I can Imagine John Worsfold playing a clip of all his big bumps, and calculating how many fines he would have received f he was playing today, then Telling Francis he has to dish out a few more to get to his level.
Woosha would have loved that hit though. And I bet the coaches replayed it in the game review.
Is that your convoluted way of saying the AFL will subscribe to the doctrine of precedent when it comes to the bump?
It was a query l raised before but you skirted around it by saying “a players record can be used against them “; whatever that means.
If you’re saying The AFL follows precedent you’re wrong. They don’t. We all know that.
If you’re saying they don’t follow precedent, then Francis can bump just like he did on O’Meara and we may get a different outcome?
So what is it?
I think the Francis bump at least warrants a please explain query from the club to the AFL in the context of Hodge taking out Heppell with his forearms with a forceful absolutely deliberate upward movement, while Heppell simply attempted a tackle.
Where Francis got a penalty, Hodge’s action was regarded as fair play and a part of the game.
If anyone is interested, it is very striking how absolutely intentional Hodge was on taking Heppell out to avoid being tackled, although it occurred in a fraction of a second, the intent was obvious and at least as bad as Jake Melksham taking out Jarrod Roughead pre saga.
The link takes you to a series of posts where it shows how intentional Hodge was in his penalty free deliberate knocking out of Heppell.
Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse or you actually lack basic comprehension? No the AFL do not follow specific precedent - if they did then Francis would not have been charged. Thats the whole reason why this charge is unfair & why I believe we should have challenged it. What I stated clear as day is that now Francis has a record which may be used against him.
The term precedent was used in reference to the clubs actions not the AFL’s. I want the club to stop accepting the AFL’s double standards & shifting interpretations. Again to be perfectly clear for you & any others struggling, if the AFL did follow precedent I wouldn’t have a problem. If this interpretation set a new precedent I wouldn’t have a problem. Neither of those 2 things have or will occur. Instead we will continue to see our players taken out by head high bumps that incur no penalties & any possible indiscretion our player commit be penalised.
No need to go down the obtuse road, it’s not applicable here/ you aren’t clearly articulating in this discussion. Before you go down the road of savagery like you normally do at this point, I’ll chime in with another couple of points.
The Douglas bump on Merret looked pretty fair but he was suspended for a week. On the basis of specific precedent you could argue a 2k fine is acceptable in this case.
As the AFL do not broadly follow precedent, you really are drawing a long bow to think every bump executed by Aaron from now will result in a suspension purely because of this indiscretion, and his “record”.
Your last sentence is just histrionics.
Try again, Merrett’s head clearly moves to the side opposite where he was hit. This means that initial contact impacted the head even if the majority of the impact was body. O’Meara’s head moved towards Francis in a whiplash motion which is impossible if the initial impact was to the head. Merrett was also bent over picking up the ball, O’Meara was upright - they are not really comparable.
Again I explained my use of the word precedent, if you can’t understand it then thats your issue. You do realise that even if the next incident is assessed exactly the same the fines increase right? You do know that all Christian has to do is change the charge from low to medium impact (very easy if the player is taken off because of winding) or from careless to intentional & its automatically a week right?
Bumps resulting in indirect head contact are contentious
To suggest all other clubs can head hunt EFC with impunity is fanciful
The next incident involving a Bomber being identical to this one are fairly remote.
If by some miracle it happened again, we’d more than likely get a different result. More than likely no citation
You might also want to give a bit more thought to what may have been raised during the collaboration between Francis and EFC, especially from his perspective.
It may just temper your indignancy and outrage about the decision not to appeal.
I don’t think it matters if initial contact is to the head or not unless the secondary contact is head to head contact.
As for the argument how can his head be in the whiplash movement to the right stay in that position if his shoulder hit is head - that can definitely happen.
Practical exercise - imagine you get hit in your right hip or just above, your head snaps to your right. Do this while imagining your bracing for impact and your motion is to ease the blow/ prevent contact by the left shoulder rotating to the back of your body. Now a secondary contact comes across your chin. Your head and neck will remain snapped to the right while your body rotates backwards from your left shoulder.
I believe the evidence is inconclusive but the reaction of O’Meara’s body if hit in the head is completely acceptable.
All your other points definitely have merit.
Did you watch him for the whole time afterwards because unless you did who’s to say he didn’t.
I remember an incident I had on the field that winded me and had blood flowing out of my face and it wasn’t until they wiped the blood off my face that I realised it was more serious than just being winded.