The AFL needs to seriously downgrade the influence impact has on decisions.
Ie Scrimshaws action was to deliberately give Ridley a wack.
So that should be enough. Not if the player is actually concussed or not.
I mean that’s the message the game wants to send to kids right?
Cheap shots aren’t cool. U10s ain’t knocking a bloke out.
They don’t stop their broadcast partners endlessly glorifying Hawk thuggery that led to a 74-point loss.
They only care if a lawsuit is pending/happening.
Well I’d have the two others downgraded but I wouldn’t on scrimshaw even if Ridley hadn’t have been concussed.
Simply it’s a terrible look.
Intent IMHO has too have a much greater influence than impact.
But that’s just me. Concussion happens in a contact sport. Broken bones do as well.
Just should never be risked by intentionally hitting a bloke high. Scrimshaws was striking
Is Scumshaws teammate getting suspended for busting his nose open?
The tribunal really works on a raffle spinning wheel.
Funnily enough - on AFL360 - they briefly talked about appealing the suspension but wanted to make sure Scrimshaw was okay and recovering well.
I reckon Scrimshaw should get an extra week if they appeal. 3 weeks seems about right given it was as clear as day it was intentional, high and as it turned out, dangerous. Hand him another week for wantung to appeal such an obvious hit.
Oh c’mon, he’s not at Peter Wright levels of thuggery!
Archer’s ban has been upheld.
What bs will the Hawks try tonight ?
Careless? No, Scrimshaw phoned Ridley and told him he cared about him and apologised.
High? No, the concussion occurrred when Ridleys head hit the ground
Severe? No, Ridley had poor technique handing the push to the ground.
Absolutely ridiculous.
This forum would be going right off at the moment if that was an Essendon player. Albert Thurgood would be in here going on about it being anti Essendon corruption by the AFL!
I don’t like it.
The length of the suspension just seems wrong. When the opposition coach says he doesn’t reckon he should go, then…
I dunno, it’s a long way from the stupidest thing we’ve seen from the tribunal in the last few years, so I’m disappointed but also pretty resigned.
Hok Ball baby.
The AFL and the umpires love them - they can do anything.
I really don’t think Lynch should go, either.
He will. Of course he will. But he shouldn’t.
They’ll just remind the panel that Ridley plays for Essendon and the ban will be overturned.
Lynch goes for one.
AFL argued that Lynch went into the contest to bump, and the push in the back against him wasn’t significant.
This is my dubious face.
Hawthorn pleads guilty to striking but challenges impact, submitting it should be ‘high’ instead of ‘severe’.
Basically they’re trying to downgrade this from three games to two.
He was going to miss 2 from injury anyway. A downgrade would effectively mean no penalty at all.
Hawks: Scrimshaw regrets the impact on Ridley, and nothing in our submission is intended to diminish the severity of the concussion or the impact of that concussion on Ridley.
So…he totally did it, but do us a solid.
