Ziebell ban causes angst

Sportal July 18, 2012, 9:42 am
Jack Ziebell

Getty Images © Enlarge photo

North Melbourne's Drew Petrie and Majak Daw could be facing censure from the AFL over a series of tweets criticising the tribunal's decision to uphold team-mate Jack Ziebell's four-match suspension.

Ziebell was cited by the match review panel on Monday for his high hit on Carlton's Aaron Joseph in last Friday night's big win by the Kangaroos, with the midfielder offered a four-match ban that would be reduced to three with an early-guilty plea.

However the Kangaroos were unable to get Ziebell's rough-conduct charge overturned by the tribunal, meaning the 21-year-old will now miss crucial matches against Richmond, Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and Essendon as ninth-placed North Melbourne fight it out for eighth position on the ladder.

It is uncertain whether the Kangaroos will appeal the decision, with communications manager Heath O'Loughlin tweeting through the club's official account on Tuesday evening that, 'the club will be considering its options (in relation to Ziebell decision)'.

However, Petrie and Daw made their feelings felt through social media.

Petrie initially tweeted: "Lost enough sleep already tonight over that decision. Got a sore neck from shaking my head so much. Time for bed."

And then added: "Advice for @JackZiebell. Stop being so courageous and playing footy hard the way it's meant to be played. Please turn into a softy."

Daw didn't make any comment but according to the ''Herald-Sun'' re-tweeted a post from another user that said: "AFL please explain how Ziebell gets the same penalty as (Chris) Judd and more time than (Sharrod) Wellingham... do you really think this is a fair system?"

It is uncertain whether the two players may face punishment from the AFL, especially after the body fined Carlton $7500 for comments made on Twitter by Marc Murphy, Jeremy Laidler and Jarrad Waite, who used the social media service to criticise umpires during the Blues' recent loss to West Coast.

At the time, the predominant reason given for fining the Carlton trio was that they were deliberately criticising the umpires, although it remains to be seen whether the same principle will apply to a tribunal decision.

"A player's use of social media to make comments around umpiring will be subject to the AFL's rules in exactly the same way as comments made in a formal interview or any other media environment," said AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson at the time.

Newest First
Oldest First
Top Rated
Most Replies


  1. Daggers01:33pm Wednesday 18th July 2012 ESTReport Abuse

    I dont know what he could have done in a split second to avoid contact, but he did make high hard contact, and that's what the rule is about. So copit and move on. And players should avoid making stupid comments. But as I've said before, they're only footy players, not intellectuals.

  2. underarm_bowler01:03pm Wednesday 18th July 2012 ESTReport Abuse

    Don't lay a hard tackle on a blue girl. Two weeks in a row they have shown how weak they are

  3. The Skud12:37pm Wednesday 18th July 2012 ESTReport Abuse

    The AFL and the Tribunal cannot have it both ways, they want a fast game for the spectators but no injurous tackles or collisions from the speed. Modern players have at least 50% more bulk or muscle from modern, scientific training and diets, so there must be more impact than in the old "amateur" days.

  4. Jon Stiller12:12pm Wednesday 18th July 2012 ESTReport Abuse

    This is what happens when you let lawyers govern football....football is muti dimensional game...should be judd 5 week....ziebell 1 week....can i get the job ????

  5. Buzz11:29am Wednesday 18th July 2012 ESTReport Abuse

    Decision was farcical and unfortunately for Ziebell (and fortunately for the inept AFL) has been overshadowed by the media frenzy over Judd.

  6. Agbrips11:28am Wednesday 18th July 2012 ESTReport Abuse

    Just returned to Australia after many years abroad and not keeping up with the AFL. Saw the incident on TV and immediately commented there was nothing in it and the boy was just coming through hard.Now I see the tribunal decision and do not understand. Hard contact is out and gentle tackling is ok? Is that right?

  7. Boyd10:57am Wednesday 18th July 2012 ESTReport Abuse

    Not only is the Ziebell decision by the tribunal excessive when contrasted with earlier decisions on similar charges, it is, most importantly, contrary to the spirit of the game.That Judd gets the same 4 game ban for deliberately attempting to damage a helpless player`s shoulder whilst not in competition for the ball is a disgrace.Majak and Drew have every right to comment on this.

  8. Brian10:52am Wednesday 18th July 2012 ESTReport Abuse

    I agree with them - where is the justice?