Definitely getting suspended and it’s completely fair for that to be the outcome. I can’t see it being more than 4. I really see a world where it is 2.
Edit: I was wrong. I truly could have seen a world where a cheeky VFL discount dropped it to 2 and saying 2 was fun for the discussion. But I am shocked at 6. I thought 4 was the likely number.
People comparing it to Webster are crazy, but you're equally as crazy to say that's 2, at minimum it's 3 (Careless, High contact, severe impact) but more likely it'll be 4 or 5
If we use a similar framework to Peter Wright who was contesting and then chose to turn into the contest which resulted in a head knock? He is out for 6, he has chosen to not attack the ball and go the man 5m+ from the ball - with the contact being to the head (rather than the result of which, hit the ground)
If there's any level of consistency, he has to be 4+ given the choice he had and the contact point
Sorry mate, I don't see the same viewpoint. he had his eye on the ball and diverted it in the air. which is irrefutable when you watch it. Still worthy of penalty but a dog act off the ball is a more deserving penalty beyond Peters
We were the club with the benchmark incident this year, we're gonna get dragged into a lot of this. Except for when its convenient because we need to let a star get a lighter sentence y'know.
correction: my apologies, he did it THREE times in LESS then 2 seasons:
[First against Baz round 1 last year, second against Cripps in the semi last year and then against Soligo in Gather round this year.](https://www.afl.com.au/news/1105470/melbourne-demons-back-banned-kysaiah-picketts-appetite-for-change)
Not saying Pickett's bumps shouldn't be banned but Pickett's bumps are no where as bad as Websters. For one, pretty sure all the players players Pickett bumped played out the game whereas Simpkin was knocked cold immediately.
Could also argue Maynard ended a career but got to play in a grand final.
How have North supporters turned this into some kind of agenda against them? Webster got an enormous suspension and Clarkson was given a suspended fine.
I think the ones it’s most similar to would be dangerfield on Kelly, and going way way back Gia on kosi.
Whatever danger got plus another one or two is fairest to me
Debating whether it's 5 weeks or 7 by arguing that it's "not as bad as Webster" just feels like such a waste of energy from everyone involved.
Best thing swans fans can do is just ignore it and move on. Parker doesn't need you to defend his act on reddit threads.
Didn’t leave the ground, Shepherding for his team mate, footage is very poor quality, has little to no prior bans in over a decade of footy.
Hospitalised a bloke who did not touch the ball away from the contest
I reckon it’s 3 weeks, but not sure if they will count the bye or not. Do the VFL team also have a bye?
Is it less bad than Powell Peppers in preseason? He got 4 weeks for running in at a bloke with the footy, and concussed him (no facial injuries like Parker's case).
I'd be upset if it was less than 4 based on that precedent set.
https://www.afl.com.au/news/1080017/port-adelaide-power-sam-powell-pepper-learns-fate-at-tribunal
Parker’s is worse than that. Although footage is much clearer for SPP. if I’m Sydney’s lawyers, that’s the point I’m going to hammer home. Cripps was worse and he won a brownlow thanks to some Saul Goodman Esque lawyering.
How was Cripps worse? Impact clearly worse in Parker's incident, ball not within 5 meters when contact was made.
Yes Cripps obviously should have been suspended.
Luke Parker did not stay on the ground, he left the ground and had a raised elbow.
https://preview.redd.it/gj0qk5jhl31d1.png?width=1812&format=png&auto=webp&s=bd056503baf87d7582cb13e93bed60d9d075def7
Show the frames before the bump if you want to look honest. Left foot still on the ground and planted for the hit, elbow by his side, Parker's shoulder is first point of contact. Your screenshot only shows the aftermath.
He's gone for a month, no need to tell tales.
This photo is after the contact is made. The elbow raises after the bump which almost always happens and both players are launched from their feet due to the impact. You’re spreading a lie here
Nope. Go frame by frame and you'll see both parkers feet leave the ground as the contact is about to be made. Notice how the guy being hit in this frame still has 1 foot on the ground and he is recoiling backwards, yet both Parkers ALREADY went in to the air? There is no reason whatsoever for Parkers feet to leave the ground before he makes contact.
This is the point of contact.
Parker is on the up in a jumping action, my guess is his shoulder (though still has a bit of a way to go here) or (/and) head made high contact.
Parker is trying to send his body mass through the Oppo player, so as they bounce off each other Parker's elbow is raised as he is pushing out with it.
Not sure what a lot of people's obsession is with someone leaving their feet. Electing to bump is the intention, leaving your feet may make it more likely to get high contact, but any bump with high contact is careless.
What leaving your feet before contact does do is limit the amount of energy you can impart onto another player (landing on top of them aside).
Parker times his bump perfectly with contact made while still driving off the ground with his legs (leading to severe impact combining with running almost head on). Just careless to create high contact. (also ball not with 5m)
Jumping/leaving the ground used to be a key differentiation between negligent and reckless. It's not been relevant for 10 years since they merged the negligent and reckless gradings into a single careless grading though.
Yeah, I can see the logic that jumping increases chance of high contact. Though I also like any bump with high contact being judged with the same intent.
2 Meters Peters left the ground and then made shoulder contact to the head. Was very different. To me 4 was the appropriate amount in the current climate. Previous years would have been 1 or 2.
If that counts as a shepherd then yeah. Parker lined him up and annihilated him. The onus is completely on him to avoid contact with the opposition’s head.
The AFL is absolutely trying to stamp out players who run past the ball to knock another player out
Facts
Ran past the ball
Knocked another player high
Parker is 100% getting suspended and rightly so. But to think it’s in the same realm as Webster’s is laughable
Definitely getting suspended and it’s completely fair for that to be the outcome. I can’t see it being more than 4. I really see a world where it is 2. Edit: I was wrong. I truly could have seen a world where a cheeky VFL discount dropped it to 2 and saying 2 was fun for the discussion. But I am shocked at 6. I thought 4 was the likely number.
People comparing it to Webster are crazy, but you're equally as crazy to say that's 2, at minimum it's 3 (Careless, High contact, severe impact) but more likely it'll be 4 or 5
No chance it'll be 2. Likely 4, careless high severe.
In what world is it 2? It’s high, severe and careless (at least) which is a minimum of three weeks.
Relax mate 2 isn't far from 3 he's just estimating
If we use a similar framework to Peter Wright who was contesting and then chose to turn into the contest which resulted in a head knock? He is out for 6, he has chosen to not attack the ball and go the man 5m+ from the ball - with the contact being to the head (rather than the result of which, hit the ground) If there's any level of consistency, he has to be 4+ given the choice he had and the contact point
Wright hit Cunningham in the head. There's literally a still of Cunningham's face being mashed against Wright's arm.
Sorry mate, I don't see the same viewpoint. he had his eye on the ball and diverted it in the air. which is irrefutable when you watch it. Still worthy of penalty but a dog act off the ball is a more deserving penalty beyond Peters
Yeah, sure, but I'm not arguing that. You said Wright didn't hit Cunningham in the head when he clearly did.
He hit late, Hugh and sent the bloke to the hospital no shot that gets argued under severe impact. I know you like Parker but he’s gone for a 4-6
It wasn’t late. It was a shepherd.
Don't drag us into this.
We were the club with the benchmark incident this year, we're gonna get dragged into a lot of this. Except for when its convenient because we need to let a star get a lighter sentence y'know.
Webster is the Hall/Gaff once every five years incident, not the benchmark. The benchmark this year is SPP for the Keane hit
Webster was basically pre meditated. Saw the high fend off on Hill and saw red. Launched himself at the head intentionally and exclusively
Kozi Pickett has done this 4 times in the past 2 seasons, and how he gets off so lightly every time compared webster to absolute astounds me
You're saying that Pickett has done what Webster did FOUR times in the past two seasons?
correction: my apologies, he did it THREE times in LESS then 2 seasons: [First against Baz round 1 last year, second against Cripps in the semi last year and then against Soligo in Gather round this year.](https://www.afl.com.au/news/1105470/melbourne-demons-back-banned-kysaiah-picketts-appetite-for-change)
Not saying Pickett's bumps shouldn't be banned but Pickett's bumps are no where as bad as Websters. For one, pretty sure all the players players Pickett bumped played out the game whereas Simpkin was knocked cold immediately. Could also argue Maynard ended a career but got to play in a grand final.
Websters was actually fucked. The only intention he had was to hurt. Didn’t even need to make contact with Simpkin.
[удалено]
Probably got a bit more to do with Clarko’s history tbf. I like Clarko, but he’s made some stupid decisions in the past.
How have North supporters turned this into some kind of agenda against them? Webster got an enormous suspension and Clarkson was given a suspended fine.
I think the ones it’s most similar to would be dangerfield on Kelly, and going way way back Gia on kosi. Whatever danger got plus another one or two is fairest to me
Debating whether it's 5 weeks or 7 by arguing that it's "not as bad as Webster" just feels like such a waste of energy from everyone involved. Best thing swans fans can do is just ignore it and move on. Parker doesn't need you to defend his act on reddit threads.
> Parker doesn't need you to defend his act on reddit threads. True but will I still do it? You're goddamn right
Is the difference he was called a cocksucker after?
Didn’t leave the ground, Shepherding for his team mate, footage is very poor quality, has little to no prior bans in over a decade of footy. Hospitalised a bloke who did not touch the ball away from the contest I reckon it’s 3 weeks, but not sure if they will count the bye or not. Do the VFL team also have a bye?
My understanding is that he serves the time based on the standard the incident occurred. So if the VFL plays he only misses 1 senior game.
Vfl also has a bye next fortnight
Is it less bad than Powell Peppers in preseason? He got 4 weeks for running in at a bloke with the footy, and concussed him (no facial injuries like Parker's case). I'd be upset if it was less than 4 based on that precedent set. https://www.afl.com.au/news/1080017/port-adelaide-power-sam-powell-pepper-learns-fate-at-tribunal
Keep in mind VFL is a different competition to AFL, so don't expect any AFL precedent to apply.
Yep understood, operated by the AFL though unlike say the SANFL or WAFL so if I'd be shocked if there was a big discrepancy
Parker’s is worse than that. Although footage is much clearer for SPP. if I’m Sydney’s lawyers, that’s the point I’m going to hammer home. Cripps was worse and he won a brownlow thanks to some Saul Goodman Esque lawyering.
How was Cripps worse? Impact clearly worse in Parker's incident, ball not within 5 meters when contact was made. Yes Cripps obviously should have been suspended.
How good is letting your team mate run into a 2-on-1 in your own 50, in favour of lining up the opposition player least likely to impact that contest?
I’m getting second hand embarrassment from Richmond right now
Luke Parker did not stay on the ground, he left the ground and had a raised elbow. https://preview.redd.it/gj0qk5jhl31d1.png?width=1812&format=png&auto=webp&s=bd056503baf87d7582cb13e93bed60d9d075def7
Show the frames before the bump if you want to look honest. Left foot still on the ground and planted for the hit, elbow by his side, Parker's shoulder is first point of contact. Your screenshot only shows the aftermath. He's gone for a month, no need to tell tales.
This photo is after the contact is made. The elbow raises after the bump which almost always happens and both players are launched from their feet due to the impact. You’re spreading a lie here
Nope. Go frame by frame and you'll see both parkers feet leave the ground as the contact is about to be made. Notice how the guy being hit in this frame still has 1 foot on the ground and he is recoiling backwards, yet both Parkers ALREADY went in to the air? There is no reason whatsoever for Parkers feet to leave the ground before he makes contact.
Running or walking involves lifting your feet off the ground
Both simultaneously? Crazy walking style
Didn’t realise boundary umpires can fly
This is the point of contact. Parker is on the up in a jumping action, my guess is his shoulder (though still has a bit of a way to go here) or (/and) head made high contact. Parker is trying to send his body mass through the Oppo player, so as they bounce off each other Parker's elbow is raised as he is pushing out with it. Not sure what a lot of people's obsession is with someone leaving their feet. Electing to bump is the intention, leaving your feet may make it more likely to get high contact, but any bump with high contact is careless. What leaving your feet before contact does do is limit the amount of energy you can impart onto another player (landing on top of them aside). Parker times his bump perfectly with contact made while still driving off the ground with his legs (leading to severe impact combining with running almost head on). Just careless to create high contact. (also ball not with 5m)
Jumping/leaving the ground used to be a key differentiation between negligent and reckless. It's not been relevant for 10 years since they merged the negligent and reckless gradings into a single careless grading though.
Yeah, I can see the logic that jumping increases chance of high contact. Though I also like any bump with high contact being judged with the same intent.
https://preview.redd.it/vzvb8o1th91d1.jpeg?width=2068&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=42c62b60b1b0efd5a0eb916adb4075f46db95826
That frame doesn't look good for Parker.
There were a couple of Sydney flairs in the match thread calling for Wright to get 6-8. Wonder what their opinion is on this one
2 Meters Peters left the ground and then made shoulder contact to the head. Was very different. To me 4 was the appropriate amount in the current climate. Previous years would have been 1 or 2.
One of the differences I see is the person Parker made contact with never touched the ball making it much worse.
You wanna ban shepherding then?
If that counts as a shepherd then yeah. Parker lined him up and annihilated him. The onus is completely on him to avoid contact with the opposition’s head.
That ain’t a shepherd he changed direction to avoid his own team mate who kicked it off the ground and teed up an opposition player who he hit high.
He changed direction to avoid a team mate? Yeah that’s weird usually players shepherd their own teammates before oppo players
The AFL is absolutely trying to stamp out players who run past the ball to knock another player out Facts Ran past the ball Knocked another player high