So Hodge basically got 3 weeks less than Silvagni got (given Hodge got a 2 week down to 1 for early guilty plea, plus 1 for bad record), Silvagni got 5 weeks down to 4 (with early guilty plea, no bad record).
I expected Hodge to get that, not because I think that was fair, but because I have been acclimatised by the AFL MRP/Tribunal to expect such.
A quick comparison of Hodge vs Silvagni's cases;
Conduct (Careless or Intentional);
Silvagni - chose to go the elbow, off the ball. Bad look for the game. Imminent contact looked likely with any choice made, given Cripps had initiated the block/contact. Silvagni's action looked reactionary, but a poor choice all the same. Classified Intentional, probably fair, as he had alternatives (eg. hip & shoulder), even if it was a split second decision.
Hodge - in contest for the ball, had intent to bump, look on face suggests intent to hurt, had alternatives and time to not bump (Hodge lent in to the bump). He may have wanted to apply physical pressure to ensure Wingard did not keep ball in play, a push with hands would have sufficed as alternative to heavy bump.
In summary, an elbow is worse than a hip and shoulder which goes against Silvagni. But a reaction to imminent contact isn't as bad as Hodge's hit on defenceless Wingard. Hodge had more time to decide. Therefore, if Silvagni intentional, Hodge must also be ... an argument could be made for both being Careless, as both had a reason for their reactions (even if they were bad choices).
Impact;
Silvagni - little to no injury, about 10 minutes of game time lost by Cripps due to injury concerns on bench (no concussion, no structural damage, player played following week, questionable time off ground, about 10% less, ie. TOG 70%, usually about 80%). Most of force of impact came from Silvagni pursuing his opponent (not Cripps). On video there still appeared some movement towards Cripps once Silvagni chooses to go the elbow high at Cripps head. The action of elbowing carries a risk of greater damage than what was done. eg. broken jaw, concussion.
Hodge - no injury, Wingard fell to ground, probably with initial concern, but got up, did not leave the field, continued play and judged best player on the field. Similar to Silvagni, most of the force of impact came from a legitimate reason for running, in Hodge's case pursuing Wingard in contest for the ball. On video there still appeared some movement towards Wingard once Hodge chooses to go the hip and shoulder high to Wingard's head. Hodge's action had an additional impact concern with the proximity and danger of the point post. Wingard had a secondary impact from hitting this post. Hodge's action carried a risk of greater damage than what was done. eg. spinal damage, concussion.
Impact summary, again, hard to split them. Arguments could be made for both to be Medium or High, but given neither resulted in any significant injuries, I lean towards Medium for both.
Contact - High - open and shut case for both.
Other, both players appeared to take repsonsibilty for their actions, showed regret and compassion, apologised and entered guilty pleas.
Now I'm sure if you listened to the broadcasts and the commentary then you would probably put a different spin on both events, but I have tried to be impartial (disclaimer, I accept I'm Docker biased, but hey).
My issue is, according to the MRP/Tribunal, Silvagni's elbow (5 weeks) was 2 and half times worse than Hodges (2 weeks).
That I have an issue with!
