appears to almost turn the other way. What doesn’t look good though is the elbow that emerges after the fact. Key detail here will be what part of the body actually made contact. It will likely be a few weeks, but not the monster suspension that some people are calling for.
He'd be pretty stiff to be graded intentional for what looks like a head clash, which rules out the Webster length penalty anyway. Between 2 and 4 probably
Websters was also graded careless.
No, surely not?
Bumps are usually graded careless because it's regarded as a footy act gone wrong I think. I don't think we've seen a bump graded intentional yet.
Careless, Severe, High, sent straight to the tribunal
I think what hurts Parker is that he seems to choose to bump instead of trying to do something where the ball is, and rather than shepherding wings out to simply block/control a player, he's elected to bump, and those two things mean this is likely 3 weeks or more if the player has serious enough injuries.
Kid went to hospital with a fractured cheek bone.
You should have added “ignore flair” to your summary I think. Maybe Josh Smith should be suspended for being on the field of play without Parker’s written authority. Don’t worry, the “Barry Hall and Sydney FC rules” will come into play and he will get off with a limp lettuce leaf.
Damn... With Fox injured and maybe resting some players on a short break heading in to the bye I was sure he'd be in this week.
Spin the wheel to play with the tribunal!
[Clearer footage here](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7Frn6OSX6v/?igsh=a2ZreXZlM3drb2M2) Really don’t think there’s much in this tbh, VIC media scraping the barrel at this point.
Much clearer looks like he fairly bumps him in the body, not sure how he hurt the guys head? Head clash? Need to see it slowed down.
Looks to me like he raised his elbow and it potentially got him in the face. Hard to tell from that angle. Either way he's definitely gone for a long holiday.
Why are we suspending players for their opponents having zero situational awareness? If you rolled in Bathurst and Craig Lowndes got his elbows out and you ended up in the wall that would be your fault. Parker’s shorter, comes in low and at a very controlled pace, he’s not the one who’s responsible for the injury here.
Yeah agree VFL player deserves weeks and potentially life changing concussion impacts similar to Kosi.
It's unfortunate, no one deserves injury, but there's always going to be collisions. We can tell players not to bump or block in any way but it will always happen. Even if Parker just tries to get in his way with his arms out they might collide. I'd rather issue a warning to the entire code to have some awareness around the ball. Off ball or late hits are a different scenario.
Agreed. The real injustice last year was Brayshaw not getting a month off.
He was disposing of the ball and didn't have a lot of time to react to a player flying through at head height, but he got a career ending lesson in not protecting himself too.
Footage here. You'd think similar weeks to Webster. [https://x.com/RalphyHeraldSun/status/1791461372985024570](https://x.com/RalphyHeraldSun/status/1791461372985024570)
Thanks for the footage. Really hard to tell from it but it’s definitely after the ball and I’m pretty sure you can’t fracture a cheekbone from hitting the ground so LP should consider booking a holiday. Also it’s crazy to me that 7 made a whole article discussing it without footage on it.
It doesn't really matter if the fractured cheekbone was from Parker's contact directly or from subsequent contact with the ground anyway, Parker's still responsible for the consequence of the bump.
I doubt he will get Similar to Webster just cause the vision isn't as conclusive but definitely a few weeks
All they need to see is he bumped off the ball, which he did, which resulted in a player going to hospital with a fractured cheekbone. Don't need any more info than that and he's getting a long spell
Agree but it won't be 7 weeks
It was higher impact than Websters, so there's a fair chance it will be.
I agree with you. I think this will be 5-6 weeks. Parker can say he was trying to shepherd the ball so it was more of a football act, whereas in Webster's case it was always going to be a late hit well after the ball had left the area.
If Parker can successfully argue it was a football act (fair chance imo) then no way it's 5-6. Deserves a suspension for sure, you just can't be that careless these days, but if they accept it's a football act and the fact he didn't leave the ground then no way it's more than 3-4.
I personally can't see how he gets less than SPP's 4 weeks - lined him up from further off and the guy isn't carrying the ball.
I think 4 would be reasonable. It's careless high and severe which is 3+, but again he didn't leave the ground which will be his saving grace here. Also hard to tell on the footage but may be a head clash and not a shoulder impact which again may mean it's less that 5.
Head clash hasn't been a justifiable defence for years. The guy ended up in hospital with a fractured cheekbone from a luke Parker bump.
Absolutely, not trying to defend it as a reason he'll get a light suspension, but it will be part of an argument if we do decide to appeal it. Again I think 4 would be reasonable, the more relevant argument will be whether it was a shepherd in play or not, and the fact he didn't leave the ground will also play in his favour to it being less than 5 imo.
3 is the minimum for hits like this so it’ll be above that due to the injury caused. I think 4 will be the starting point, but because he targeted a player that didn’t have the ball and wasn’t all that close when the impact happened, it’s likely it’s above 4
The argument will be whether he was shepherding therefore footy action in play, or late hit off the ball that's worth more that 4. Who tf knows what the mro will decide there, not gonna try and guess.
You’re spot on. This shit system makes it impossible to know so he could get anything from 3 onwards. I quite like Parker and think he’s an honest player so I don’t think there was intent to injure
Webster left the ground didn't he? This is super careless and deserves a suspension but definitely won't be similar to Webster based on that footage.
Don't think there is anything in the rule book that says you can't leave the ground, just one of those things fans say like 'oh he went past the ball', so? You can go last the ball and leave the ground to bump someone and the bump can still be legal, if you hit the head and it's suddenly illegal it's not automatically worse because you went past the ball or left the ground. IMO this bump didn't seem that hard but the other player was obviously completely unaware which usually makes it worse because they don't have any reflex protective actions. Solely based on the fact the guy got a fractured bone or whatever it's very likely he will get somewhere between 4-7 weeks you'd think.
>Don't think there is anything in the rule book that says you can't leave the ground Just to clarify, when people mention leaving the ground to bump, it's more an indicator that they launched at the player and/or didn't attempt to get low and bump body-on-body
Mm, doesn't seem to jump at the player like Webster does, and shepherding is legal, jumping at a player who has just kicked it is not Has to be responsible for the high contact though if he chooses to bump so probably 2 - 3 weeks. Not sure if VFL runs the same gradings as AFL, but careless high high is 2 weeks, careless high severe is 3(+) Wouldn't be graded intentional for a head clash surely
There's no way he's getting 2 weeks for choosing to bump, getting a guy high and fracturing his cheekbone. Has to be 5 minimum.
So you're arguing this is less weeks than Peter Wright in a marking contest? Lol. He bumped and sent a guy to hospital. He's screwed.
He'd be stiff to get more than 4 for a head clash.
Wild levels of Sydney coloured glasses here
He should be lucky if he gets less than 6.
Let's not bring precedent into this. The AFL doesn't seem to.
I don’t think the player was in as vulnerable position as Simpkin was for Webster but impact from Parker looks more severe so agree it’s probs similar suspension
You can take the boy out of Frankston, until he returns
No he’s not. Or at least he shouldn’t be. Play didn’t even stop, split him straight down the middle, perfect shepherd from the vision. If he got him high then it’s a suspension, it’s a fine line but it’s a very important one.
> If he got him high How's this in doubt? The article says that the opponent > was sent to hospital with facial injuries. It's believed he suffered a cheekbone injury. May have been a head clash -- I'm not saying it was malicious or necessarily a shoulder or elbow to the head -- but when you're breaking a guy's cheekbone you're definitely not executing a 'perfect shepherd'.
Definitely a head clash. No way Parker’s shoulder got him in the face.
I feel as tho his shoulder hit him in the chest area and damage to the face is either from head to head contact or when he hit the ground
The actual footage is pretty grainy, but he chose to bump after the ball had gone past him and put the bloke in hospital with facial injuries. That's gonna be a holiday for Parker. With Warner looking at holiday as well as Fox doing his shoulder this would have been his chance to get back into the team too. I guess Cleary, Campbell, or Sheldrick get a run instead
Warner is not getting suspended for a negligible force high fend off.
Garbage video player on their trash website. Am I the only one who couldn't watch it?
It’s garbage!!! I thought we were playing football……. Not puss-ball
Why not just shepherd? Would’ve had the desired effect of slowing down the oppo with the added bonus of not breaking their face and giving yourself weeks.
He had no eyes for the ball, and shirt fronted a bloke not actually in the contest. It's precisely the action the AFL is trying to stamp out, and anyone who wants us to keep physicality on the ball in the game needs to recognise that having needless violence off the ball is a risk. CTE and life changing injuries for fucking no real reason in the twos is a shit thing to see in footy, just no need to blast a bloke meters off the ball who's not seriously in the play into tomorrow.
Have a spell Parker, absolute dog act.
He'll cop a big suspension but "absolute dog act"??? This just looks like a shepherd gone awry.
Thank you.
Ball was 5 metres away and he fractured the bloke’s cheekbone. Seems pretty dog to me
Going hard for a shepherd, doesn't leave the ground. Super careless, deserves a suspension, but I really wouldn't call it a dog act. Just because he fractured a cheekbone doesn't mean his intent was to do something that merits a "dog act".
Well yeah, of course the ball was a few meters away because it was a shepherd.
God fans are fickle.
How’s that fickle? The contest had been and gone, bumps him after the ball had well and truly passed. The player clearly wasn’t suspecting it and ends up in hospital. Club champion or not for the team you support, it was dirty and exactly what needs to be stamped out of the game. Young players careers are getting ended over head knocks.
That would be a classic Sheppard back in the day. I understand he will get banned for it but calling it a dog act and comparing it to the Saints player is laughable. Talk about overreaction for online forums.
And calling someone a homophobic slur was a classic sledge back in the day, times change. Knowing what we know now about CTE, concussion and players having their careers ended early due to head knock, this is absolutely a dog act. It was completely intentional and the player was no where near the contest.
Lmao the Internet. What a straw man. don't worry go for it. Get worked up over this. But calling your club champion a dog after 13 years of being one of the best and fairest players is Fickle. I'm not saying it wasn't wrong of Parker, but that reaction I'm calling a spade a spade.
Club champions don't smash oppo player's faces off the ball in the 2s.
Back in the day you could fuck your vice captain's wife and glass a woman without it ending your media career, too. Fuck back in the day
Now that's a dog act.
You're sounding pretty fickle rn
Seems a lot of people need to find a dictionary.
Seems like you don't know there's more than one definition for words. You sound like you lack stability. You were very quick to turn on your clubs fans. Fickle, some might say.
Lmao + the psycho analysis + the hyperbole. This is next level reddit.
If you want surface level, maybe you're just a wanker. See below for dictionary definition: > wanker > UK /ˈwæŋ.kər/ US /ˈwæŋ.kɚ/ > noun: wanker; plural noun: wankers > a contemptible person (used as a general term of abuse).
Yea you seem like a huge one too. I'll get over someone on the Internet's disagreement. Not once have I abused or called names to anyone like you have. Enjoy your week thanks for the effort to educate yourself.
? Just because he plays for my team doesn’t mean I’m not going to criticise him for this. It was a dog act, he’s not a dog player
Respectfully disagree, I understand that Parker made a mistake here but I feel like he deserves a bit of slack from "absolute dog act". Feel like there's a big difference to the Webster one. Your criticism is fair but yea just felt it was a bit strong to not give Parks the benefit of the doubt.
Breaking: AFL player shirtfronts VFL player, breaks jaw, in absolute lo-fi study vibes act How'd I do?
In this context what does that even mean?
Google the definition
I'd like to see some better quality footage because it almost looks like he doesn't get him head high, although that clearly can't be the case if he broke his cheekbone. Considering that the other guy is hospitalised he'll probably be looking at 4 or 5 weeks, not as bad as the Webster incident like some are saying.
4 weeks minimum easily
It’s not great footage but it looked like he hit him in the chest/shoulders, maybe an accidental head clash after?
Best quality footage looks like he's bumped him in the chest, so guessing it was a head clash? If so, you'd think 2-3. Standard is set, he'll have to get weeks, but it's not an egregious incident. Good bump with an unfortunate accidental head knock.
Head clash will still consider contact as high, as LP initiated contact. Most likely line will be Careless, High, Severe.
Parker, babe, that's not how you're supposed to shepherd.
5 not out of the question I’d reckon
Remember. You can pretend to be tough, but you've still got to win the ball and win the game. Frankston won by 15 points.
6 down to 4 with the good bloke clause. Personally, I think it always looks worse when a bloke of Parker's obvious quality who plays the game a good step above those in the VFL does something like this. Not only does he know better, but he's mentally and physically the superior athlete. Not slagging Parker off directly, but this kind of thing always comes off as punching down pretty hard to me.
fair bump play on
7 weeks minimum, dog act.
Loving all the Sydney fans changing their tunes after wright was a weak dog for being 0.1 seconds late to a marking contest
Hang on, most bombers fans were arguing he was just going for the ball and it should have been no weeks. Is anyone in here claiming that it shouldn't be looked at at all? Go grind your axe somewhere else
Parker bumped a bloke off the ball and sent him to hospital with a fractured cheekbone. That was always trouble even before the afl cracked down on head injuries but everyone seems to be downplaying it a fair bit
Will be 4 weeks but geez, the injured player has to be one of the most unaware players ever. Its like he thinks he is the only player on the field. At no stage did he even try to protect himself. It's a contact sport ffs.
Shit take
He's chasing trying to put pressure on the Swans player running after the footy, more than 5 metres away from the footy. Then Parker comes around for the bump, he'd have less than half a second to react. How do you suggest he pre-emptively protect himself?