2024 VFL thread

[liz]

Jon Ralph (I think) said that when he slowed down the footage he could see the facial damage was caused by a head clash. If correct Parker is still the cause (as he chose to make a physical block) but it might ameliorate the extent of blame for the injury.

Has anyone else tried viewing in slow motion?

No, but at full speed I was initially confused that facial injuries had occurred because it looked to me as if the main contact was Parker's torso to Smith's torso.

David King stated very matter-of-factly on Foxtel last night (First Crack) that it was a head clash that caused the injury.

[Captain]

Looking at the video again, I don’t think there is too much in it. He doesn’t leave the ground, isn’t running and keeps his elbow tucked in.

Yes the resulting injury is shocking but that’s more from unlucky than Parker deliberately trying to hurt him.

Obviously he is going to get weeks but should be 1-2 in my opinion, not 4+

[Nico]

Problem is the contact was way off the ball. Even if his opponent wasn't injured he would still get weeks. That shepherd was an 80's shepherd that would have been seen back then as a perfect shepherd. I don't understand why players don't just put an arm across the chest to stop the chaser's momentum.

[Dow]

Looking at the video again, I don’t think there is too much in it. He doesn’t leave the ground, isn’t running and keeps his elbow tucked in.

Yes the resulting injury is shocking but that’s more from unlucky than Parker deliberately trying to hurt him.

Obviously he is going to get weeks but should be 1-2 in my opinion, not 4+

The problem is the ball is not in 5m - he literally lined him up - its 100 percent intentional (maybe not meant to hurt him that badly) you cant Shepard or bump if the ball is not in within 5m which its clearly not. I agree that's a 80s hit

[i'm-uninformed2]

Luke Parker is the exact opposite of a dirty player. His record makes that clear. He’s been an exceptional ball player.

But the way the rules are these days once you choose to initiate contact and bump or shepherd, you’re responsible for the consequences.

If that happened to one of our players in the seniors, we’d expect somewhere from three to five weeks. That’s what he will get.

[liz]

The problem is the ball is not in 5m - he literally lined him up - its 100 percent intentional (maybe not meant to hurt him that badly) you cant Shepard or bump if the ball is not in within 5m which its clearly not. I agree that's a 80s hit

There is a difference between rules that might give rise to a free kick if breached, and rules that determine tribunal findings. The VFL tribunal has classified the act as "negligent", which suggests to me that they accept it was "in play". Regardless of how far away the contest was, it looks to me as if Parker's intention was to block the opponent's path to the contest.

Regardless of rules on distances of shepherds, blocks happen all the time in our game. Just not ones with quite this force or with this unfortunate outcome.

We're all entitled to draw our own conclusions from the footage, but I don't see that he "lined him up". Yes, the block was intentional but the head high contact - via a head clash - wasn't.

I don't think anyone is arguing he shouldn't be held accountable, or that he won't have a few weeks off to think about it. But I'm not the only poster who thinks accusations of dog act or lining up an opponent are unwarranted in this situation. You can think otherwise, but I think Parker's track record over nearly 300 AFL games more than earns him the benefit of the doubt, particularly combined with the footage.

[Meg]

We're all entitled to draw our own conclusions from the footage, but I don't see that he "lined him up". Yes, the block was intentional but the head high contact - via a head clash - wasn't.

I don't think anyone is arguing he shouldn't be held accountable, or that he won't have a few weeks off to think about it. But I'm not the only poster who thinks accusations of dog act or lining up an opponent are unwarranted in this situation. You can think otherwise, but I think Parker's track record over nearly 300 AFL games more than earns him the benefit of the doubt, particularly combined with the footage.

Thanks Liz, I completely agree with you.

[Dow]

Parker straight to the tribunal, which means they are lining him up for four or more. The severe impact element will be the hardest to beat, given the guy's got facial fractures.

Sydney Swans veteran Luke Parker learns fate for bump in VFL

There is a difference between rules that might give rise to a free kick if breached, and rules that determine tribunal findings. The VFL tribunal has classified the act as "negligent", which suggests to me that they accept it was "in play". Regardless of how far away the contest was, it looks to me as if Parker's intention was to block the opponent's path to the contest.

Regardless of rules on distances of shepherds, blocks happen all the time in our game. Just not ones with quite this force or with this unfortunate outcome.

We're all entitled to draw our own conclusions from the footage, but I don't see that he "lined him up". Yes, the block was intentional but the head high contact - via a head clash - wasn't.

I don't think anyone is arguing he shouldn't be held accountable, or that he won't have a few weeks off to think about it. But I'm not the only poster who thinks accusations of dog act or lining up an opponent are unwarranted in this situation. You can think otherwise, but I think Parker's track record over nearly 300 AFL games more than earns him the benefit of the doubt, particularly combined with the footage.

His record is what saves him IMO, like I said if he wasn’t a swans player you would be seeing this a whole different way. It just wasn’t necessary and i
Is exactly the type act we are trying to stamp out of the game. Regardless it’s my last word on it and it’s why I do like this site as we can all have different opinion, but want the same thing.

[Ludwig]

No one would want to be involved in a head clash, so there's no question about intent to make head contact. But as others have said, the rules are such to discourage actions that might result in head injury, and the kind of bump that Parker made was well beyond the threshold of probability to cause a serious injury. The penalties no are set to minimise these kinds of actions.

Recent findings about concussion have forever changed how we play this game, as well as other collision sports. Fans really love the bumps that were a regular part of the game, but they are simply in conflict with the well being of the players, so we have to accept that the players; well being will prevail over entertainment value.

[Trever]

I think the above commentary demonstrates the amount of respect and adulation that Swans fans have for Parker. It reminds me of the downplaying we do when our children misbehave at school. We find a way to downplay or excuse their behaviour.

People on here are finding a way to excuse Parker. I saw the incident as the actions of an internally frustrated man who is struggling to cope with his current situation. Parker at his best with a clear state of mind goes straight for that ball at full pace. He either picks it up or he paddles it towards the boundary line. In this instance he slows down, turns towards the Franston player who was 8 meters away from the disputed ball and delivers a hit. The Swans didn’t have possession.

The fact that people are saying that Parker has a good record and is not a dirty player tells us that this action was born of pure frustration and anger.

I think Parker needs fresh air and a new start with a team that will appreciate what he has to give at this stage of his career. It feels like Barry Hall at the end of 2009. He went to the Bulldogs and had two enjoyable years there where he played really well.

[BRS328]

Ridiculous comment to compare Parker with Barry Hall. There was no malice in what Parker did, but the fact he chose to bump he will get his fair due.
Luke Parker is a club champion and still has much to offer. The Swans will rap their arms around him and he will do us proud once again.

[liz]

Ridiculous comment to compare Parker with Barry Hall. There was no malice in what Parker did, but the fact he chose to bump he will get his fair due.
Luke Parker is a club champion and still has much to offer. The Swans will rap their arms around him and he will do us proud once again.

I'm not convinced there was malice, per say, in any of Hall's indiscretions. Especially the infamous Staker blow. I just think he had a brain snap. But he was a recidivist. He kept repeating his brain snaps. To this stage, at least, Parker is not.

I find it hard to label any onfield indiscretion these days as a "dog act" (a phrase that some have used). Very few are. For the record, I didn't think Brown's bump on McCartin or Wright's on Cunningham were close to deserving such a label. Even Webster clattering into Simpkin I'm inclined to think of more as a brain fade than a dog act. Similarly, Gaff's strike that broke Brayshaw's jaw.

Of recent incidents that spring to mind, Nankervis cleaning up Lloyd last year comes the closest. I suspect Nankervis knew exactly what he was doing. And maybe some of the behind the play hits could be assessed that way, such as Schultz's punch to the back of someone's head a couple of weeks ago. But those are usually of insufficient force to do immediate damage.

[Kafka's Ghost]

Ridiculous comment to compare Parker with Barry Hall. There was no malice in what Parker did, but the fact he chose to bump he will get his fair due.
Luke Parker is a club champion and still has much to offer. The Swans will rap their arms around him and he will do us proud once again.

100%.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[i'm-uninformed2]

Lachlan McKirdy reporting that the Swans have been told the VFL is seeking six weeks. Swans not contesting charging or grading, so clearly focused on arguing down suspension.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Gee whiz he got six weeks.