Tribunal news from weekend's game - Thomas and Ted

[Meg]

Lindsay Thomas didn't receive a free kick during the 2nd quarter so one can only assume it was an off the ball incident with Ted.

It was in 3rd quarter - video footage on http://www.afl.com.au/ in Match Review Panel segment. Ted was going for the spoil and his other arm swings back and hits Thomas on head. Looks unintentional I think.

[Legs Akimbo]

That's not what he says here...http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsartic...5/default.aspx

I couldn't be bothered posting in response to the Goodes suspension but at the time my thought was that Goodes needs to stamp this out of his game because he was going to seriously injure someone, sooner or later. He deserved what he got.

The same applies to this one. Rohan holds his feet as he approaches the ball (because that's what he's taught to do). Thomas decides he is going to slide into the ball, under Rohan and get his body between Rohan and the ball, allowing momentum to turn his body around, gain possession find his feet and run off. Oh, he's a clever one, isn't he?

If Rohan had dived forward to grab the ball he would have copped a boot to the face (fractured skull / cheekbone risk). If he had done the same as Thomas, gone in feet first, it would have look at lot like the Goodes one from last week. Whoever gets in first cops it and the culprit is whoever arrives second. As it turned out Rohan chose to keep his feet and try to swoop on the ball.

picture.png

The outcome was that Thomas foot just happened (unlucky really) to plant straight on to Rohan's ankle just as Rohan pitched forward adding his weight to the joint going in the opposite direction to Thomas'momentum. Snap!

So, whichever way you look at it, Thomas was highly likely to injure Rohan as soon as he made the decision to slide into the ball feet first. Its a cardinal sin in Soccer and so it should be in AFL. Thomas got off lightly (and so did Goodes, IMHO). Rohan paid the penalty.

[Lucky Knickers]

I feel sick watching the footage of Gaz. I don't envy the MRP hearing having to view it a thousand times. AFL360 just showed it 7000 gratuitous times.
Pandora's box is wide open with the duty of care requirement that is the obligation of the players.
How do you prove that Thomas had it in this case and Goodes didn't?
So now we have to keep our feet, be careful not to bend over for the ball so we don't clash heads, not slide in for the ball unless we are doing it head first (even then we shouldn't because if we hurt someone's knee you showed no care for yourself or your opponent).
A game played at pace and speed by men weight 70kg+ making split second decisions doesn't really lend itself to an injury free environment.

[goswannie14]

I couldn't be bothered posting in response to the Goodes suspension but at the time my thought was that Goodes needs to stamp this out of his game because he was going to seriously injure someone, sooner or later. He deserved what he got.

The same applies to this one. Rohan holds his feet as he approaches the ball (because that's what he's taught to do). Thomas decides he is going to slide into the ball, under Rohan and get his body between Rohan and the ball, allowing momentum to turn his body around, gain possession find his feet and run off. Oh, he's a clever one, isn't he?

If Rohan had dived forward to grab the ball he would have copped a boot to the face (fractured skull / cheekbone risk). If he had done the same as Thomas, gone in feet first, it would have look at lot like the Goodes one from last week. Whoever gets in first cops it and the culprit is whoever arrives second. As it turned out Rohan chose to keep his feet and try to swoop on the ball.

The outcome was that Thomas foot just happened (unlucky really) to plant straight on to Rohan's ankle just as Rohan pitched forward adding his weight to the joint going in the opposite direction to Thomas'momentum. Snap!

So, whichever way you look at it, Thomas was highly likely to injure Rohan as soon as he made the decision to slide into the ball feet first. Its a cardinal sin in Soccer and so it should be in AFL. Thomas got off lightly (and so did Goodes, IMHO). Rohan paid the penalty.

I was pondering this when I was out walking tonight. It's interesting that the result of the incident means one guys season is over and another gets a 3 week holiday. Barry Hall punched someone a few years ago, the guy played the next week and Hall got 8 weeks. Something just doesn't seem to add up with that.

I know it is the action that is judged, not the result, but I just don't like that so much emphasis is put on a punch, but not on a reckless action.

[GongSwan]

That's not what he says here...http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsartic...5/default.aspx

In the video he says Thomas shouldn't be suspended, if Goodes went, for something that caused no damage, Thomas has to be worse doesn't it?

To be honest, I'm not certain either should be suspended, but if one goes the otehr must follow. Also I think the MRP is a bad bad joke

[liz]

I think the comparison with the Goodes issue from last week is a bit of a furphy. I can stomach Goodes getting suspended for that if they consistently suspend players who slide from a faiir distance to a contest, even if they think they have a reasonable chance of winning that contest (which I think Goodes could reasonably have had when he started to move to the ball). If we can reduce the risk of avoidable injury by re-educating players, so be it. Better for the odd player to have a week off than for another player to have a broken ankle or a head injury.

The Thomas one is more akin to the pre-season Goodes incident, IMO, given he collected Rohan with his foot. No, he didn't intend to. He was trying to win the ball. But in very few suspendable incidents is a player trying to injure his opponent. But do we want to discourage players attacking a contest in the way Thomas did? I think we do, given what happened. And lets face it, while Thomas wasn't intending to make contact with his foot on Rohan's ankle, once he did at that speed, the fact that Rohan now has a broken ankle is not just a freak accident. Contact like that is going to result in something breaking far more often than not.

[lwoggardner]

I think I'm going mad

As annoyed as I was last week, am I starting to see the consistency here, within the limitations of the AFL's criteria.

Sliding in is a no-no and deemed at least negligent.

You can only get reported if you make contact with another player, ie "no impact" is not suspendable, hence Surjan not being reported.

It is worse if you contact the head - notwithstanding that this particular impact snapped a bone.

The medical reports are used to help determine the severity and location of impact. Presumably "grass abrasions" came up last week as part of the medical report but were not actually part of this impact assessment.

I suspect Thomas will argue that the impact is lower than severe. I can't bring myself to watch the footage, even skipped over it when watching the replay, but I have read suggestions that Rohan had rolled his ankle just prior to the contact in which case this might fly.

[R-1]

Yeah if he can argue he didn't contact the leg he might get off. It's slightly unclear what happened, if his body collected Rohan's body and the injury was from Rohan's shifting centre of gravity, he might have a case.

[liz]

I think the grading of the contact as severe is wrong, regardless of whether there were contributory factors to the severity of the injury. Had Thomas slid in from a distance at greater speed, maybe. But though I think there was a sliding motion, he wasn't travelling that quickly when (if) he made contact with Rohan's ankle.

The AFL360 discussion hinted at the fact there is another camera angle of the incident that the AFL used to assess the incident. If there is, I don't believe it has been shown. All we've seen is the standard C7 footage. If I understood them correctly, it sounds like this footage might show a clearer view of the collision between foot and ankle.

[Triple B]

Yeah if he can argue he didn't contact the leg he might get off. It's slightly unclear what happened, if his body collected Rohan's body and the injury was from Rohan's shifting centre of gravity, he might have a case.

It's not the least bit unclear. He planted his foot straight into Rohans leg, just above the ankle. I doubt he did it deliberately, but it's clear what happened.

If they go in with a defence that he didnt contact the leg, he's a million to 1 to get off and they should add a couple for a stupid defence....

[R-1]

Fair enough! I couldn't tell but it should be pretty obvious to Lindsay if he did or didn't.

[Beerman]

Barry Hall punched someone a few years ago, the guy played the next week and Hall got 8 weeks. Something just doesn't seem to add up with that.

I know it is the action that is judged, not the result, but I just don't like that so much emphasis is put on a punch, but not on a reckless action.

Actually, Staker was out for at least a week, I think it was two in the end.

[Primmy]

Also Hall was/is a boxer of some note. If it was TDL or LRT throwing punch, who had no previous "form" or oomph, then it would not have been as scrutinised. With Hall, with his heavyweight boxing b ackground, and reputation, then it was a shocker (and me a onceuponatime Hall fan).

[chalbilto]

I don't think Thomas or Goodes deserve to be suspended, but if Goodes went then so must Thomas. Simple as that.

Just as Paul Roos said OTC last night. The AFL set the precedent with their dvd guidelines and Goodes' s suspension. Let us see what consistency is shown tonight.

[R-1]

Another possible arguement is that Thomas fell instead of deliberately going to ground legs out towards Rohan. If that flies, he should get off.