Peter "2MP" Wright - Tribunal Trouble Peter

Not a lot.
Swallow was in a similar incident on the weekend but clearly contested the ball and had no case to answer.
Idk why people on here are finding it such a hard concept to grasp.


I thought we played better early in the year when 2MP wasn’t playing.

1 Like

The difference is the media will be lobbying the entire week for other players to get off.

Media has zero impact on tribunal result

I’m still fuming we just rolled over and plead guilty, that was the difference


Whether it is the AFL managing perceptions or The commentators doing the bidding for the AFL, there is a correlation between what the media thinks it should be and what it actually ends up being.


If he’d taken the mark , no probs.


And that, there, shows the folly of the AFL trying to mitigate liability in future court actions.
Take the mark, and the head is no longer sacrosanct. The game is a heavy contact sport. Own it, or scrap it, rather than putting the fault on the player. You can’t have huge players running full pelt at each other and then expect not to have injuries, so the AFL answer is - blame one of them!


It’s not about attributing blame.
But imo the AFL have made it clear* that if you aren’t contesting the ball, or perform an act where there is a less risky option (eg bump instead of tackle, throw player into ground during a tackle instead of standing them up), and an opposition player gets injured you will likely get a sanction.

*even if their application has been horrible inconsistent.

Solution for 2MP……change your name to Scott Pendlebury, start hitting opponents in the guts with a clenched fist and you’ll be able to play the next game!


And how does that protect the head?
My point is - the AFL accept that if you mark the ball - it’s not an infringement. Hence - the head is not protected. So if it’s not about the welfare of the player, what is it about?

1 Like

It protects the players from “non-footballing acts”.
Bit like how in boxing you can’t strike the back of the head, MMA can’t kick the head on the ground etc.

But does not protect the player from football acts. The player is not safe because that’s the nature of the game. The AFL is stuck in a difficult place. To make the game safe, they would need to change it to the point where it would lose appeal to most. To separate themselves from culpability, they would need to relinquish control over the employment and payment. To leave it alone means making themselves liable for the damage caused to their employees due to their rules. Blaming one player in a collision helps point the finger elsewhere, but does not, in my opinion, solve the underlying problem.


It’s clear and correct

You have to going for the ball at all times if you hit someone in the head. Bracing for contact whilst hitting someone in the head - and knocking them out - will get weeks

1 Like

You mean the key forward that can hardly mark in a contested situation??

So the extra 3 weeks was because Cunningham has a softer Head?

careless conduct, medium impact and high contact,

careless conduct, severe impact and high contact

1 Like

And now 4 times nastier than Baker.


Stopping parents from taking their kids to soccer instead of Aussie Rules.


Might be controversial…we play better without Wright. See 2023 as a larger sample size.

I’d rather have Draper creating a more physical presence as a target down the line.


Was thinking about it last night but when he is available again I think we can’t play the two rucks plus Jones and Wright. I also think when Peter spends time in ruck he is also better for it so one of Draper or Goldy will be out. Interesting selection coming up for Anzac Day. Reckon Peter might start in the two to get some match practice when he is available.


I’d take Draper and Goldstein over Peter Wright.

Jones has also thrived without Wright. Also leaves room for Caddy to potentially come in at some point.