Toby Nankervis [merged]

[Diocletian]

Inb4 AFL appeal against the leniency after the usual suspects in the media kick up a stink....

[one-eyed]

Reasons for Tribunal's decision:



https://twitter.com/DavidZita1/status/1678673785006993408

[Tiger_In_Sicily]

Fair enough for a stupid act. The Tribunal actually consistent for once . 4 weeks would've been overkill.

Having said that it makes the Mansell suspension even more ridiculous. Given the same penalty for a footy act where he simply protected himself as he was told to do.

Nank is very lucky to only get 3.. re Mansell the tigers defence for him was pathetic and weak. He should have got off and they just did night fight that charge properly

[eliminator]

Agree could have been worse.

[Tiger Khosh]

Flynn (AFL) says the breach of the duty of care from Nankervis was "more egregious" than Jordan De Goey's when he bumped Elijah Hewett and received a three-match ban.

https://go.arena.im/live/fox-sports-australia/6x2mv1m?v=2

It's the same as what De Goey did. In fact, De Goey left the ground. Not sure how it was less egregious than what Nank did . Both equally stupid acts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8r86VXO6LQ

You really have to question the integrity of the AFL with comments like this. In what world was nanks any worse than de goeys? Why are they looking to suspend one player for 4 weeks and another for 3 weeks.

[the claw]

I would argue strongly it was nothing more than a footy act. last time i looked the bump is still a legal act.
In fact id argue it was not even a bump per se.

You know what lets bring in a rule that all teams have to be the same height and size. and under no circumstances can you be physically intimidating.
 In the mean time if your taller and bigger you can execute a bump perfectly but cops weeks because your just too big.

[FooffooValve]

I would argue strongly it was nothing more than a footy act. last time i looked the bump is still a legal act.
In fact id argue it was not even a bump per se.

You know what lets bring in a rule that all teams have to be the same height and size. and under no circumstances can you be physically intimidating.
 In the mean time if your taller and bigger you can execute a bump perfectly but cops weeks because your just too big.

Of course it was a bump. A late one. Nank got what he deserved, and was lucky to get 3. A late bump on a bloke who is wide open after disposal isn't tough or intimidating. It's dumb.

[Andyy]

Reasons for Tribunal's decision:



https://twitter.com/DavidZita1/status/1678673785006993408

Hang on...

So if you don't suck up and apologise afterwards they give you more weeks? Lol

How absurd.

Incident is over in a split second.

[one-eyed]

Flynn (AFL) says the breach of the duty of care from Nankervis was "more egregious" than Jordan De Goey's when he bumped Elijah Hewett and received a three-match ban.

https://go.arena.im/live/fox-sports-australia/6x2mv1m?v=2

It's the same as what De Goey did. In fact, De Goey left the ground. Not sure how it was less egregious than what Nank did . Both equally stupid acts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8r86VXO6LQ

You really have to question the integrity of the AFL with comments like this. In what world was nanks any worse than de goeys? Why are they looking to suspend one player for 4 weeks and another for 3 weeks.

According to The Age, we also compared Nank's bump to Dangerfield's on Jake Kelly in 2021 in which Danger also got 3 weeks.



----------

Tigers lawyer Sam Tovey successfully argued against the lengthy ban, claiming there were “specific and discreet” parts before and after the tackle which showed Nankervis attempted to slow, and later prevent the contact.

He pointed to two previous tribunal cases – Jordan De Goey in round 12 of this season, and Patrick Dangerfield in round one of the 2021 season – which both resulted in three-match bans.

Tovey said these two similar cases were more serious than Nankveris’ because of the risk and seriousness of injury, and therefore: “Nankervis might well be left with a justifiable sense of grievance if he were to be handed a four-week ban.”

However, Flynn said both cases were not relevant, noting that the AFL sought a four-match ban for the De Goey case.

“The contact occurred slightly later in the De Goey incident ... Nankervis made the decision to bump significantly earlier [than De Goey did] – meaning it wasn’t a split-second decision,” she said.

In response to the Dangerfield example, Flynn said while she conceded the incident itself is similar, it was not relevant because the MRO and AFL Tribunal have taken a much stronger approach to head-high contact since the penalty was handed down.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/richmond-co-captain-nankervis-cops-three-match-ban-for-lloyd-bump-20230711-p5dnbw.html

[Andyy]

Reasons for Tribunal's decision:



https://twitter.com/DavidZita1/status/1678673785006993408

Hang on...

So if you don't suck up and apologise afterwards they give you more weeks? Lol

How absurd.

Incident is over in a split second.

I cannot believe this garbage.

MRO/tribunal indicates clearly that outcome determines the punishment and intent has virtually nothing to do with it.

But hey if you appear remorseful later they reduce your sentence?

This process needs a damned overhaul. There is nothing about it that will curb player's behaviour.

[Tiger Khosh]

There isn’t a court case in any field (sport or non sport) where the jury/judge doesn’t factor in whether the person on trial is remorseful. That’s just how it goes.

[camboon]

If you compare phillips action to Nanks they are reasonably identical
One gets a week and the othe tree weeks, the difference being the injury result to the player who was hit and the history of the player

[Tiger_In_Sicily]

If you compare phillips action to Nanks they are reasonably identical
One gets a week and the othe tree weeks, the difference being the injury result to the player who was hit and the history of the player

That has nothing to do with it. The difference is Nank wears a RFC Guernsey

[camboon]

Lol, that’s not what the AFL tribunal said ,

[Fluffy Tiger]

Unfortunately it has become a result based system. There is no answer to this problem of protecting the players and having a full contact sport with our current rules. It would require a complete rewriting of the rules to protect the players they way they want. Then it wouldn't be football the way we know it.  We all can see where it will head  and unless players agree to some form of liability exemption then our game will have to change.