Author Topic: Sniper Stewart given 4 weeks [update]  (Read 11575 times)

Offline the claw

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 3865
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Sniper Stewart - how many weeks? / Sent to the Tribunal [update]
« Reply #75 on: June 27, 2022, 05:05:03 PM »
Geez the reactions are over the top by everyone. you would think he killed him. the game has really gone to the dogs so many wowsers with an opinion.

Sick to death of this nonsense, lets be clear here this is about the bump and if there is carry on like this every time something goes wrong then perhaps they should have the guts and address what this is really all about and that is out lawing the bump altogether.

Game will be poorer for it and it will ultimately become outdoor basketball if it hasnt already.

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 57995
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Sniper Stewart - how many weeks? / Sent to the Tribunal [update]
« Reply #76 on: June 27, 2022, 06:21:48 PM »
No one reacts (aside from the MRO  ::) ) if it's a football act even if it's accidentally a fraction high (eg: Pickett's shepherd on Moore).

However, this was a non-football act. The sniper wasn't in the play, he ran past the ball and admitted to his coach (according to Scott) that he deliberately went to bump and got Prestia in the head. Prestia would not have been expecting it as it was off the ball. It was a dog act that we use to see in the 70s/80s. It's just luck Prestia's jaw wasn't broken. It deserves 6+ weeks but he'll only get a couple at the most because Scott and the Geelong sycophants in the media are creating this sob story for the sniper. FFS, we've got 7news tonight interviewing the prick saying he still feels bad  :chuck :facepalm :nopity.
 

All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 95475
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: Sniper Stewart - how many weeks? / Sent to the Tribunal [update]
« Reply #77 on: June 27, 2022, 07:10:05 PM »
Tom Stewart left feeling 'ill' after horror hit that left Dion Prestia concussed

By Chris De Silva
Nine
27 June 2022 7pm


Geelong star Tom Stewart has admitted he still feels "ill" over his hit on Richmond's Dion Prestia, opening up on his apology to the Tigers star.

Stewart will front the AFL tribunal on Tuesday night as a result of his dangerous high bump that left Prestia with a concussion, and is likely to receive a ban in excess of three weeks.

The three-time All-Australian admitted he's still struggling to come to terms with what he called a "poor act and a poor decision", and is prepared to wear whatever suspension the tribunal determines.

"I've never been through this process before," he told reporters on Monday.

"I'm at the mercy of the tribunal now and I understand that it was a poor act and a poor decision by myself, but I have to live with that now and that's the hardest thing for me."

Stewart revealed he'd gotten Prestia's number off the latter's teammate Jack Riewoldt, and commended the Tigers star for being understanding.

"Nothing that I can say now justifies the actions that I showed on the day, but my immediate response was to just make sure Dion was OK," he said.

"I reached out to him immediately after the game, (Jack) Riewoldt gave me his number, and he was in good spirits. He understood that there was no malicious intent and it was a poor decision by me.

"It was (a tough conversation). Nothing makes it easier, but the way that he understood that my intent wasn't to maliciously hurt him and the way it happened wasn't directly meant for him, made me feel a little bit more at ease. But it's still been a pretty long few days."

Stewart's hit on Prestia reignited calls for a send-off rule to be introduced to the AFL, given the starring role he played in Geelong's three-point win over Richmond, and he admitted it was tough to remain on the field after the incident.

"It was really, really difficult," he said.

"I understood that I'd made a wrong decision and it still sits in my gut and still makes me feel quite ill. I understood that in that moment all I could do was to try and help the team.

"Unfortunately, with whatever happens going forward (at the tribunal), I can't do that for however long that period is. That was the one thing I had in my mind, that I can't undo what I did, but all I could do was to help the team win on that day."

https://wwos.nine.com.au/afl/news-2022-tom-stewart-opens-up-on-dion-prestia-hit-suspension-geelong-cats/e5d950e0-f4fc-486d-854a-ce190ccb1054

Online Francois Jackson

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13533
Re: Sniper Stewart - how many weeks? / Sent to the Tribunal [update]
« Reply #78 on: June 27, 2022, 07:19:30 PM »
how does go stuff urself sound Stewart?

Currently a member of the Roupies, and employed by the great man Roup.

Offline Knighter

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2499
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Sniper Stewart - how many weeks? / Sent to the Tribunal [update]
« Reply #79 on: June 27, 2022, 07:27:38 PM »
Stewart was feeling so ill that he didn't play a huge game...............not

Offline camboon

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Sniper Stewart - how many weeks? / Sent to the Tribunal [update]
« Reply #80 on: June 27, 2022, 07:36:37 PM »
With all the victim blaming Prestia will get 3 weeks for hurting Stewart’s feelings

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 57995
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Sniper Stewart - how many weeks? / Sent to the Tribunal [update]
« Reply #81 on: June 27, 2022, 07:59:22 PM »
Not only a sniper but also a narcissist  ::).

But he's a "good bloke"(TM)  :nopity.



All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 95475
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: Sniper Stewart - how many weeks? / Sent to the Tribunal [update]
« Reply #82 on: June 27, 2022, 10:38:49 PM »
The Cats and their top legal counsel Ben Ihle QC were on Monday night still in meetings discussing their defence for a contrite Stewart - considered a future Geelong captain - ahead of a tribunal hearing this week.

Stewart’s bump was classified by the match review officer as careless (but not intentional) conduct, severe impact, and high contact and was sent directly to the tribunal, meaning he faces a minimum three-match ban. But the Cats could argue it was high – not severe – impact, which, under the league’s guidelines, is a two-match suspension.

However, leading sports lawyer Paul Horvath, who was a tribunal defence lawyer for the Tigers for eight years, believes Stewart should be contrite and strike a deal with the AFL in a bid to ensure he was given only a three-match ban.

The AFL could call for a suspension of four or more games, particularly at a time when brain trauma, whether that be through concussion or the degenerative brain disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), has become a multimillion-dollar issue and could lead to a class action.

“I am not judging Tom Stewart. I respect him as a good player and all those sorts of things, it’s just the act, the protection of the head and, more importantly, the concussion and ongoing and long-term effects that is important in this,” Horvath said.

“You have got to look at it and realistically say: ‘We can’t get any less than three weeks, let’s try and do a deal with the AFL that agrees to three weeks.’ That’s what I would be doing, regardless of the classification.

“If the AFL agree to it, on the current classification of three weeks, I reckon that would be a pretty reasonable outcome in the circumstances. I am used to being a defence lawyer, I am always trying to keep penalties down, but I think, my feeling is, three weeks is about right for it.”

If the Cats attempt to argue the incident was high - and not severe - the AFL and tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson QC may pursue a more significant penalty.

At Patrick Dangerfield’s tribunal hearing in March last year, after the star Cat crunched Adelaide’s Jake Kelly and left him with a concussion and a broken nose, Dangerfield, through Ihle, pleaded guilty to rough conduct but challenged the grading of the impact, wanting it downgraded from severe to high.

The defence team even turned to definitions of the word “severe″⁣, including the Macquarie and Oxford dictionaries, and asking Siri for a definition. However, the AFL jury agreed that the MRO’s grading was right.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/it-still-sits-in-my-gut-sorry-stewart-urged-to-strike-a-deal-over-prestia-bump-20220627-p5awzr.html

Online Tiger Khosh

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 3741
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Sniper Stewart - how many weeks? / Sent to the Tribunal [update]
« Reply #83 on: June 27, 2022, 10:54:12 PM »
I may be in the minority in that I don’t think we need to call a witch hunt on the guy or question his character or sportsmanship. Footy is played at a million miles an hour and what may seem like a contrived move to take someone out may just be a poor decision made without much thought in a split of a second. I don’t know the guy but happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I’m saying that spareeeeeeeee me all of the “oh he felt terrible”, “he’s such a good guy”, “spare a thought for him” energy being spewed by the cats and the footy media that almost make Prestia feel like an after thought in all of this. The fact of the matter is he ran past the ball, got off the ground, bumped high and concussed Prestia and should be suspended 4-6 weeks accordingly. How many did bachar get in 2017 again?

Also if that act isn’t intentional then I don’t know what is. It was off the ball and he decided to bump the man. Is the definition of intentional wanting to actually hurt a player because I feel like you could argue almost anything is careless if that’s the case. Even the gaff hit on brayshaw, did he intentionally hook him in the jaw and knock him out or did he carelessly swing his arm and accidentally make contact higher than what he intended?

Offline Tigeritis™©®

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9376
  • Richmond, Premiers 2017.2019
Re: Sniper Stewart - how many weeks? / Sent to the Tribunal [update]
« Reply #84 on: June 27, 2022, 10:58:45 PM »
How was it careless?

He didn’t intend to bump? It was classic 70’s/80’s/90’s execution.

His choice to bump and we are supposed to believe his execution was off?

So every time he kicks the ball and it’s not perfect it’s careless?

Rubbish.

He went past the ball and lined Prestia up and executed perfectly. His intent was to bump and make contact. I don’t understand the confusion and why it’s classified a careless act and not intentional. Doesn’t make any sense to me.

I originally thought 4 weeks but after seeing it again in slow motion I’d say 6 minimum.
How he lined Prestia up and tucked his arm in there’s no difference to that act and Gaffs act. Both didn’t intend to knock the player out but that doesn’t mean the intention to do something wasn’t actually present to begin with.
The club that keeps giving.

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 95475
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: Sniper Stewart - how many weeks? / Sent to the Tribunal [update]
« Reply #85 on: June 27, 2022, 11:06:31 PM »
From AFL360 tonight:

Whateley showed some previous incidents comparing their grading to what the player got.

1. Tom Jonas on Andrew Gaff (2016) - raised elbow - intentional/severe/high - 6 weeks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4l84wCcw00

2. Jeremy Cameron on Harris Andrews (2018) - raised elbow - intentional/severe/high - 5 weeks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07CEB12MwK4

3. Lindsay Thomas on Scott Selwood (2018) - bump - careless/severe/high - 3 weeks 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U0_le98rAw

4. Patrick Dangerfield on Jake Kelly (2018) - bump - careless/severe/high - 3 weeks 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMDZGKH7XJ8

So the typical suspension for careless/severe/high incidents is 3 weeks.

Whateley said he has always had a problem with the word "careless". Bumps aren't classed as intentional when they should be for these type of incidents. Robbo agreed and said "careless" is more like saying "there there we know you really didn't mean it". He said it should be called "reckless" instead to which Whateley reminded him the reckless category use to exist but was removed by the AFL.

Robbo asked surely it must be intentional given Stewart intended to bump Prestia (Robbo added that he believes Stewart was trying to knock out Prestia). Whateley replied Michael Christian has never classed a bump as intentional and never will.

Robbo said Stewart should cop 5-6 weeks to send a message. It's not 2016-18 anymore when concussion wasn't the issue it is now. You can't have a guy like Prestia tapping the ball on and being knocked out like that to the point where his legs are all wobbly as he is being carried off.

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 95475
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: Sniper Stewart - how many weeks? / Sent to the Tribunal [update]
« Reply #86 on: June 28, 2022, 12:15:41 PM »
LONGEST AFL SUSPENSIONS THIS CENTURY

Andrew Gaff (WCE)   8 matches   2018
Dean Solomon (FRE)   8 matches   2008
Barry Hall (SYD)   7 matches   2008
Steven Baker (STK)   7 matches   2007
Toby Greene (GWS)   6 matches   2021
Tom Bugg (MELB)   6 matches   2017
Tom Jonas (PORT)   6 matches   2016
Campbell Brown (GC)   6 matches   2012
Jeff Farmer (FRE)   6 matches   2007
Ben Johnson (COLL)   6 matches   2007
Brodie Holland (COLL)   6 matches   2006
Byron Pickett (PORT)   6 matches   2005


The MRO's grading of careless is likely to save Stewart from the heftier penalties that have been reserved for intentional, non-football acts like striking. 

Of the 12 most severe penalties this century, earning a minimum six matches on the sidelines, nine have been graded as intentional, with the remaining three fitting into the since-removed category of reckless.

Jeremy Cameron's forearm to the head of Brisbane defender Harris Andrews in 2018 was graded as intentional, earning a five-match suspension.

There are similarities between that hit and the Stewart case, but the MRO chose the lesser grading of careless, making a suspension of less than five weeks the more likely outcome.

The Tribunal is free to judge the Geelong defender's actions as it sees fit, however, using the MRO's grading as a guide only.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2022/06/28/brett-geeves-spare-us-the-good-guy-defence-chris-stewarts-brutal-hit-is-proof-afl-needs-a-red-card/

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 95475
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Spare us the good guy defence, Chris, Stewart's brutal hit is proof AFL needs a red card

Brett Geeves
theRoar.com.au
28 June 2022


This is what Chris Scott said about Tom Stewart, after Stewart sent Dion Prestia into next week with his decision to run past the ball and hit Prestia in the head with what can only be described as an intentional hit.

“I’ve known Tom for a long time and he is a scrupulously fair player and just a fantastic, strong character – fundamental to what we do at Geelong. When my time’s come and gone, I’ll look back and say I was honoured to have known and coached Tom Stewart.

“That’s partly because when I spoke to him post-game, he just said: ‘I’ve just made a horrible error and I feel terrible about it … I ran past the ball and I chose to bump. I didn’t mean to do it, but gee it was terrible execution and I’m going to pay the price for it’.

“I wouldn’t usually be this expansive, but I think it speaks to the man. He knows he’s done the wrong thing. Was it deliberate? Of course it wasn’t. He’s made an error and, as people do that I admire, he’s prepared to stand up and say ‘I was wrong’.

“It doesn’t help then the idea of restorative justice still exists. Like they (the Tigers) lose one of their best players, but we don’t run away from that fact. But he should have some comfort in the fact that it’s not him and it was an error of execution and nothing more.”

Sorry, Chris, but like I’ve been saying to my Geelong-worshipping father all week, the “good guy” defence ain’t it.

The vision of Dion Prestia being cradled in the arms of the Richmond trainer, struggling with the basics of movement like a newborn giraffe, was one of the more disturbing things I’ve seen on a football field.

It was Brent Staker’s eyes rolling back in his head, before his head hit the ground, after Barry Hall slammed his fist in his face. It was Andrew Brayshaw’s jaw being shattered by the wild swinging arm of Andrew Gaff. It was the 70s and 80s.

It was worthy of being sent from the ground.

Worse, perhaps, was the fact that the officiating umpire reported Stewart immediately for his hit on Prestia, who was in such a bad way that a Richmond team-mate had to take the free- kick, and play was allowed to continue around Prestia, and the team of Richmond medicos, who were crosschecking the safety protocols of the unknown – consciousness and a neck injury.

The three officiating umpires in that game need a couple of weeks in the VFL for that display of player care.

As for Stewart and the “good guy” defence, he could donate a retriever puppy per day to a Geelong orphanage, and it won’t remove him from the ugliness of the severe impact and high contact that left Dion Prestia needing time travel to re-enter this sphere from his current head space of Sunday the 3rd of July.

In the modern day, when the foundation of the game’s rules are being shifted so we can protect the players from the carnage that is Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), should Chris Scott be going down this path of Angelic Tom and his impeccable character in the hope of minimising his suspension damage?

How many times have we heard that any decision to run past the ball and bump is a dangerous act? One that comes with severe consequences on the tribunal scale of MRP Lotto should you hurt the player you’ve lined up.

The difference for a report sent direct to the tribunal in “Careless” and “Intentional” as gradings, when placed alongside severe impact and high contact, is the starting point of one week.

 And through the complete farce of the assessment in this case, Stewart is looking at a three-week ban, which isn’t nearly enough. This needed to start at a four-match ban, with the AFL’s prosecution lawyer working all levels of linguistic wizardry to ensure Stewart sits out a minimum of five.

As for the aforementioned restorative justice, Chris Scott is right to point out the lack of immediate justice for Richmond’s best player being taken out of the game by a dirty and unnecessary play, while the chap responsible for his departure goes on a 17-intercept-possession-rampage to be the difference between the two teams.

‘Richmond are the one that have suffered the penalty. [Geelong’s next opponent] North Melbourne shouldn’t get the benefit next week.

“They get no benefit whatsoever from losing one of their best players. That’s my version of restorative justice, that the victim should actually be [compensated] in some way.”

Is that Chris Scott acknowledging Tom Stewart should have been sent from the ground?

No. Sadly he continues and contradicts himself wildly.

“The idea of sending someone off and getting it wrong in a big game is a risk not worth taking.’”

But CTE is?

Because that is the reality when you run past the ball and choose to bump.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2022/06/28/brett-geeves-spare-us-the-good-guy-defence-chris-stewarts-brutal-hit-is-proof-afl-needs-a-red-card/

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 95475
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: Sniper Stewart - how many weeks? / Sent to the Tribunal [update]
« Reply #88 on: June 28, 2022, 12:30:23 PM »
SEN just said the Tribunal hearing starts at 5.15pm.

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 57995
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Sniper Stewart - how many weeks? / Sent to the Tribunal [update]
« Reply #89 on: June 28, 2022, 02:14:48 PM »
Tim English to miss a second match with delayed concussion.

Let's see tonight how serious the AFL are about protecting the head as well as cheap shots that knock players out. I won't hold my breath  ::).
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd