Teddy gets offerred a week for rough conduct - CLEARED

[sfan]

Did not look that bad. He was stationery I thought at the time.

[Quiet_Observer]

Swans defender Ted Richards was also charged with rough conduct in a second-quarter incident with Bulldog Lindsay Gilbee.

Richards' contact with Gilbee was assessed as negligent, medium impact and high contact, earning him 225 demerit points and a two-match suspension. Richards' five-year good record brought his penalty down to 168.75 points and a one-game ban.

Trengove offered two weeks - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113419/default.aspx)

[satchmopugdog]

That well known ruffian Ted Richards cannot keep himself away from the tribunal:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::r olleyes::rolleyes:...codswallop

[Big Al]

You would think with 1.2 billion in the kitty that the AFL could afford to hire intelligent football people instead of these mental midgets who clearly have NFI.

[Peace]

he was slowing down and protecting himself! didn't see anything malice in his body language... he should fight it.

[lwoggardner]

Opens a spot for LRT?

[Matt79]

What a JOKE!! Negligent my proverbial.

All the MRP had to do was listen to the commentary of the game..." (Insert Bulldog Player here) fell into Teddy who actually looked like he had stopped to avoid contact" . Something along those lines. He will appeal and should get off.

[Scottee]

He was stationary trying to avoid the contact FFS. What a crock of @@@@@. Fight it all the way my good man.

[nomae]

We got Barry off in 2005. This should be a piece of cake.

[Jeffers1984]

hahaha what a joke.

[ShockOfHair]

You could see he stopped so that he wouldn't make high contact. Certainly wasn't negligent.

[Scottee]

"Ted Richards, Sydney Swans, has been charged with a Level Two engaging in rough conduct offence against Lindsay Gilbee, Western Bulldogs, during the second quarter of the Round Seven match between the Sydney Swans and the Western Bulldogs, played at Manuka Oval on Saturday May 7, 2011.

In summary, due to a five-year good record, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Western Bulldogs, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has an existing five-year good record, reducing the penalty by 25 per cent to 168.75 points and a one-match sanction. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 126.56 points and a one-match sanction."

Full report. Great example of a bunch of idle bureacrats looking to boost their own self importance. No "normal" follower of the game would think he did anything wrong.

[laughingnome]

This a week after Geischen said players that hit a stationary opponent with their head will not be given a free kick. MRP have NFI.

Teddy to get off tomorrow night. Officials can't get away with stooging us two weeks in a row.

[Untamed Snark]

Seriously?
Really bad call from the officials.
I would love to agree with Laughingnome but sadly too cynical and knowing how much we need Teddy on our defence I think the panel are going to make the wrong decision should he challenge. That said Ted should challenge, it was clearly an attempt to avoid contact

[swansrule100]

didnt know u got suspended for standing still and someone running into you

[Untamed Snark]

If you play for Sydney you can...

[GongSwan]

geez, how many players are we up against, teddy, the complete uncontrollable lunatic?????? What BS, just another example of anti Sydney bias on the part of the AFL, it's like a virus, our blokes don't stand much of a chance

[ScottH]

Like the player (For PA, I think) said the other week, when he got pinged by the umpire, "we're not playing Netball"

[giant]

Did not look that bad. He was stationery I thought at the time.

Maybe they thought that excuse was paper thin. Tish boom.

Will miss him - I know they're not travelling so well, but on paper at least (there I go again!), a forward line of Westhoff, Motlop, Gray and Ebert ain't the worst going round.

[Triple B]

There was a tackle on Sat night (Suns v Brians) that was 100% worse than Mummy's on Ablett last year. Didn't even get a mention that I can see.

The inconsistency is mind-boggling...

[liz]

Maybe they thought that excuse was paper thin. Tish boom.

Will miss him - I know they're not travelling so well, but on paper at least (there I go again!), a forward line of Westhoff, Motlop, Gray and Ebert ain't the worst going round.

Motlop sounds like he will miss with injury and he's not a player you'd play Ted on anyway. Nor is Gray. If they both do play you'd think Rhyce and Smithy would get those jobs. Westhoff is very hot and cold but when he's on he is dangerous. I suspect Reg would be first choice to play on him but if they are worried by Westhoff's height, the obvious solution is to bring LRT back a week earlier than they otherwise might. Reg, if not on Westhoff, can take Ebert, and we still have Marty and Johnson plus Johnston waiting in the wings if needs be.

Still, would much rather have Ted out there. He's been our rock this year.

[Big Al]

I say we get back to the old way where if the incident isn't picked up by the 3 Umpires, 4 boundaries and 2 goal umpires then it's play on.

[liz]

There was a tackle on Sat night (Suns v Brians) that was 100% worse than Mummy's on Ablett last year. Didn't even get a mention that I can see.

The inconsistency is mind-boggling...

And yet Jack Trengove has been outed for such a tackle on Dangerfield.

[Big Al]

Maybe they thought that excuse was paper thin. Tish boom.

Will miss him - I know they're not travelling so well, but on paper at least (there I go again!), a forward line of Westhoff, Motlop, Gray and Ebert ain't the worst going round.

The Tribunal will chuck this decision in the bin where it belongs.

[giant]

Motlop sounds like he will miss with injury and he's not a player you'd play Ted on anyway. Nor is Gray. If they both do play you'd think Rhyce and Smithy would get those jobs. Westhoff is very hot and cold but when he's on he is dangerous. I suspect Reg would be first choice to play on him but if they are worried by Westhoff's height, the obvious solution is to bring LRT back a week earlier than they otherwise might. Reg, if not on Westhoff, can take Ebert, and we still have Marty and Johnson plus Johnston waiting in the wings if needs be.

Still, would much rather have Ted out there. He's been our rock this year.

Well I doubt he would have been dropped so he would have taken one of these I imagine (he had a "small" forward at some point last week didn't he?). My point was that despite struggling this year, on paper (oh stop it...), Port actually have a bit of offensive firepower.

[Lucky Knickers]

Sorry WHAT?????
Could some tell me when exactly this happened. I've watched the replay and can't work it out. Tell me it's not that stupid push?

[Owen87]

I'm struggling to see the difference to Johncock's bump on Riewoldt a week earlier and Teddy's. Johncock got nothing an Riewoldt didn't come back on. Yet Gilbee plays on and Teddy gets a week the MRP is a joke

[ugg]

Sorry WHAT?????
Could some tell me when exactly this happened. I've watched the replay and can't work it out. Tell me it's not that stupid push?
There's a video of all MRP incidents on the front page of the afl.com.au

[Lucky Knickers]

Thanks Ugg. I don't remember that at all.

[Doctor]

I remember the bump. The commentators at the time said there was nothing in it. My recollection is that it wasn't even deemed worthy of a free kick. To get a week for that would be an absolute joke. Not only was the contact unavoidable, but it makes the umpire look like a goose for not giving a free when he was, in fact, correct all along.

We'll probably accept the week but we should fight it. There was absolutely nothing wrong with what Richards did IMO.

[Triple B]

Gilbee was running directly away from me, so that is the first time I have seen the actual contact. Seriously, that is not suspension worthy in the least...

[aardvark]

What a load of rubbish, a week for that is just unbelievable.

[ugg]

If I was Ted's legal rep I would argue

Ted peeled off his man to attack the loose ball
He expected Gilbee to take possession but whe Gilbee knocked the ball on, Ted slowed up and all he did was brace for contact given the momentum of both players.
If he wanted to really hurt Gilbee, he wouldn't have slowed down and could have really done some damage

[Moose Malloy]

Yes it's the inconsistency that is incredibly annoying. Last year Dawson knocked Kennelly into the middle of next week, probably deliberately given his recent exploits, but at least negligently, and nothing happened to him.

[DST]

I remember the bump. The commentators at the time said there was nothing in it. My recollection is that it wasn't even deemed worthy of a free kick. To get a week for that would be an absolute joke. Not only was the contact unavoidable, but it makes the umpire look like a goose for not giving a free when he was, in fact, correct all along.

We'll probably accept the week but we should fight it. There was absolutely nothing wrong with what Richards did IMO.

A free kick was paid, but I can't remember if the Dogs decided to play on or not but a free kick was paid for the bump.

DST

[ugg]

A free kick was paid, but I can't remember if the Dogs decided to play on or not but a free kick was paid for the bump.

DST

Trengove offered two weeks - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113419/default.aspx)

About 61 seconds in.

No free kick was paid, you can see the controlling umpire Meredith right in the centre of the picture and he doesn't make a signal.

[lwoggardner]

Just to up the outrage - the MRP assessed this as worthy of a *two* week suspension. Ridiculous. Ted gets it down to 1 with early plea/good record.

[Triple B]

What time should we hear that the Swans are contesting this BS ??

[ugg]

The deadline was 11am. News should filter through soon.

[top40]

I accept the injustice of the MRP's decision. However, there is also the risk of Ted being out for two weeks and missing the game against Hawthorn and thereafter lacking match fitness.

No disrepect to Port Adelaide, but is it worth the risk? (Actually there is disrepect to Port)

[ugg]

We are contesting!

[CJK]

Stick it to The Man!

[Untamed Snark]

I think we can count on Ted to do everything possible to maintain match fitness should he get stuck with the ban.
I'm torn between knowing it should be contested due to being a ridiculous decision and not trusting the MRP to make a good decision.
We can manage against Port but I think we will need Ted against the Hawks

[Triple B]

Seriously the only option, it's just such an unjust penalty.

Given we must lodge an amount (10K?) to appeal which is withheld if the appeal is deemed frivolous, the tribunal should fine the MRP for wasting their time with a frivolous suspension.

[31 hard at it]

Ted has an outstanding record for courage and fair play.
This is a shocking decision by the MRP to even lay a charge when both players were aware, ball within the play, Gilbee stands rather than be tackled with the ball and the hit was a side bump to the shoulder of the oncoming player !

All we ask is give Ted a fair go !!

[liz]

I accept the injustice of the MRP's decision. However, there is also the risk of Ted being out for two weeks and missing the game against Hawthorn and thereafter lacking match fitness.

No disrepect to Port Adelaide, but is it worth the risk? (Actually there is disrepect to Port)

No risk of two weeks due to the good record discount still applying. If he fails, he will just have more carry-over points but still will just serve one week now.


We are contesting!

Goody


I'm torn between knowing it should be contested due to being a ridiculous decision and not trusting the MRP to make a good decision.
We can manage against Port but I think we will need Ted against the Hawks

Think it is a logical path to take to contest. Whether it is successful or not is pretty much a toss of the coin.

If it isn't successful, I would love to hear the tribunal provide some ideas about what genuine alternative course of action Ted had in the circumstances. If he had none, he shouldn't get suspended. (And that is putting aside the fact that from the TV footage we've all seen, it is inconclusive whether there was much, if any, contact to the head.)

[Jesse Richards]

Coincidence?

Mummy last year begining to show some form. Ted this year playing extremely well. No doubt others will be able to cite similar examples from our own and other clubs.

If the MRP think that Ted was in any way negligent they should search him for an alien implant. It's the only explanation that makes sense - oh, and that they want to create problems for Sydney.

[Triple B]

Coincidence?

Mummy last year begining to show some form. Ted this year playing extremely well. No doubt others will be able to cite similar examples from our own and other clubs.

If the MRP think that Ted was in any way negligent they should search him for an alien implant. It's the only explanation that makes sense - oh, and that they want to create problems for Sydney.

I don't buy the conspiracy thing at all and I think it makes us look silly to even suggest it, but the inconsistency of the MRP is laughable.

[Big Al]

The Chris Dawes one was thrown out in 5min by the Tribunal. If they're serious this charge will be thrown out in less time making the MRP look like like the bunch of fools they clearly are.

[Jesse Richards]

I don't buy the conspiracy thing at all and I think it makes us look silly to even suggest it, but the inconsistency of the MRP is laughable.

Ok. Let's call it for what it really is then. Corrupt? Incompetent? Either way I'm not laughing.

[Triple B]

Ted's fight (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113476/default.aspx)

According to this, he will miss 2 matches if he doesn't get off, or reduced.

"Like Trengove, Richards is risking a greater penalty by contesting the finding and could miss two games if the Swans fail."

I tend to agree with the sentiment that his 5 year good record reduction will still apply, although obviously the 'early plea' reduction will not.

Is the journo wrong ?

Should I give myself an uppercut for even asking ?

[Big Al]

Ted's fight (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113476/default.aspx)

According to this, he will miss 2 matches if he doesn't get off, or reduced.

I tend to agree with the sentiment that his 5 year good record reduction will still apply, although obviously the 'early plea' reduction will not.

Is the journo wrong ?

Should I give myself an uppercut for even asking ?

My understanding is that he still gets the 25% good behaviour reduction which brings it under 200 points and still only 1 match. The only difference is that he doesn't get the early plea reduction so has more carry over points.

[liz]

Ted's fight (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113476/default.aspx)

According to this, he will miss 2 matches if he doesn't get off, or reduced.

I tend to agree with the sentiment that his 5 year good record reduction will still apply, although obviously the 'early plea' reduction will not.

Is the journo wrong ?

Should I give myself an uppercut for even asking ?

Yes to both.

I am a little surprised that Freo are challenging the Fyfe one. It looked a pretty blatant case of getting in the way of the umpire's escape route and it is not obvious from the footage that he was nudged into the contact.

[Triple B]

Yes to both.


I thought as much, lucky I'm a powder puff, I should still be able to post after the uppercut...

I'm surprised that they are contesting both of the other charges.

Agree on Fyfe and I don't believe they have shown a whole lot of leniency in the past even if they are nudged into the umpires path.

Not sure how they can get Trengove's downgraded either. Definately high impact and high contact, no lawyer could possibly argue atherwise...

[ugg]

I asked Daily Tele AFL reporter @toddbalym on Twitter and he responded thusly:


@swansreserves Ted will only cop 1-week if found guilty. Gonna claim contact was shoulder not head. Flying to Melb, so they're serious.I wonder if Gilbee will help Ted by making a statement that it was shoulder and not head.

[ScottH]

According to the news this morning, he'd get 2 if found guilty.

[satchmopugdog]

Damn..wish I had known in time to fly to Melbourne with placards.."How much does Teddy have to bear!!!" 'Bring back the trying to avoid contact"
"Contact Goal Defence"

[satchmopugdog]

Damn..wish I had known in time to fly to Melbourne with placards.."How much does Teddy have to bear!!!" 'Bring back the trying to avoid contact"
"Contact Goal Defence"


We had a more severe incident than that in my div3 hockey game on Sunday..and we are a bunch of old women..just shrug it off and get on with it.

[ugg]

Live coverage!

Triple Tribunal live at 5pm - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113488/default.aspx)

[Big Al]

We had a more severe incident than that in my div3 hockey game on Sunday..and we are a bunch of old women..just shrug it off and get on with it.

To be fair if I had the choice between confronting a footballer and an angry female hockey player then I'd take the footballer for sure. ;)

[ugg]

For those who don't have Flash



Andrew Tinney SC is the tribunal counsel. David Galbally QC representing Richards.
Tribunal watching footage of the incident now.
Tinney reading medical report from Bulldogs. Lindsay Gilbee was treated for neck and shoulder stiffness but was declared fit to continue playing. Is not receiving any continuing treatment as a result of the incident.
Ted Richards now taking the witness stand.
Richards says he approached the contest to win the ball, the ball didn't bounce his way, and he was expecting Gilbee to pick up the ball, so he went in to tackle. Gilbee then knocked the ball foward. He stopped in his tracks, aiming to keep his feet and not give away a free.
Galbally QC taking Richards through frame by frame footage of the incident. Richards explaining what he was thinking at each moment as the piece of play unfolded.
Galbally highlighting that Richards stopped when Gilbee knocked the ball forward. Gilbee then continued moving towards him. Richards agrees.
Richards says when he realised impact with Gilbee was coming, he couldn't stay front on or would have been exposed, so leaned in to soften the contact.
Galbally highlighting that even after the incident, Richards still had not moved from the position he was in when Gilbee knocked the ball forward.
Now seeing a video shown to players at the beginning of this season, clarifying the rough conduct rule.
Galbally's final question to Richards, 'Was there any alternative action you could have taken?' Richards: 'I don't believe so, no.'
Tribunal counsel Andrew Tinney SC now questioning Richards.
Tinney: 'Do you think your shoulder came into contact with Gilbee's chin?' Richards says no. Thinks he made contact with Gilbee's shoulder only.
Tinney questioning whether Richards deliberately braced for contact to prevent Gilbee getting to the ball after he had knocked it on. Richards says no, he stopped in his tracks and couldn't avoid the contact.
Tinney suggesting that there was movement from Richards in Gilbee's direction after the ball was knocked on. Richards disagrees.
Tinney suggests Richards put his weight behind the impact. Richards saying he in fact shifted his weight away from Gilbee to soften the impact.
Tinney suggesting Richards could have avoided contact. Richards says that short of just jumping to the ground, there was no way he could have got out of the way in such a short amount of time.
Questioning of Richards now finished. Anthony Cahill taking the witness stand. He is the football technology manager at the Sydney Swans.
Cahill says there was 0.48 seconds between Gilbee knocking the ball off the ground and contact between Richards and Gilbee being made.
Cahill testifying to the fact that Richards' foot is not moving at the time of impact.
Now showing footage of Gilbee moving/rotating his shoulder.
Cahill says incident happened five minutes before half-time. Says that after half-time Gilbee had a further 16 possessions.
Cahill says that by his analysis of the footage, there was no contact to Gilbee's head.
Tinney now questioning Cahill. Cahill supporting Richards' argument that he was not leaning into the bump, but leaning away to try to minimise impact.
No further questions. Cahill leaves witness stand.
Now hearing closing statement by Andrew Tinney SC.
Tinney says there are two questions: 1. Was this a bump? He doesn't think the frame-by-frame footage does justice to what occurred. Thinks it clearly appears as a bump when watching footage in real time. 2. Was there forceful high contact? Suggests the footage shows there clearly was, despite Richards saying there wasn't. Thinks it was contact between Richards' left shoulder and Gilbee's chin.
Richards' advocate David Galbally QC now summing up. Was it a bump? He says the footage shows Richards stopped as soon as Gilbee knocked the ball forward, meaning he was stationary upon impact. Gilbee's momentum carried him into Richards, Galbally says. Argues that Gilbee was aware he was about to run into Richards, because he put his hands up and moved his head. The top half of Richards' body was leaning away, not into Gilbee. Argues it wasn't a bump, and the contact was unavoidable.
Galbally saying the umpire was in a perfect position to see if there was head-high contact, and he didn't pay a free. Says if there was head-high contact, which he doesn't think there was, it would have to be rated as 'low' impact, not 'medium'.

[JudesaGun]

I am still amazed that they break down each incident into seconds or milliseconds. There seems to be no weight given to the moment itself and how quickly these incidents are over.

[liz]

Ugg - has anyone ever told you how wonderful you are?

[ABloodsMan]

Tinney seems like a real @@@@@

[ugg]

What a tense wait for the verdict

EDIT: Nope it's still going. Galbally summing up. Interesting they're also trying to downgrade the impact as well if their previous arguments fail to sway the panel.

[Kirkari]

"The frame-by-frame footage doesn't do justice to what occurred." Huh? Doesn't it let them see exactly what happened, and whether or not Teddy was moving towards Gilbee? We all think we see things in real time. Goal umpires see goals that were actually points, for example.

[Rod_]

Well I'm impressed thanks Ugg!

Rod_

[liz]

Tinney seems like a real @@@@@

To be fair, he is there as the prosecutor so he has to try and make an argument that Ted did something wrong. Otherwise he's not doing his job.

[ABloodsMan]

I know I know, but it's hard not to take it personally :p

[Big Al]

Ugg - has anyone ever told you how wonderful you are?

Well if they haven't they bloody well should. The updates are very much appreciated Ugg.

[R-1]

Richards not guilty.

[Matt79]

Not guilty

[ugg]

Wayne Henwood says the jury is satisfied Richards bumped Gilbee, but is not satisfied that there was contact with the head or neck. Therefore, Richards is not guilty of rough conduct.

Free to play!

[Old Royboy]

Beat the rap!! NO rough conduct

[Big Al]

Justice is served.

[ABloodsMan]

Well done team!

[Big Al]

Does the AFL reimburse the Swans for it's expenses???

[chalbilto]

Rubbish report to start with. Should never have even been considererd in the first place. As Big Al said "Justice is served".

[mcs]

All I can say is excellent. Teddy has been imo our best player this year, and while he is in such great form I want him playing every game.

[Cheer_Cheer]

All I can say is excellent. Teddy has been imo our best player this year, and while he is in such great form I want him playing every game.

Absobloodylutely.. I am so wrapped he has found his place this year.. The last thing he needed was a kick in the guts.. Go Teddy.. I can't wait to see you play on Franklin in 2 weeks..

[dimelb]

ugg - an absolute jewel. For services above and beyond the call of duty, the Red and White Order. (Handy initials)
And the truth seems to have prevailed. Should never have been doubted in the first place.

[Untamed Snark]

Fantastic news!
I would have been furious (and devastated) should the news be any different

[sfan]

mmm.... ex swan Wayne Henwood - thought he might excuse himself!!!!

[BSA5]

Cheers Moose. :)

[satchmopugdog]

Hooray....I love you Ted

[Xie Shan]

Excellent news, good to hear that sanity can still prevail.

[liz]

I am only partly satisfied. Obviously the outcome is good for Ted and for the Swans. However, he escaped penalty because it wasn't evident whether the contact was high, not because it wasn't deemed to be a bump. I understand why the AFL is nervous about the potential for a ill-judged bump to injure an opponent, but surely they have to understand that not every collision is as a result of one player deliberately bumping another. I don't think this judgement does anything to clarify what does and does not constitute a bump.

[Kirkari]

Nice time-wasting, MRP. The only downside to the outcome is that it may put Teddy in doubt for the Ladies' Lunch this Friday.

[GongSwan]

finally a little sanity creeps in, not playing netball here

[Primmy]

Ugg - has anyone ever told you how wonderful you are?

Yes, me, often.

Well, this adventure will surely make a very interesting Richards Report! For once we ought to get an inside picture of what it is like to be in the hot seat. Teddy? Hope you are reading this.

[AnnieH]

The MRP are dead-set just trying to justify their existence.

What a waste of time. All it did was make us panic for a day or two.