Staff and jumper punchers

[mightytiges]

'Jumper punches' to come under scrutiny
1:17:25 PM Sun 3 July, 2005
Paul Gough
Sportal for afl.com.au

The issue of jumper punches is expected to come under close scrutiny from the AFL match review panel on Monday with three incidents expected to analysed following a weekend of scuffles.

While jumper punching, which occurs when two players are grappling with each other, is often dealt with by players being reported and fined for wrestling - there is a chance some players could face the more serious charge of striking following several incidents which were highlighted by the television cameras in round 13.

Sydney ruckman Jason Ball and former Swan and now Richmond ruckman Greg Stafford could also come under scrutiny for jumper punches following their tangle off the ball in the middle of the MCG on Saturday.
 
The pair both appeared to make contact with each other in an incident which was widely captured and certainly bought the MCG crowd to life on Saturday.

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=212822

There was nothing in it from Staff's side. It brought the crowd to life because everyone in the RFC members saw Ball whack Staff high. What's more so did one of the umpires and Staff got the free  .

[JohnF]

lmfaoooo, from my angle Staff clocked him pretty good.

Poor Ball, he retaliates at half the force and gets a free paid agaisnt him.

[mightytiges]

Stafford can accept a two match suspension after being charged with striking Sydney's Jason Ball, who was surprisingly given the all-clear after the pair appeared to trade blows in the middle of the MCG on Saturday.

Stafford's strike was ruled a level two offence because it was adjudged both as high contact and behind play but because of a previous three-game suspension he will still get a two-match ban even if he pleads guilty and receives the points discount.

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=213147

How the hell did Ball get off while Staff got 2 weeks?  ???

[Mopsy]

It's the old story again.

it's not what you know but who you know.

The AFL must protect the Sydney franchise at all costs

[JohnF]

Ball should have got one if Staff got 2.

Disappointing from Staff.

[julzqld]

And Ball's attempt at Stafford wasn't high?  Yet the umpires didn't report either incident but awarded Stafford a free kick.  Richmond should challenge this charge.  It's a joke.


Listed as the Review Panel pic.   ??? ??? ???

[one-eyed]

From the Age
By Karen Lyon
July 5, 2005

Richmond ... are looking closely (at the Stafford incident) this morning before making a final decision before the 10am deadline.

"We are not going to readily accept (the penalty)," said Richmond football manager Paul Armstrong. "He and myself and the tribunal advocate will sit down in the morning and see which course of action to take, but it's more likely than not (Stafford will challenge)."

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/07/04/1120329387074.html

[mightytiges]

And Ball's attempt at Stafford wasn't high?  Yet the umpires didn't report either incident but awarded Stafford a free kick.  Richmond should challenge this charge.  It's a joke.


Listed as the Review Panel pic.   ??? ??? ???

Thanks for that pic Julz. That's what we saw from the wing. What a joke Ball getting off .

Curiously if I heard him right, Paul Armstrong said the club was satisfied with the tribunal's verdict for Jason Ball. A bit of club diplomacy?  ???

[letsgetiton!]

its a damn joke, as from whay i saw ball instigated it, he is the one who approached stafford and struck first blood, but this just goes to show that this tribunal system discriminates against reputations and takes into account the past. that is wrong , every report and inident should be solely judged on that one incident , not what also happened in the past

[julzqld]

Yes I agree with you X.  Ever since that Stafford/Everitt incident a couple of years ago, where certain media, led by Gerard Healy, were crying for Stafford's blood, the AFL have been quick to punish Stafford.  Surely if the offence was so "bad" the umpires should have/would have reported it then and there and not awarded Stafford with the free kick.

[WilliamPowell]

Three to contest
11:24:09 AM Tue 5 July, 2005
Paul Gough
Sportal for afl.com.au

The AFL tribunal will hear three cases on Tuesday night after Collingwood pair Alan Didak and Scott Burns and Richmond ruckman Greg Stafford all chose to contest their cases......

And Stafford is risking a two match ban by contesting his striking charge on Sydney's Jason Ball after the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point), behind play (two points) and high contact (two points) equating to a level two offence of 225 points but Stafford has a previous three match ban raising his number of points to 292.5.

The tribunal will sit from 5pm.

For the full article see:

http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=213253

[WilliamPowell]

its a damn joke, as from whay i saw ball instigated it, he is the one who approached stafford and struck first blood, but this just goes to show that this tribunal system discriminates against reputations and takes into account the past. that is wrong , every report and inident should be solely judged on that one incident , not what also happened in the past

Excellent point X - Staffy has been a marked man like Julz mentioned since that thing with Everitt.

What is frustrating is the fact that Ball was niggling Stafford all match. I am nt quite sure if that makes Ball brave or stupid

Thanks for that pic Julz. That's what we saw from the wing. What a joke Ball getting off .

The sad thing is it isn't a joke. All it does is provides further proof that this new system is probalby worse than the one we had previously. 

[mightytiges]

The sad thing is it isn't a joke. All it does is provides further proof that this new system is probalby worse than the one we had previously. 

The problem is it won't matter what system is put in place. Those in charge of making it work stuff it up through their inconsistent decisions  . Who now knows what's reportable and to what degree  ???    

[mightytiges]

Just announced on SEN.

We tried to get the charge downgraded (Jason Ball even gave evidence) but the tribunal didn't change their mind. 292.5 demerit points = 2 weeks.

Staff didn't speak to the media as he walked out.

 

[one-eyed]

Stafford two for 'jumper punch'
8:43:27 PM Tue 5 July, 2005
Scott Spits
Sportal for afl.com.au

Richmond big man Greg Stafford has been suspended for two matches by the AFL Tribunal after being found guilty of striking Sydney counterpart Jason Ball at the MCG.

It's the first case of a player being found guilty of a 'jumper punch' after the three-man jury agreed the contact was sufficient to constitute a strike.

Richmond would not comment after the hearing but there is a chance the Tigers will appeal the decision.

The AFL's match review panel had assessed the third quarter incident last Saturday as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point), behind play (two points) and high contact (two points).

With a total of six activation points - equating to a level two offence - it drew 225 demerit points and a two-game suspension. But because of a previous three-game suspension for Stafford, his penalty was increased by 30 per cent to 292.5 points.

Had the Tiger ruckman offered an early plea guilty plea, his penalty would have been reduced by 25 per cent to 219.38 points but he still would have faced a two-game suspension.

Stafford pleaded not guilty and told the tribunal he was grappling with Ball after he had pushed aside Swan Paul Williams, before the Sydney ruckman grabbed him.

The pair wrestled for some time in what Ball told the tribunal via telephone was 'a show of strength'. "We grabbed each other. It was a push and shove match."

Ball admitted to feeling 'shocked' by contact made by Stafford but the Tiger argued he was merely trying to push Ball with his forearm while holding onto his jumper.

"If I was going to strike him, I would have taken my hand off the jumper and struck him."

Stafford's advocate, Sean Carroll, said the Tiger's actions constituted a push to the chest and there was no evidence contact was made with Ball's jaw.

"You don't see Ball's head jolt back. You see his chest go back … He doesn't hold his jaw at any stage.

"Stafford's actions are that of a push. He made contact with a pushing motion with his upper forearm."

The jury - comprising Richard Loveridge, Barry Stoneham and Emmett Dunne - disagreed and Stafford was suspended for Richmond's round 15 clash with Essendon and round 16 match against St Kilda.

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=213419