'He would have been pilloried': The problem with Peter Wright's ban - Footy Classified

There you go lads. You can't protect yourself and you can't contest a ball as a key forward.

Apparently Wright has a duty of care to protect another player but the player himself doesn't.

This is ridiculous.

the contest of peter wright will be no more once other clubs have there players gone for over 4 weeks the action that peter did will be gone no more in the future

One of the things that perplexes me is how we look at outcome over action. If you look at something as simple as a slip or trip, you can trip over and get a bruise or you could land awkwardly and break a bone. The hazard is the same, but the outcome is different. If the other player walked away without the concussion, there would have been nothing to come from it. That same incident could happen exactly the same way 1000 times a year and not result in a concussion which makes me think the act itself is not causal (It's a combination of things that leads to the concussion). What we tend to do in these situations is make up our own narrative after the fact - could of, should of ... The reality is that several things happened at the same time that resulted in the incident ... where the ball was coming in from, the angle and speed at the players (yes both of them) came in, where the sun was, how high the ball was, what the players were thinking in the moment. There is rarely if ever a single cause for an accident/incident but we humans like to find one. The player missing 4 weeks is not going to do anything to stop it from happening again, and if you believe in deterrents, I only need to point at speeding fines to prove they don't work. If they worked people would have stopped speeding years and years ago, but we keep putting up the fines thinking it will deter people .. but it never has.

He could have marked it. Easily

Would love to see a montage of all the players called soft cause they pulled out of a contest - we are losing the fabric of the game here. Theres an inherent risk every time you run out onto the field.

aint no way eddie just said "you're a gyp" when referring to cowardice in a marking contest

Another episode of Eddie Classified, maybe let the other talent speak

So can't turn your body in a marking contest (protect yourself), but can jump with a raised knee in a marking contest (protect yourself). When did the local council takeover at AFL?

Matthew Lloyd, have a listen to yourself ! Your example of pulling out of the Chris Judd bump you were admittedly and intentionally going to put on and pulled out in a split second because you would get suspended you knew you were going to put the bump on and that’s why you pulled out .the reason Peter Wright braced for contact is because he was not intentionally out to run trough anyone , that is the difference !!

Game has been stuffed for a while now, in a few years it will be unrecognizable.

Sounds like maybe the media needs to stop banging on about players shirking contests and calling them ‘weak’. Then maybe they won’t feel bad about pulling out of contests they are going to get to late.

Key factor here… FOUR umpires on the ground and not one of them even considered Peter Wrights action worthy of a free kick, but apparently it’s worth 4 weeks on slow motion.

And duty of care?… Wrights teammate was kicking the ball to Wright, if you’re stepping in the path of a full pace 120kg key forward, get yourself in the safest possible position, Cunningham went reckless. Horseshit decision.

Our game must ! ! remain a contact sport . . "Intent" in a collision should be the determining factor. . I feel this was wrong call by the tribunal.

It wont be long and they'll introduce basketball style blocking and charging rules.

This reminds me of F1, where you have a racing incident vs intentionally causing harm. This would be a footy incident, however the AFL punishes footy acts that have caused accidental harm. The only logical way to protect the head is for every player to wear soft head padding.. It's ugly but i can't see any other way players can both go hard and protect themselves at the same time. They're asking for the impossible.

Barrett is wrong on duty of care.

The game has evolved to a game to "jib" it. You are a fraction late pull out simple. Why did he not try and mark it? Basically the game is turning into cross country basketball.... In this game now played that is 4 weeks but to the guy running back he also had options...but physical awareness does not appear to be part of the modern footballer

When ever Eddie says "Stick with me" is when I immediately shut the clip down 😂

No player would ever pull out

Footies great 2 watch but only round 2 & the hospitals r full of Aussie rules players smashed to smithereens. U wanna protect yourself? Play football(the round Ball version)or stick to AFL & risk your life.. lol

If Wright can't get to the ball then pull out, if no time to pullout then maybe lower the arms and push the player with your hands to avoid damage rather than turning and bumping while off the ground. It's not going to be natural but can be taught/trained.

I hate Essendon more than anything but 2 meter Peter did not take his eyes off the ball not even for a second. You can’t punish a man for trying to win the footy or this game is going down the wrong path. Wrong decision and Wright should be very dissatisfied with the AFL and how they treated him. The game is now at the crossroads.

um maybe going for the mark, if its caught its mark of the centerury, ,Flat out at the ball.

its two different gmes now edde, lets make it two different games mate

Typical Eddie, hates the Swans so much. Especially when his team sitting at the bottom of the ladder 😂

He was a coward. He had to go for the mark, wtf? He got scared and braced. Pretty simple.

The fear of legal issues related to the concussion issue ? Is this the moviator ?

Barrett is such a genius.

"The duty of care is on the one who causes the damage"

Wright would have only had the mark in his mind until the very last second. Explain what care can be taken within this time. How could he even know what damage was coming?

Footballer's are financially compensated for the risk. A penalty has a purpose, I can't see how 4 weeks in that situation serves anything than a 2 week suspension. Politics.

Can someone explain why Eddie is saying "jip"? There is no such slur as "jip" or "gyp" that relates to the context

The game has gone SOFT!

I was wondering what Eddie's agenda was, 3 minutes in and I have my answer. What the hell does Luke Parker's sledge have to do with a high shot? Ive seen enough 3 minutes in.

If Wright had been standing still waiting for the ball and Cunningham came charging back with the flight of the ball and hit Wright front on, it would have been a free to Wright for front on contact in a marking contest. Why should it be any different because Wright was on the move?

Funny, what did Sydney do to Daicos, last year?! Then little gutless whingbag Papley says it's not acceptable what Essendon ware doing. Poor Sydney, always hard done by.

Righto.. what if wright puts his arms out, drops the mark but his elbow takes out his head and he gets weeks? The AFL is a farce and the supporters need to accept it will be a semi contact sport in 10-15 years time..

Peter Wright could have easily gone for the mark or spoil. If he did their would have been a 90% probability that neither player would have been injured.

Lets hope Jimmy Bartell never gets on the tribunal.

Eddie’s tune will change when a Collingwood player is on the receiving end. Collingwood basically won last year’s premiership as a result of Maynard’s thuggery and other very dubious umpiring decisions

You've let lawyers infest the game at EVERY level. Therefore, every season becomes less and less about playing football as the fans want it and more and more about reducing the potential for litigation.

Lawyer-a Kane being the epitome of the phenomenon.

Why don’t they ever show the Maynard ‘footy action’ as an example. Beats me

So much Vic biased sookery going on here! I can't believe people can watch this footage and conclude 'he braced to protect himself' and argue he should get off. He smashed his opponent in the head. If he goes to spoil and knocks out Cunningham, he gets off. He chose to brace which equals he chose to bump. How short are people's (Victorians?) memories? Or is this a case of he hit a Swan so it doesn't matter? Vic bias perhaps....Eddie's certainly got form on that count and so have a lot of faux tough 'heartland' fans.

Im glad you guys had a chat about this, had a lot of what i had been thinking 👍 i just cant help feel like players and peter wright in this instace are kinda scape goats, that the afl are "taking it seriously". The chat you had is what the afl has to do. I dont have the answers lol. I also think players are more often going for the mark runing back rather than spoil because of the front on contact rule. Going for the mark takes that rule out, but also puts the player in danger. I do think players runing back should pull out and let the mark happen, not worth being ko'd a player down the rest of the match

If someone steps onto a freeway, a driver isn't expected to stop within a meter.

It's a tough one.