Tribunal has me confused

[Dogzbody]

Stephen Browne gets 4 weeks (possibly reduced to 3 but still) for Porplysia's KO

Does anyone else think this is a bit steep? Porpoise pretty much bounced into him and although he braced for the impact I couldn't see how Browne could have avoided the impact.

They played it about 500 times during the coverage, and there seemed nothing in it in terms of malice or even rough conduct, more so just unfortunate.

AFL is a 360 degree sport with big strong bodies hitting each other at speed, these things will happen. If you consider that Amon got 4 weeks for a blatant flying charge into Luke Hodge's head for the same sanction (and Amon is no angel) Stephen Browne can consider himself unlucky I reckon. :confused:

Does this mean that the level of the suspension relates to the proceeding health of the recipient player?

[Mike_B]

I was confused by this as well. I guess we will see what the story is once it hits the tribunal...

[573v30]

Milburn gets one week, Browne cleared (http://afl.com.au/News/NEWSARTICLE/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=64827)

No surprises really.

[sidswan]

I disagree that Amon's was a blatant flying charge, he's great friends with Luke Hodge.....surely it was just mis-timed and spontaneous, maybe a bit reckless.....I thought he was extremely unlucky to get 4 wks .....or am I just naive?:confused:

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Unbelievable that Milburn could cop any less than 3 for that one. Can someone explain how on Earth he had it downgraded from 4 to 1?:rolleyes:

[NMWBloods]

Unbelievable that Milburn could cop any less than 3 for that one. Can someone explain how on Earth he had it downgraded from 4 to 1?:rolleyes:
Quite simple. It was 4 weeks originally as it was considered high. Geelong argued that the contact between players is what matters hence it was no longer high and thus 3 weeks. Drop 2 weeks for guilty plea and good record to get 1 week. Probably about right.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I think driving a player's face into the turf should be considered high.

[Triple B]

......good record to get 1 week. Probably about right.

Can't disagree more.

He had absolutely no intention other than to inflict as much hurt and pain as possible. He succeeded by forcefully, and purposely, driving the players head/face into the ground. The ball was gone, he knew the ball was gone yet still gritted his teeth and let him have it.

Cannot believe you think 1 week seems about right.

[NMWBloods]

Cannot believe you think 1 week seems about right.After the 2 week discount.

[ScottH]

Saw the Browne one last night.
I'd have to agree that the penalty seems a bit high, for an innocuous bump.

[Triple B]

Saw the Browne one last night.
I'd have to agree that the penalty seems a bit high, for an innocuous bump.

He got off completely. So he should have.

[ScottH]

He got off completely. So he should have.

Yeh, so I heard. A bit bizarre.

[Dogzbody]

Good to see the Browne one got thrown out.

Milburn though:confused:

[TheHood]

What if the Milburn hit had caused bruising to the brain? One suspects it would be the talk of the week and tribunal laws would be rewritten.

The action of Milburn was deliberate rough conduct that could have resulted in very serious injury, the fact it wasn't in play makes it borderline assault!

[Dogzbody]

Which again begs me to question...is the recipient player health a key part in deciding the punishment?

[NMWBloods]

Which again begs me to question...is the recipient player health a key part in deciding the punishment?
It is directly and indirectly.