Mark Duffield - The Editorial (17.06.2026)

**Mark Duffield** (0:00)
Hey, I just Venmo'd you for rent.

**SPEAKER_2** (0:02)
Nice, now I can instantly spend it whether I'm checking out online with Venmo or using the Venmo debit card.

**Mark Duffield** (0:07)
Say more.

**SPEAKER_2** (0:09)
More exactly, because the more you do with Venmo, the more you get, like earning up to 5% cash back with Venmostash on a bundle of brands.

**Mark Duffield** (0:16)
So, order more pizza.

**SPEAKER_2** (0:18)
The math demands it.

**Mark Duffield** (0:19)
Get the Venmo debit card.

**SPEAKER_2** (0:21)
Venmostash bundle terms and exclusions apply. See terms at venmo.me slash dadsterms. Venmo checkout not available at all merchants. Venmo MasterCard is issued by the Bancorp Bank NA.

**SPEAKER_3** (0:30)
This episode is brought to you by Verst. Guys wear that guys wear. This Father's Day Verst has something for dads who can activate vacation mode anytime, anywhere. The Verst Resort Collection. Versatile enough for a tropical getaway or a well-earned staycation. For dads who turn a grill into a buffet with a click of the tongs, a backyard into a waterpark with just a sprinkler, and are definitely not asleep on the couch.
They're resting their eyes. Verst. Fit for dads. Only at Dix.
Hello, everybody.

**Mark Duffield** (1:00)
Welcome to the SENWA Radio Studio. We're out here at Optus Stadium. It is a Wednesday morning in Perth. We are here thanks to Beaumont Homes. Award-winning design, built to be loved forever. Partly cloudy in our city today. Currently 7.4 degrees outside. Atop of 15 degrees later in the day. Made in WA for WA. This is Mornings with Mark Duffield on SENWA. I've got Paul. He's standing next to me at the moment. He's just helping me with my technological inadequacies.
Getting my Google document screen back up and running after I crashed it just before we went on air. This is a quote on social media from North Melbourne's Jai Simken. The AFL needs to get it together. The constant rule changes and the MRO is laughable. People don't know what they can and can't do anymore. Just hope for the best each week. And that was his reaction after his teammate Paul Curtis had been, or had a three-match ban for the dangerous tackle on the West Coast, Hamish Davis, on Saturday upheld.
Of course, that happened on Saturday afternoon, that tackle. Now, to be clear, the game has a problem if it's not suspending Curtis for that tackle. So Davis was a very sick boy after it, slammed his head into the deck, left him dazed and wobbly on his feet.
The Curtis tackle did not fit neatly into the double movement sling tackle definitions, but it was definitely a slam tackle, applied with high force and with severe consequences. The problem here though is consistency or the lack of it. So Curtis' ban follows hot on the heels of the tribunal decision to clear Collingwood's Billy Frampton of a dangerous tackle on Brody Meyerchek. Now that tackle originally left Frampton facing a three-match ban. It left Meyerchek with a fractured neck and caused the frightening spectacle of him lying prone on the ground, asking for help because he temporarily couldn't feel his limbs. Frampton's heartfelt evidence at his tribunal hearing certainly helped his cause. He is a former teammate of Meyerchek. He considered himself a friend. There was an absence of malice in the tackle.
Simpkin pointed out that less than a year ago, in a final series no less, a tackle by Hawthorne's Marbia Choll on Tom Stewart eventually went unpunished. So Choll was originally suspended for three matches but got off at the tribunal.
Stewart, concussing the tackle, was subbed out of the game against the Hawks. He missed the grand final against Brisbane a week later.
Football has tough decisions to make on incidents like these, because while Frampton was able to convince the tribunal that his tackle on Meyerchek was just an accident, it was an accident that very nearly resulted in terrible and life-altering consequences for Meyerchek. These are not easy or comfortable discussions for football. It's easy to dismiss the Frampton tackle on Meyerchek as a split-second action and reaction, and we can all believe that Frampton had absolutely no malice when he attempted the tackle. But here is the thing.
Curtis had no longer than a split-second when he tackled Davis. He did not tackle the eagle to concuss him. He tackled him because at the instant he started the tackle, Davis was in possession of the ball. Now the ball spilled on the way down, which makes the tackle seem worse. The tackle does bear many similarities to the one that saw Chole initially suspended, then exonerated for, even though the tackle put Stuart, one of the key members of the Cats lineup, out of a grand final. Now we see a lot of tackles like Curtis' go unpunished because the tackle player does not get concussion. But if consequences hold the absolute key here, then how does Frampton get exonerated for a tackle that leaves a player with a fractured neck and very nearly put him in a wheelchair? And how does Chole get exonerated for a tackle that takes a key player out of an AFL grand final? When all is said and done, is it possible or is it reasonable that consequences remain our best guide on whether a player should or shouldn't face a significant ban for a tackle? Let's face it, it's not inconsistent with what happens in real life. You run a stop sign, you get fined and lose demerit points. You run a stop sign and hit another car, causing serious injury or death, you go to jail. 487 736 736, that is the text line. Let's have your thoughts and questions. 13 12 55 is the Barra and O'Day open line. Barra and O'Day because little things are everything.