AFL Round 1 2025

[Corona Man]

Lynch,1, and Scrimshaw, 3, both still banned.

Scrimshaw far too lucky, I feel. Hawks taking the piss appealing, should have given him an extra week for the audacity

I thought 3 weeks was about right. Can't blame them for having a crack at getting a reduction. Its a dead set lottery, so they had nothing to loose.

[Eagles2014]

Lynch,1, and Scrimshaw, 3, both still banned.

Scrimshaw far too lucky, I feel. Hawks taking the piss appealing, should have given him an extra week for the audacity

I thought 3 weeks was about right. Can't blame them for having a crack at getting a reduction. Its a dead set lottery, so they had nothing to loose.

Thats one of the problems, thought it used to cost $20k for instance to challenge/appeal, or you could risk getting extra game maybe.

There needs to be a penalty so clubs not continually wasting everyone's time!

[Dutchy]

Absolute disgrace, how is this any different to Maynard who ended a guys career? games cooked.

[Corona Man]

Absolute disgrace, how is this any different to Maynard who ended a guys career? games cooked.

And Maynard played the following week...... there's the lottery.

[Booney]

Maynard did not end Brayshaw's career. That is such an appalling take.

Brayshaw had at least 6 major concussions before that incident and spent time away from the game in 2017 to assess his playing future.

[wenchbarwer]

Lynch,1, and Scrimshaw, 3, both still banned.

Scrimshaw far too lucky, I feel. Hawks taking the piss appealing, should have given him an extra week for the audacity

I thought 3 weeks was about right. Can't blame them for having a crack at getting a reduction. Its a dead set lottery, so they had nothing to loose.

Agree with the lottery, but a different result for Ridley (broken jaw instead of concussion) and this gets into Andy Brayshaw/Gaff territory. It's the action from Scrimshaw that I don't like, swinging arms near people's heads ain't on.

[whufc]

Absolute disgrace, how is this any different to Maynard who ended a guys career? games cooked.

Normally agree with you but just cant see any Maynard / Scrimshaw comparison.

Maynards whilst nasty was 100% clear that his action was one of protecting himself.

Scrimshaw on the other hand was closer to a little swinging left arm and wasn't a case of scrimshaw protecting himself gone wrong.

[woodublieve12]

Jackson Archer gets 3 games for doing something he should've had a free kick. If Archer broke his leg in the incident, would the suspension been reversed? Justin McInerney got 3 games for a collision which was unavoidable and Starcevich has prior concussion issue.
And this issue will continue.
I think those decision are disgraceful for something with zero intent involved. I think intent has to be the decision in regard to the penalty.
I am for protecting players. And concussion protocols. But I think this needs to be revised

[Dutchy]

Archer is taught that if you are the next man up you press as fast as you can, take away time and space and most of all make sure you are not left as "piggy in the middle" creating an overlap for the oppo. He understandably presumed that Cleary would keep his feet and when he folded to the ground this took him by surprise and had nowhere to go, despite slowing to some degree, confirming it wasn't totally reckless as some have said.

This is a football accident, just like Maynard's, there needs to be flex in the rules here, this will keep happening.

and yes I understand the concussion issue but trying to get to a point where it is completely eliminated is a total dream.

[am Bays]

Archer got 3 weeks because of the Maynard non-suspension

AFL changed the laws and MRO guidelines to remove that anomaly for the 2024 season.

Players who have to show a greater duty of care in football related contests needs to avoid high contact.

[whufc]

Archer is taught that if you are the next man up you press as fast as you can, take away time and space and most of all make sure you are not left as "piggy in the middle" creating an overlap for the oppo. He understandably presumed that Cleary would keep his feet and when he folded to the ground this took him by surprise and had nowhere to go, despite slowing to some degree, confirming it wasn't totally reckless as some have said.

This is a football accident, just like Maynard's, there needs to be flex in the rules here, this will keep happening.

and yes I understand the concussion issue but trying to get to a point where it is completely eliminated is a total dream.

Apparently, the AFL line was that it was 'foreseeable Cleary would go to ground'

"It was never a contest for the ball"

"His attempts to slow down were too little and too late, this doesn't happen often in the AFL because players are more reasonable, aware and take more care than Archer did"

[whufc]

If I'm being harsh, whilst i don't think Archer may have expected Cleary to go to ground but he should have expected Clearly was going to get low to collect the ball.

To be honest had Clearly not slipped he probably copped a knee straight to the face rather than the top of the head and it may have been even worse. The slide almost made Archer go over the top of Clearly rather than straight through him.

[Dutchy]

What the AFL wanted him to do

[wenchbarwer]

What the AFL wanted him to do

See, it's not that hard!

[Booney]

Funny isn't it? One of those incidents where people on my side can't see how he wouldn't cop a suspension.

Yes, he had a split second to decide what to do but ultimately he went into the contest in a reckless manner. He didn't have a play at the ball and went in at speed and the player who went the ball ended up concussed. Suspended.

Then there's those who can't see how it was a suspension at all and then go far enough down the rabbit hole to compare it to something that happened over 18 months ago which is about as worthwhile as looking on the ground to avoid stepping in dinosaur shit.

[MW]

North supporters - should have got off
Old school supporters - should have got off
Rusted on commentators and media - should have got off
Public who can see what the AFL are trying to stamp out in the game and protect the head - correctly suspended

IMO, suspension was warranted, but 3 weeks is too much. Cant have someone swing an arm at a head and get the same weeks as this incident. Should have been one week at most.

[whufc]

North supporters - should have got off
Old school supporters - should have got off
Rusted on commentators and media - should have got off
Public who can see what the AFL are trying to stamp out in the game and protect the head - correctly suspended

IMO, suspension was warranted, but 3 weeks is too much. Cant have someone swing an arm at a head and get the same weeks as this incident. Should have been one week at most.

100% agree and accept what the AFL is trying to do.

Archers- was a millisecond decision that he got slightly wrong.
Scrimshaw- was a deliberate swinging arm that went high.........this a non footballing act imo.

You can't have the non-footballing acts getting a lot less weeks than the Archer case even if the outcomes / injuries are different.

We have got to a point where the outcome of the incident is being weighed far too heavily against the action/intent. That would be my biggest criticism of the current tribunal.

[Lightning McQueen]

North supporters - should have got off
Old school supporters - should have got off
Rusted on commentators and media - should have got off
Public who can see what the AFL are trying to stamp out in the game and protect the head - correctly suspended

IMO, suspension was warranted, but 3 weeks is too much. Cant have someone swing an arm at a head and get the same weeks as this incident. Should have been one week at most.

After seeing the incident it amazes me how there aren't a lot more serious injuries in the game. I sit on the fence in this instance as there are many variables to consider. it was a wrong place, wrong time kind of thing, it could've ended way worse.

[Lightning McQueen]

Lynch,1, and Scrimshaw, 3, both still banned.

Scrimshaw far too lucky, I feel. Hawks taking the piss appealing, should have given him an extra week for the audacity

I thought 3 weeks was about right. Can't blame them for having a crack at getting a reduction. Its a dead set lottery, so they had nothing to loose.

Yep, shows how much of a joke the system is, there is no way in the world Tracey should have got any less, senseless action.

[dedja]

North supporters - should have got off
Old school supporters - should have got off
Rusted on commentators and media - should have got off
Public who can see what the AFL are trying to stamp out in the game and protect the head - correctly suspended

IMO, suspension was warranted, but 3 weeks is too much. Cant have someone swing an arm at a head and get the same weeks as this incident. Should have been one week at most.

The problem that’s impossible to solve is that it’s a contact sport, injuries can and do occur, but we quite rightly want to minimise them, especially head injuries, then add that we live in a litigious world.

Cowardly and behind the play thuggery has been quite rightly stamped out, but the the further you go down the track of protecting players from injury, the more difficult it is to preserve the nature of the very game itself.

We seem to have ended up with a set of rules which prioritise the nature and severity of the injury to the offendee over the intent of the alleged offender. Whilst this, on the face of it, is a noble in its intent, it creates a set of anomalies which are extremely difficult to reconcile.

You could, and inevitably will, have two identical incidents whereby the penalty handed down will be different solely on the resultant injury to a player … same conditions, same intent, same player movements, etc., etc.

We all get why the AFL is doing this, but there comes a point where you are eating away at the fabric of the game.

There seems to be no onus on the offendee to protect themselves … sometimes this is just impossible to do, sometimes they just have no awareness or are unable to do so. There also seems to be an onus on the alleged offender to act on the benefit of slow motion hindsight. It’s a quick moving game with split second decisions.

Creating a set of very rigid rules with little or no discretion to assess and adjudicate on breaches of the Laws of the Game, whilst noble on the face of it, end up causing more angst because the nuances are lost in the same rigidness.

It doesn’t help when the AFL seemingly change Laws and their interpretations at will, not only between seasons but sometimes during the season.

What does it all mean?

It’s OK to disagree on these incidents.

It’s OK to offer your opinion.

It’s OK to question the process.

It’s OK to have a natural ‘my team’ bias.

It’s not OK to denigrate or belittle those who don’t hold your opinion (not directed at you MW).

What’s the answer? Dunno, I’m just an idiot.