AFL greats Leigh Montagna and David King have debated the impending ban facing Essendon forward Peter Wight for his hit on Swan Harry Cunningham, with Montagna arguing four weeks is “too harsh” and even calling for a tweak to the Match Review Officer grading system.
Wright was referred directly to the tribunal for his collision with Cunningham that knocked out the defender, with the incident cited as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact.
It means Wright could receive a four-plus week penalty if found guilty amid the AFL’s crackdown on head high contact.
Watch every game of every round this Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE with no ad-breaks during play on Kayo. New to Kayo? Start your free trial today >
Speaking on Fox Footy’s The First Crack, however, Montagna suggested that, because Wright didn’t target Cunningham and contact was “inevitable,” the incident only warrants a two-match ban.
“I think (four weeks is) too harsh for a player I saw instinctively brace at the very last second when contact was inevitable,” the Saints great argued on Fox Footy.
“The fear is now, if this is going to be four weeks, let’s not be surprised if players start pulling out of contests. Because that would be the smarter option and be called soft than it is to miss a month of football and really hurt a team’s chances of trying to win games.
“It just doesn’t sit easy with me when you watch it in slow-mo to say ‘he had other options’. We know how fast the game is. They’re coming at each other a million miles an hour and it’s instinctive.
“You don’t know in that situation until contact is inevitable what you’re going to do.”
Sicily ‘is letting the team down’ | 01:01
Montagna showed two previous examples of similar incidents where “contact was inevitable” and players escaped suspension – including Willie Rioli’s bump on Matt Rowell in 2022 and Tom Lynch’s hit on Alex Gardner last year.
“I understand the goalposts have shifted in 2024, so I’m OK for Peter Wright to get a suspension now because we’ve got to protect the head,” he added.
“But four weeks is too much – to go from zero to 100 and give him that long out, I don’t like.
“I think if it’s two weeks, I could say: ‘OK, I understand, he’s a bit stiff’. And when you see it in slow motion, he actually tries to get away at the last second. He braces for contact and turns his body … he’s actually trying to get out of the way.
“For me, it’s a bit harsh, but I understand where the game is going. Is it fair? I’m not sure.
“I think it’s a very, very fine line and it’s a harsh penalty for a choice that is a millisecond that didn’t have intent.”
Dual premiership Kangaroo David King, who’s long campaigned for strong penalties against head high contact, remained firm that the league had to make a statement against Wright, no matter the circumstances.
“The brace is a decision of me over you. I’m going to protect myself at the cost of the player on the other side of the coin. That’s always the case, I don’t think the brace is an out,” King argued on The First Crack.
“We’ve got to change behaviour. The only way you do it is hard and fast severe penalties.
“We danced around and have cocked this up for years – that’s why you can show those other examples – because we got it wrong. And we’ve finally taken the stance and it’s going to cost some players weeks that maybe don’t deserve it or are on a knife’s edge. But right now we need to take a stand. We need to take a direction.
“We’ve got to get them out of that (the brace) and get them into something else with more care for the other player. That there (the brace) and to flush someone in the head is the problem.”
STUDS UP! – Toby Greene in hot water? | 00:40
Montagna believes incidents like Wright’s – where he doesn’t intentionally target an opponent but makes contact – should be graded separately to those where players elect to bump – like Jimmy Webster’s hit on Jy Simpkin that resulted in a seven-match ban.
“What’s happening now is we are upgrading the impact from whatever it is to the next level up to protect the head. In a situation like this where I think the player is protecting the ball – different to the Jimmy Webster one and Tom Stewart a few years ago – can we bring it back to what the impact was?,” the dual All-Australian posed.
“So you could argue this impact was high, not severe, but they up to it make it a four week suspension to go to the tribunal. If it was graded as careless, high impact and high contact – it’s two weeks.
“It’s different to when someone chooses and elects to bump more deliberately.”
While King acknowledged there nuance to high contact incidents, he still wanted to see “a stand” against any type of outcome.
“I know where you’re going and I do think we need another table for head high trauma … is it a football act or are have you just gone after the head? The Webster one, he just went after the head, so you cop the full whack,” King said.
“(But) I think you need to make a stand. I think four weeks shakes the player unit. Two weeks doesn’t affect anyone. you might say that’s unfair on Peter Wright – of course it is.
“But if we had of done it with Willie Rioli, we may not be having this discussion two years later.”
Source Agencies
