Judiciary - You're Verdict

[floppinab]

Seagull, I understand you wearing rose coloured glasses however you cant defend the original action of your player. He struck him in the back of the head. Pretty clearly in my view and I am a neutral.

Not sure if it's super clear for mine TF. It's one of those half swing, half jab, half open, half closed handed contact. No doubt that it got Linsen in the back of the head though which leads to his retaliation. The initial contact worth a free kick, maybe a report but clear it wasn't of a particularly potent force.

I thought the same as Coastal re. the Vickory/Cox incident when I first saw it. The follow up was out of all proportion to what came first.

There should be some questions asked as to how MMM got hold of this. The League has some pretty strict rules associated with going public with this sort of stuff.

[mountainsofpain]

It looks to me like Linsen did cop some sort of provocation, it's hard to tell from the video how severe the contact was however.

The problem he has got though, for all the mitigation he may have, is that you simply can't go round retaliating - especially to that extent.

Tribunals almost without exception simply won't wear it. I can't see them taking too kindly to a roundhouse king hit with that amount of power which leaves his opponent out cold, whatever justification may be presented to them.

I think he's got big problems. I hope his record to date is good.

[Norris Lurker]

There should be some questions asked as to how MMM got hold of this. The League has some pretty strict rules associated with going public with this sort of stuff.

It was the Digital Sports game. It had been on YouTube from when it was broadcast live until Monday night. I saw it on Monday afternoon when it was brought to my attention.
I'm guessing the league would have had the game pulled from YouTube when they became aware it was attracting outside interest. But too late - Triple M had already cached a copy of it.

[Steiger]

Bulldogs president Steve Ray said Thompson was doing ?OK? in the wake of the incident. The club has been instructed by the AFL not to comment further.

Good to hear Thompson is "OK".

I think the horse has bolted with all the comments on here and facebook, twitter and everywhere else.

The penalty the tribunal dish out will be interesting if they react to media interest or not.

[Hole In Bucket]

The moral to the story is beware of anyone from Wests with a name spelt L*n*en.

[Coastal Boy]

Marcus will be hoping for the Lt. Harris from Police Academy defence: "Who threw the first punch...that's all I want to know"

[Chicken Legs]

The perfect number?

[saviour01]

whats the verdict?

[Norris Lurker]

Guilty. 7 weeks.

[tara]

Guilty. 7 weeks.

At least their consistent and havnt allowed media hype to sway them

[UTSBatman]

Absolute germ of a human being. Lucky to get 7. Dead set, anyone defending this disgusting act needs to take a good look at themselves

[tara]

Absolute germ of a human being. Lucky to get 7. Dead set, anyone defending this disgusting act needs to take a good look at themselves

Wow good to see the condemnation from a club who can send 17 players to a div 2 game yet field full teams in lower divs when the seasons over. Oh and start fights cause their losing a game they were gettin belted in. Yeah really want your moral opinion here

[UTSBatman]

Of course I'm dying to know what you're on about and how this justifies King hitting a bloke from behind...

[Chicken Legs]

I think there are some important issues here that we need to learn from.

The most important issue here is the officiating of our Sydney AFL. Was there more to it, could it have been stopped, how can we make sure it doesn't get to this point again?

How we can do this is by better officiating. Most if not all punches such as this are not simple brain fades but built up frustration during a game. I will put my last $$$ on the fact that Marcus wouldn't do this at the 2 minute mark of the first quarter.

The past few retaliation punches I have seen could have been stopped by officiating the game properly.

Now I am not saying it's the umpires fault don't get me wrong here.

I know Marcus and my friend you should be having a minimum of 8-12 weeks on the sideline to have a good hard think about it. That said I was king hit from behind last year by a UTS player, knocked out cold, still have teeth and jaw issues and he got a total of ZERO weeks.

So at least it's consistent.

[Seagull]

Fair call, Tim Freedman, that's pretty reasonable.

I was at the game and I did see the incident, from the grandstand...about five yards from the cameraman/commentator, two yards from an angry ex-President...and the initial contact is still not clear to me. I reject the rose-coloured glasses thing though. As the former victim of an on-field king-hit, former coach and now a parent, I would want the tribunal to protect my son and others' sons from this sort of act and I would be equally as angered if it was one of our players.

As a former crime and sports journo in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, I have also seen plenty of people killed and maimed by blows as simple as this one on the streets. I also worked with David Hookes, who died from a one-punch incident. In my humble opinion, I expected more.

I understand the brain snap thing and I take your word on the "reserved" demeanour but for those hung up on the publicity, if it was Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth or Hobart...you would have seen it on the 6pm news, not limited to a radio website and FB.

It was trending number #2 story on the Herald Sun website. It's legitimate news. Check the reaction on the Big Footy site. People relate to it. Trying to hide such an incident after it has been broadcast on the internet is ridiculous. External publicity is not supposed to influence the Tribunal...they're lawyers. I covered the VFL/AFL tribunal for several years for 3AW...plenty of publicity down there.

Suggesting it shouldn't be reported is wishful thinking. As a former editor, I would have run it in a football state, no matter where it occurred. If such coverage serves to highlight the need for greater protections in our game or if it merely promotes debate about it, it serves a purpose.