Shaun Burgoyne out for 3 weeks

[goswannie14]

Bizarre decision. So every time a player gets hit in the head with a legitimate hip and shoulder there should be a suspension too?

How can it be legitimate when high contact is made?

[NMWBloods]

How can it be legitimate when high contact is made?

I've never understood but if you contact a player with a shoulder to the head it is often not even paid a free kick.

[ScottH]

Williams is NOT HAPPY, JAN.

[Triple B]

Williams is NOT HAPPY, JAN.

With good reason, IMO

[573v30]

Williams is NOT HAPPY, JAN.

It's been a while since a coach called a press conference to have a tantrum at that level. He'll cop a heavy fine for it.

[sharp9]

Bizarre decision. So every time a player gets hit in the head with a legitimate hip and shoulder there should be a suspension too?

The only bizarre thing is all the people who somehow think that hitting the head is allowed in a HIP and SHOULDER. When are people (INCLUDING AFL COACHES FFS!!) going to understand what "no hits to the head" means. Honestly you would think Mark Williams is very, very thick.

[ScottH]

The only bizarre thing is all the people who somehow think that hitting the head is allowed in a HIP and SHOULDER. When are people (INCLUDING AFL COACHES FFS!!) going to understand what "no hits to the head" means. Honestly you would think Mark Williams is very, very thick.

Williams was an advocate to protect the players head a few years ago. I think he knows what he is saying.

[NMWBloods]

The only bizarre thing is all the people who somehow think that hitting the head is allowed in a HIP and SHOULDER. When are people (INCLUDING AFL COACHES FFS!!) going to understand what "no hits to the head" means. Honestly you would think Mark Williams is very, very thick.

I've said for a long time than hip and shoulder to the head should be a free kick. Frequently they are not and then this decision makes the approach even more confusing.

[liz]

I've said for a long time than hip and shoulder to the head should be a free kick. Frequently they are not and then this decision makes the approach even more confusing.

A hip and shoulder to the head has to be a free (assuming the umpire sees it) and as this case illustrates, will (almost) always result in a suspension too. I think, though, there are some bumps that look like hip and shoulders to the head on TV which mostly aren't. They hit the chest or shoulder predominantly but the head often snaps back with the impact to the body, making it look as if there has been head high contact. Or sometimes they do let ones slip by where there has been "incidental" contact to the head but most of the contact (and the initial contact) was to the body.

[NMWBloods]

I'm not referring to the ones where there is incidental contact to the head. There are a number of occasions when there is definite contact to the head. They should be frees, but they're not always. Just another example of inconsistency in application of rules.

[ScottH]

Williams claims tribunal decisions are ruining AFL's integrity

"I think the game has let him down and the result has let him down on the weekend," Williams said.

"I applaud the AFL for the stance they took about people putting their head over the ball and getting full protection. I think they've gone right down the right path in that regard but I think they've got this wrong.

"And I'm thinking the people there (AFL) are big enough and smart enough to look at it again because this cannot be viewed as a three-week penalty."

Williams said incidental contact was to be expected in footy.

"We all pay our money to come and see a contested game where there are collisions and accidents and everyone takes the opportunity to understand they are putting themselves in some sort of danger," he said.

"We're not playing basketball, we're not playing netball and the game is there to play a contested game."

Williams said he would welcome the chance to explain his case to the match review panel or tribunal.

[CureTheSane]

What a great press conference.

That is the sort of thing we need to see more of.

Roos certainly doesn't have the balls to stand up for what he believes in like that.

[ScottH]

What a great press conference.

That is the sort of thing we need to see more of.

Roos certainly doesn't have the balls to stand up for what he believes in like that.

It was very passionate, wasn't it.

[Plugger46]

The only bizarre thing is all the people who somehow think that hitting the head is allowed in a HIP and SHOULDER. When are people (INCLUDING AFL COACHES FFS!!) going to understand what "no hits to the head" means. Honestly you would think Mark Williams is very, very thick.

No. Mark Williams is right in my opinion. This is different to most of the others because the intent to hurt his opponent wasn't apparent.

I'm all for them stamping out head-high content, but not when a player virtually runs into the back of another player. The McGlynn one was fair enough, and I don't see too many people whingeing about that decision.

[floppinab]

Williams has a good point here.

The situation comes up quite a bit...... loose ball on the ground, two players going at it, clear intent is to extract the footy while keeping their feet allowing an effective disposal once in possession. At the last split second it's clear one player is going to get there first and the opposition player has to change his path to avoid head high contact, which of course he can't do because he is already so committed. Head high contact ensues, tribunal, etc. etc.

If the opposition players pulls right out of the contest he feel the wrath of the coach, he could hang right back and then put a hard legal tackle on once the player gains possession (notice a lot of players doing this now) but shouldn't the ball be the object????