The throwing of Ridley to the ground after the hit kind of rules out regret for the action.
7 Likes
The Hawks say Scrimshaw is not accelerating into Ridley, he has slowed down prior to impact. They say Scrimshwaw had left the ground trying to intercept so he is elevated. Large portion of the impact they say is body on body.
Doesn’t that make it worse. Not accidental but deliberate intentional contact. And pushing him to the ground afterwards??? Or is he saying Rids dived
They’re arguing severity.
Intent doesn’t come into it. It probably should, but no-one is arguing that grading.
It was worse than a push to the ground. He slung him after knowing that Ridley was hurt.
2 Likes
And that’s it.
No more from Hawthorn, Scrimshaw didn’t testify, and there’s nothing posted about an argument from the prosecutor.
Longest deliberation of the night.
smfh.
1 Like
Probably going to suspend Ridley
9 Likes
we probably volunteered this to avoid the hawks any further wastage of resources in challenging the suspension
1 Like
Upheld.
Three weeks.
19 Likes
Good
1 Like
Hooray we won for once normally these type of results go against us
Reasons:
The fact that a concussion was suffered does not necessarily result in a grading of severe impact.
We note that the Tribunal guidelines state that consideration will be given to the extent of force and in particular any injury sustained by the player offended against.
There’s force to Scrimshaw’s arguments that he slowed immediately before impact, some of the impact was body on body, impact to the head appeared to be from the inside of the upper arm, Ridley played on for a period of time after the impact only to be later diagnosed with concussion and the worst injury that could potentially have happened did in fact happen.
However, we find that the force of impact here was very considerable.
Scrimshaw swung his arm with force. The way in which he manoeuvred his body certainly did not minimise the impact.
Ridley had no reason to expect forceful head high contact, and could do little to avoid it.
Ridley was clearly quite hurt by the impact. He stayed motionless on the ground for a considerable period of time.
He did, in fact, suffer a concussion.
Immediate and medium and longer term consequences of concussion are now well known.
It can be, and often is, a very significant injury with ongoing adverse consequences.
This was not a strike that was unlikely to result in a concussion.
Due to the force of the impact, the fact that Ridley suffered a concussion is unsurprising.
We are satisfied the impact of this strike was severe.
6 Likes
Wait til one of our players is fronting it. They’ll throw the book at him.
1 Like
Should have given him another week for wasting their time
9 Likes
Thumbs up/down results for the decision announcements from the feed:
Archer: 6 - 94
Lynch: 7 - 34
Scrimshaw: 10 - 9
1 Like
Thank god. Filthy Hawks. Up
Themselves. Wait until out forwards mature. We will eat them alive
3 Likes
We didn’t win shyte. Lost a player for a week, at least
4 Likes
Can I ask what people’s issue is with the Archer suspension?
Looked extremely reckless and dangerous to me. And he was in no way positioning himself to make a legitimate contest at the ball or man.
The laughable thing about the AFL though, is on another day he gets a free for forceful contact below the knees.
Regardless, I don’t see anything wrong with the penalty. Every bit as dangerous as Scrimshaw.
6 Likes
The Scrimshaw hit was the type of “not a good look” that the AFL does not like.
The fixed look of steel on Scrimshaws face was clear when after striking Ridley in the head, he capped it off with a brutal push to the ground.
Payback? Ridley is a very skilful and fair player. Not likely.
Alternatively Scrimshaw was ■■■■■■ off that he was not playing well, 4 disposals for the part of the match he played, was the lowest graded player on the field, even worse than Frost.
3 Likes