Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Thinking about the Stewart/Prestia incident in the Geelong v. Richmond game at the weekend. Richmond loses its best player from the previous week to a bad hit that has been referred directly to the Tribunal and the final margin is less than a goal. Should Stewart have finished the game (he was arguably BOG) or should he have been removed from the contest? This has always troubled me - the infraction was against his opposition at the weekend - but the effect of any suspension will be to the advantage of teams his hit hasn't impacted.

Yes I said so on big footy, it probably cost Richmond the game.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say a team might sacrifice a player during finals to take someone out

I will say though much as I hate feeling the cat really looked remorseful and not just because he got caught, because he knew he hurt him badly

Doesn’t change it though he should have got red carded

Sorry but No for me. I don't like the order off rule, don't watch soccer, don't see a need for it.

We have 4 interchange players plus a medical sub. That's enough.

They have it in the NRL and it gets used in just these circumstances. It's not an issue that can really arise in soccer - noone gets lined up and hit in the head like that (if they did, it would probably result in a ban of several years).

Ordinarily I'd say yes, however, I would not trust umpires and the AFL to apply it fairly.

Pies4shaw wrote:Thinking about the Stewart/Prestia incident in the Geelong v. Richmond game at the weekend. Richmond loses its best player from the previous week to a bad hit that has been referred directly to the Tribunal and the final margin is less than a goal. Should Stewart have finished the game (he was arguably BOG) or should he have been removed from the contest? This has always troubled me - the infraction was against his opposition at the weekend - but the effect of any suspension will be to the advantage of teams his hit hasn't impacted.

What if they make it so that the suspension must be served against the team the infraction was against? ie. Stewart cannot play the next X times the Cats play Richmond? There would have to be contingency plan for players who retire before the suspension in served.

I’m absolutely disgusted in media talking about how to get Stewart off/reduce his penalty. WTF?! It’s like he’s the victim. I don’t care how nice a guy he is, that’s 4-6 weeks.

Pies4shaw wrote:They have it in the NRL and it gets used in just these circumstances. It's not an issue that can really arise in soccer - noone gets lined up and hit in the head like that (if they did, it would probably result in a ban of several years).

yes, but we've had players deliberately try to take out opposition players since the game started.

Cowboy Neale poleaxed Peter Hudson
Mark Yeates ran through Brereton in 89.

Just 2 examples in Grand Finals.

Aussie Rules has never had a send of rule at the highest level, never needed one and the game is more sanitised now than ever before.

So, No, I don't want a send off rule in AFL.

Stewart banned for 4 games.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/789211/the- ... tewart-hit

I don't see why he only got 4 weeks. After all, Sidey was given 5 (reduced to 3 for his good record) a few seasons back and Johnson was given 6 a few years before that. Either they protect the head or they don't - if they want to do it properly, they need to take some "really good blokes" like this out of the game. It's an interesting contrast to the way the media called for our last premiership captain's head when he took a guy out with a bump - remarkably, that happened back in the days when it was still permissible to bump and take someone's head.

Maynard got three at the start of this year for a legit spoil attempt.

And Fernando bowls the same bowl to Swepson. Australia all out for 321.

Should be an option (send off) for sure and I like Bucks5 idea of a week of whatever suspension is handed down, to be served when playing the side the infringement was incurred against.

We've gone all about protecting the players head and rightly so. To let the perpetrator continue playing, while the other poor bloke is verging on hospitalisation is a disgrace.