View Full Version : MORE eddie bias on Nathan blood smear report
Defender
14 Jul 2002, 16:08
After watching Nathan Buckley pretty much admit that he has done the lowest thing in his carreer with the blood smearing report I was very disappointed to hear Eddie show more bias on the next show where he interviewed Mark Robinson from the Herald Sun. Looked like some severe damage control trying to
twist the words of Nathan and then cutting Robinson off at the first sign of him making Buckley look bad.
Given the blood rule should be taken quite seriously since players are ordered off at the first sign Buckley's smearing of blood is an absolutely disgusting act. As a Collingwood supporter it really turns my stomach at what he has done.
McGuire's power in the media has again twisted and tainted the incident. A real contempt has been shown in trying to defend Buckley ..when Buckley himself has come out and admitted he did the wrong thing. I think it is very tacky that the president would even comment on this before it has gone to the tribunal let alone try to twist things even more so.
And as to Buckley retaliating at being hit by Ling. You let the umpires take care of that ..you are not meant to retaliate with physical violence let alone smearing them with BLOOD which could possible infect them.
DISGUSTING!! I think Buckley should be made an example of..
His career has now been tarnished with no coming back.
Further than being beaten by Geelong
I think lots of us are Very disappointed Collingwood supporters.
The world has gone crazy!
I just read a post from a Collingwood fan, where he criticised BOTH Eddie and Nathan!
Nothing will ever be the same again.
Originally posted by scmods
The world has gone crazy!
I just read a post from a Collingwood fan, where he criticised BOTH Eddie and Nathan!
Nothing will ever be the same again.
Just someone posing as a Collingwood fan.
Come on Defender........Give Buckley a go will you.
This goes for all you BIG AFL supporters.
Why not ask yourself
1) Why did Buckley loose his cool.
2) What was done to Buckley for him to get a cut on the head.
3) What did LING do to him.
4) Check out why and what the main story is before making any judgement.
Lockyer24
14 Jul 2002, 16:16
Mods when are you going to make a Eddie Whinge sub-forum?
Hurricane75
14 Jul 2002, 16:17
Its Eddie's job as Collingwood President to stand behind his players in the good and bad.
I'm sure Eddie is very disappointed by what happened but he needs to make sure that Bucks gets a fair trial. It has all been one sided media so far.
What do you expect him to say???????
Originally posted by Lockyer24
Mods when are you going to make a Eddie Whinge sub-forum?
I thought that was the AFL Board.
Didn't see Eddie's comments, but I was very surprised that Garry Lyon got Nathan to say so much about it. Isn't there something about compromising the report? Surely he should have kept his mouth shut. I mean, a lot of court cases are sub judice, and I would have thought the same thing applied here.
scmods......I shall ask you where you saw a post where a PIES supporter critisized Eddie and Buckley.
I cant find it.....so where is it?????????????
I bet it dosent exist
Originally posted by Crow54
Didn't see Eddie's comments, but I was very surprised that Garry Lyon got Nathan to say so much about it. Isn't there something about compromising the report? Surely he should have kept his mouth shut. I mean, a lot of court cases are sub judice, and I would have thought the same thing applied here.
If you mean this morning on the sunday Footy Show it seemed to me that Buckley did keep his mouth shut, besides the obligatory 'not proud of what I did'. He didn't give much away, saying it would all come out at the tribunal.
thehardaway
14 Jul 2002, 16:28
Buckley said nothing on the Footy Show really. Did all the right things that were expected. He said the tribunal will sort it out.
SeinDude
14 Jul 2002, 16:41
The bottom line is that Nathan Buckley as the Collingwood captain, needed to be setting the right example on the field. You can't afford to lose your cool just because things aren't going your way all the time. Cameron Ling did a great job in the Magpie superstar yesterday, and should be congratulated on his great game.
Go Cats!! :cool:
SeinDude
you_idiot
14 Jul 2002, 16:45
Article on the afl.com.au site about Buckley's "Sunday Footy Show" appearance and his comments on it...
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=46891
If Buckley wants it all to be sorted out in the Tribunal rather than courts of public opinion such as this one, fine. He'll be judged as guilty as sin there, too.
Question for Defender on his original post... where exactly (Triple M, Herald-Sun, etc.) did Eddie McGuire make his comments on the Buckley incident? Just curious, just doesn't seem clear in your original comments...
If it's in a Herald-Sun article, please provide a link, or if there's a sound file on Triple M's site, please show me that, for example.
I understand people are going to have a go at Eddie McGuire no matter what-- if he sneezes, it's critiquable here, or so it seems. All I ask is that people provide a basis for critiquing him, that's all I ask out of fairness for both factions of supporters.
Cheers,
William
Defender
14 Jul 2002, 16:49
Originally posted by Hurricane75
What do you expect him to say???????
the smart thing to say is nothing. Only opens up the conflict of interest can of worms.
Its pretty obvious even Buckley knows he is guilty. No matter who did what to smear blood on them is an unforgivable offence.
So you would say it would be condonable for Buckley to go off the feild up the race and come back on the field with a gun or knife to avenge someone who had thumped him earlier?
Sorry you are dead set wrong. And what if had infected a Ling cut with blood with the intent he no doubt shows. Very Very low.
Eddie is only making it worse.
Originally posted by Rocky
2) What was done to Buckley for him to get a cut on the head.
He was tackled by Ling & Buckleys head hit the ground.
:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Defender
After watching Nathan Buckley pretty much admit that he has done the lowest thing in his carreer with the blood smearing report I was very disappointed to hear Eddie show more bias on the next show where he interviewed Mark Robinson from the Herald Sun. Looked like some severe damage control trying to
twist the words of Nathan and then cutting Robinson off at the first sign of him making Buckley look bad.
What exactly did Eddie say or do that you find so offensive?
Nothing you say here amounts to anything at all.
Macca19
14 Jul 2002, 17:49
Originally posted by Rocky
Come on Defender........Give Buckley a go will you.
This goes for all you BIG AFL supporters.
Fine then smartarse, ill answer your questions
1) Why did Buckley loose his cool.
Buckley lost his cool because Ling tackled him. Buckley swung his arm around and elbowed Ling in the head when both were on the ground after the tackle. So why did he lose his cool?? Was it because he was getting beaten?? Because he cant handle getting tackled?? Elbowing someone in the face behind the play is pretty low if you ask me.
2) What was done to Buckley for him to get a cut on the head.
Most likely, Ling retaliated and hit Buckley back.
3) What did LING do to him.
Ling obviously hit Buckley back at retaliation for being elbowed in the head by Buckley after he lost his cool at being tackled.
4) Check out why and what the main story is before making any judgement.
You should be asking yourself this. Maybe YOU need to check out the main story. Buckley started it...he elbowed Ling in the face. Buckleys fault. Buckley has nowhere to move here. He can say it was a retaliation for Ling hitting him all he likes but it means bugger all as Buckley started it!!!
McAlmanac
14 Jul 2002, 18:06
I loved Buckley's comment that "it will all come out in the wash". :D
bulldogs1
14 Jul 2002, 18:20
At about the same time they add the "Tall Poppies" club forum.Originally posted by Lockyer24
Mods when are you going to make a Eddie Whinge sub-forum?
Groucho
14 Jul 2002, 18:56
Originally posted by McAlmanac
I loved Buckley's comment that "it will all come out in the wash". :D
Yeah I think he'll need "White King" or "Napisan" or something though.
Extremely amusing talk back radio before todays game. I think I heard 3 Collingwood supporters claiming that the incident happened "right in front of me" and then give 3 completely different descriptions of what "happened". Best to just wait for the tribunal I think. It's an unusual one for sure.
campbell
14 Jul 2002, 20:51
I thought that when you were charged with anything, you were not allowed to speak to the media at all about it.
Originally posted by Rocky
Why not ask yourself
1) Why did Buckley loose his cool.
because his form is slipping week by week, he's nearly 30 and he's career is about ****ed. He will finish his career without a flag. He's mighty ****ed off he didn't stay at Brisbane.
Defender
14 Jul 2002, 23:55
Originally posted by campbell
I thought that when you were charged with anything, you were not allowed to speak to the media at all about it.
that is a very good point..then again he didnt actually talk about the incident of what he did..more what surrounded it
i know the afl are going to be taking his words into account..ie no provacation at all
He will get a week for it however people are overreacting to the act. Yes it was unsportsmanlike and crude but it will hardly tarnish the career of Nathan.
Just to set the record straight. You can't get Aids by transferring blood on a jumper like Nathan did. What is more ironic is there has never been a reported case where blood has been exchanged on a sporting field and Aids has resulted.
The incident on a soccer pitch never occurred.
Originally posted by Rohan_
He will get a week for it however people are overreacting to the act. Yes it was unsportsmanlike and crude but it will hardly tarnish the career of Nathan.
Just to set the record straight. You can't get Aids by transferring blood on a jumper like Nathan did. What is more ironic is there has never been a reported case where blood has been exchanged on a sporting field and Aids has resulted.
You'd be the one over-reacting if an Essendon or Carlton player did it against your low life Captain. COllingwood supporters and their double standards on these boards is laughable.
BTW, how did McKee go against King on Saturday?:p :p :p Got shown for the dud he is!
Originally posted by Rohan_
Just to set the record straight. You can't get Aids by transferring blood on a jumper like Nathan did. What is more ironic is there has never been a reported case where blood has been exchanged on a sporting field and Aids has resulted.
That's not setting the record straight - that is deflecting the issue in point.
Just like all the 'have a look at what Ling did first' junk posts are doing too.
Might as well say 'aker kneed opposition player - so player knees him back'............still doesn't make it right.
Every action a player makes is a choice, whether it be a well thought out one or not. And every choice has a consequence.
Now what if by some million, trillion, zillion remote chance, Ling had a cut under his jumper right where Buckley wiped the blood? And what if there was just enough blood to seep through the jumper and touch that cut? And what if unbeknown to either player there was an issue that caused the contact of Buckley's blood to Lings cut to become a medical issue????
That is certainly a number of "what if's".............BUT.............they wouldn't have been raised or have any relevence if Buckley had not purposely places his blood on his opponent.
I was gutwrenched enough seeing our captain apparently elbow a WC player in rnd 5.............had he done what Bucks had done I would have been more than appalled and would have lost faith in him as a leader.
There is NO excuse................none of this 'but he did this and that first' junk. As everyone of us here would have had drilled into us our whole lives...........2 wrongs don't make a right.
Defender
15 Jul 2002, 00:36
Originally posted by Rohan_
He will get a week for it however people are overreacting to the act. Yes it was unsportsmanlike and crude but it will hardly tarnish the career of Nathan.
I beg to differ I think he will be remembered for a long long time for this very low act.
Just to set the record straight. You can't get Aids by transferring blood on a jumper like Nathan did. What is more ironic is there has never been a reported case where blood has been exchanged on a sporting field and Aids has resulted. [/QUOTE]
YET! There is always a first time and that is why the blood rule has been put into place as a precaution. Someone treating the rule with such contempt is just plain silly.
More so what if Nathan when attempting to smear blood on the jumper missed or the player moved his head and the blood went into an open cut on the other players face or body? Buckleys intent on smearing the player makes it very serious !! A lot more serious than an elbow or a fist fight.
The incident on a soccer pitch never occurred. [/QUOTE]
never say never Rohan there is always a first time. And wake up to your self and realise how serious this is.
Originally posted by Danni
Every action a player makes is a choice, whether it be a well thought out one or not. And every choice has a consequence.
There is NO excuse................none of this 'but he did this and that first' junk. As everyone of us here would have had drilled into us our whole lives...........2 wrongs don't make a right.
WELL SAID Danni!! Although I think you're preaching to the ignorant.
----------------------------------
check out this auction, for an opportunity of a lifetime - SIGNED EDDIE MCGUIRE COLLINGWOOD GUERNSEY (http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1843826395)
OldLion
15 Jul 2002, 00:43
Buckley, like many other players including Carey, are ultra competitive. The up side is their consistant performance, the down side is they can go over the top in any number of ways. Some players can get sucked in and lose the plot, some others become even more aggressive. Buckley has been involved in a number of incidents and has also played some great footy. Eventually the odds are against him. He'll get a big fine, after lots of Pie huffing and puffing and will play next week.
you_idiot
15 Jul 2002, 00:48
Originally posted by Danni
Every action a player makes is a choice, whether it be a well thought out one or not. And every choice has a consequence.
Now what if by some million, trillion, zillion remote chance, Ling had a cut under his jumper right where Buckley wiped the blood? And what if there was just enough blood to seep through the jumper and touch that cut? And what if unbeknown to either player there was an issue that caused the contact of Buckley's blood to Lings cut to become a medical issue????
That is certainly a number of "what if's".............BUT.............they wouldn't have been raised or have any relevence if Buckley had not purposely places his blood on his opponent.
I'm glad you brought this up, Danni.
I heard something else on 3AW's pregame show this afternoon, and one of the panelists (I can't remember who) mentioned that if Ling had something as simple as a pimple (rhyme not intended, by the way) on the spot under the guernsey where Buckley wiped bis blood upon him, then that could be an absorption point for transmission, just as much as a cut would be. Mind you, I'm only paraphrasing here...
Ludicrous? Perhaps.
Likely? Maybe just as plausible.
Fact of the matter is that there is a lot of hysteria, still, even after almost 25 years, of the HIV/AIDS epidemic that we don't even know all the possible means of transmission.
And what Defender says is true, too... that there are no precedents and the "first time" that something like this happens is just waiting to occur. It's a wonder that poignant subjects like this don't come up more often-- and quite simply, it's also a wonder that more controversies such as this don't occur on the field of battle more often as well.
Like I said on a similar thread, the "blood rule" is there for a reason...
Cheers,
William
Originally posted by you_idiot
Like I said on a similar thread, the "blood rule" is there for a reason...
The Blood Rule will be no longer in place as is next year. There is no reason to keep it and that it why it is being disbanded.
Originally posted by Rohan_
The Blood Rule will be no longer in place as is next year. There is no reason to keep it and that it why it is being disbanded.
I too heard that it won't be in place as is next year - but I didn't hear any mention of disbanding it?
I just heard 'not as is' which also could mean more stringent application, or just different applications to now.
At no stage could I personally foresee a disbanding or abandonment of the 'blood rule'.............especially in these here times of public liability and personal litigations.
The AFL is not THAT stupid.
you_idiot
15 Jul 2002, 00:58
Originally posted by Rohan_
The Blood Rule will be no longer in place as is next year. There is no reason to keep it and that it why it is being disbanded.
You might colour me a skeptic, Rohan, but how do you know this? Do you have a link about it?
As long as there are public health fears in the population at large, and some level of ignorance or prejudice as to how HIV/AIDS is transmitted, the rule deserves to stay in any league of any sport in the world, simple as that. The leagues, like any other workplace, have a moral and legal responsibility to protect its workers-- and in the AFL's case, that means its players. I would certainly hope that the "blood rule" would not be abolished, just on common-sense grounds.
I wouldn't say that there's "no reason to keep it," to borrow your own words. There's plenty of reasons to keep it.
But if you have documented evidence, such as a news link, showing that the AFL will drop it, I am curious to see it...
Cheers,
William
Originally posted by Danni
At no stage could I personally foresee a disbanding or abandonment of the 'blood rule'.............especially in these here times of public liability and personal litigations.
The AFL is not THAT stupid.
It all depends on reports that are being researched by a number of leading doctors to the AFL's insurance company. I'm not downpat on it but I have heard a leading sporting competition hasn't even got such a rule in vogue.
Surprising given that litigation is more rife in America than here.
Originally posted by Rohan_
It all depends on reports that are being researched by a number of leading doctors to the AFL's insurance company. I'm not downpat on it but I have heard a leading sporting competition hasn't even got such a rule in vogue.
Surprising given that litigation is more rife in America than here.
And these so easily could be the same doctors that can't agree on the benefit and/or safety of using drips to rehydrate football players.
And the same doctors who can't agree on whether or not surgery can benefit sufferers of OP.
And the same doctors who were involved in the payout/insurance claim by a player (whose name currently escapes me) for his ongoing problems playing on a too hard centre bounce area and one with a marker on it.
And more than likely includes at minimum ONE doctor who is currently facing a legal limbo in his insurance future depending on what happens with the liability insurance after the inability of the nations larget medical insurer to cover doctors that has led to parliamentry intervention to make sure medical treatment is still available to the general public let alone private patients and then after them research and development consultants.
It just ISN'T going to happen.
The day the AFL disband/abandon a blood rule equals the day the AFL allow a player to continue on the field with blood pouring out of them..............
It just ISN'T going to happen.
you_idiot
15 Jul 2002, 01:30
Originally posted by Rohan_
I'm not downpat on it but I have heard a leading sporting competition hasn't even got such a rule in vogue.
Absolutely not true, Rohan.
Every sports league/organization in the world-- you name a sport or a competition, from MLB, the NBA, NHL, MLS, the NFL, UEFA, among others, you name it-- has a "blood rule" in place for the reasons I previously stated... for the general public interest and safety.
For example, if there's blood on a player's uniform, the player must exit the field immediately until he changes his kit or gets his open wounds bandaged. Simple and as practical as that.
The rule is there to protect the athletes on the field of battle. And although what you say about the legal ramifications do certainly exist, the insurance policies are there not for those who would ever have to make a claim, but rather as a 'safety net' in case one ever has to be made... better safe than sorry, as the expression goes.
I don't mind the outrageous claims, just make sure you back it up with documentation. I haven't seen anything yet that would confirm what you're alledging, but if you have something in black and white, I'd like to see it, out of curiousity...
Cheers,
William
Originally posted by scmods
The world has gone crazy!
I just read a post from a Collingwood fan, where he criticised BOTH Eddie and Nathan!
Nothing will ever be the same again.
No you didn't.
Originally posted by Defender
I think lots of us are Very disappointed Collingwood supporters.
Stop pretending to be a Collingwood supporter TheButcher! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
stewart
15 Jul 2002, 13:11
Originally posted by Hurricane75
Its Eddie's job as Collingwood President to stand behind his players in the good and bad.
I'm sure Eddie is very disappointed by what happened but he needs to make sure that Bucks gets a fair trial. It has all been one sided media so far.
What do you expect him to say???????
One thing as a Collingwood president and another as a football commentator...!!!
Stewart
Michele
15 Jul 2002, 15:38
Buckley's disgraceful actions, should also be seen in the light of his comments in his regular HS column, sometime in May........"that getting blood on to an opponents jumper can be used to get that player off the field." :eek:
Seems he has been thinking and knew what the re-action would be to his action :eek:
His gave a very stupid and arrogant reply to a question on whether he would be suspended. "No, he didn't believe he would be suspended" - more like, why in the hell should I be suspended, when a far more appropriate comment would have been a "no comment".
As it stands now, he has inadvertently accused Ling of ?????
He does not have the nickname of FIGJAM for nothing.
you_idiot
15 Jul 2002, 16:33
Originally posted by Michele
Buckley's disgraceful actions, should also be seen in the light of his comments in his regular HS column, sometime in May........"that getting blood on to an opponents jumper can be used to get that player off the field." :eek:
Seems he has been thinking and knew what the re-action would be to his action :eek:
Nice point, Michelle. If his actions were truly pre-meditated, and can be proven as such, then there's no way he can escape the charges, and a heavy suspension AND fine will be the result of the Tribunal's proceedings this week.
Anyone got a link to that original article? Apparently, the Herald-Sun charges one for retrieving "search" articles from their website...
Cheers,
William
It really is laughable to hear a number of Magpies dismissing it as a "minor incident". Jeezuz, i could imagine the outrage and indignation of the 'faithful' if it were a Hird, Lloyd, Voss, McLeod etc. doing the same thing to one of their own.
They'd be squealing like stuck pigs.
where's wally?
Santos L Helper
15 Jul 2002, 17:36
Originally posted by Hurricane75
Its Eddie's job as Collingwood President to stand behind his players in the good and bad.
I'm sure Eddie is very disappointed by what happened but he needs to make sure that Bucks gets a fair trial. It has all been one sided media so far.
What do you expect him to say???????
It's not Eddies job to make sure he get's a fair trial. For a start he hasn't committed a crime, it's a tribunal and secondly it's the tribunal's job to give him a fair hearing.
Why is it so hard for you collingwood supporters to understand that Eddie runs collingwood not the AFL?
ps. I know he thinks he runs the AFL but there is a difference.
Originally posted by Santos L Helper
It's not Eddies job to make sure he get's a fair trial. For a start he hasn't committed a crime, it's a tribunal and secondly it's the tribunal's job to give him a fair hearing.
Why is it so hard for you collingwood supporters to understand that Eddie runs collingwood not the AFL?
ps. I know he thinks he runs the AFL but there is a difference.
Firstly, it is the rest of the football public that keep telling us Eddie runs the AFL, influencing every decision ever made and we keep denying it.
Secondly, it is most definately Eddie's job as presedent to get Buckley off - and that is irrespective of whether that is the morally right thing to do or not. We are not talking about murder charges here. Yes they are serious but Eddie has an absolute responsibility to do all he can to mitigate the penalty in so far as it will impact Colloingwoods on field performance. If I vote for him it is because I believe he does and will continue to do that.
thehardaway
15 Jul 2002, 17:55
Ling has been reported
Santos L Helper
15 Jul 2002, 17:58
Originally posted by MarkT
Firstly, it is the rest of the football public that keep telling us Eddie runs the AFL, influencing every decision ever made and we keep denying it.
Secondly, it is most definately Eddie's job as presedent to get Buckley off - and that is irrespective of whether that is the morally right thing to do or not. We are not talking about murder charges here. Yes they are serious but Eddie has an absolute responsibility to do all he can to mitigate the penalty in so far as it will impact Colloingwoods on field performance. If I vote for him it is because I believe he does and will continue to do that.
Firstly, I disagree. It is the collingwood faithfull who keep denying that they believe Eddie runs the AFL. ;)
Secondly, I agree in part. Get him off (as club pres) yes, but ensuring a fair hearing is not his job. He has commented about a tribunal hearing which I believe is against AFL regulations. This means he should be brought to order for his actions, and if he's not, then the AFL are **** weak and Eddie does really run the ****ing comp. ;)
Originally posted by Santos L Helper
...but ensuring a fair hearing is not his job.
The comment was ot meant to be literal in that a fair trial means not biased against Buckley. I actually think it's Eddie's job to try and get an unfair trial to the point where his player gets off - much like the lawyer of a guilty defendant in court.
Originally posted by Santos L Helper
He has commented about a tribunal hearing which I believe is against AFL regulations. This means he should be brought to order for his actions, and if he's not, then the AFL are **** weak and Eddie does really run the ****ing comp. ;)
Firstly, the AFL and tribunal are weak and show it regularly IMO. Secondly, Eddie gets no favours from the AFL and neither do Collingwood. For every so called favour I could point to many more incidents where we have been stiffed. Thirdly, even ignoring the above, if Eddie could bluff the AFL anything like what Jack has done in the past, or demand the favours of the Swans or a few others I would be a very happy Collingwood supporter.
Santos L Helper
15 Jul 2002, 18:21
Originally posted by MarkT
The comment was ot meant to be literal in that a fair trial means not biased against Buckley. I actually think it's Eddie's job to try and get an unfair trial to the point where his player gets off - much like the lawyer of a guilty defendant in court.
Firstly, the AFL and tribunal are weak and show it regularly IMO. Secondly, Eddie gets no favours from the AFL and neither do Collingwood. For every so called favour I could point to many more incidents where we have been stiffed. Thirdly, even ignoring the above, if Eddie could bluff the AFL anything like what Jack has done in the past, or demand the favours of the Swans or a few others I would be a very happy Collingwood supporter.
Still one point to query from your reply. Do you agree that Eddie has attempted to sway public opinion by commenting on an upcoming hearing, which is against AFL regulations and how would you resond if it was another president influencing a hearing against a collingwood player?
ps. sorry, that's more than one point
Originally posted by Santos L Helper
Do you agree that Eddie has attempted to sway public opinion by commenting on an upcoming hearing, which is against AFL regulations
To be honest I haven't heard Eddie on the incident. I did hear Buckley on Sunday say something about provocation though. If Eddie said something out of line when, say, interviewed as club President then he should be fined. If he said some durring, say, a call of a game, then it depends on what and how etc. I don't know what he said though.
Originally posted by Santos L Helper
how would you resond if it was another president influencing a hearing against a collingwood player?
I wouldn't be happy if another President tried to influence a hearing against a Collingwood player. If another Presedent tried to influence a hearing FOR his own player I would just think it was expected from a President. It is then up to the AFL to decide whether the boundaries have been overstepped.
It's all a joke anyway. Clubs get fined, the money goes back into the pool and is shared in the end back with the clubs. I would expect most clubs contribute and all get a dividend. Club fines are irrelevant IMO. As they are the mechanism for penalising what IMO amount to stupid rules, then you take what is dished out.
If anyone really thinks a club President or player can influnce a professional juror then they may as well give up on the whole system. It's all about public perception and has little to do with reality IMO. I would be mopre concerned about maintaining tribunal integrity and ensuring independance from the AFL myself.
Originally posted by scmods
The world has gone crazy!
I just read a post from a Collingwood fan, where he criticised BOTH Eddie and Nathan!
Nothing will ever be the same again.
The world truly has come full circle. Armageddon must be nigh.
(I hope that doesn't mean they'll win the flag...)
Defender
15 Jul 2002, 22:38
i hope the fine Buckley got was worth softening everyone up
more rules being broken..
i am still disgusted in this whole incident. I think its time that the AFL grab the bull by the horns and give it the SEVERE tug it deserves!
you_idiot
16 Jul 2002, 01:50
Originally posted by Michele
Buckley's disgraceful actions, should also be seen in the light of his comments in his regular HS column, sometime in May........"that getting blood on to an opponents jumper can be used to get that player off the field." :eek:
Seems he has been thinking and knew what the re-action would be to his action :eek:
Here's a link to the article in Monday's Herald-Sun which Michelle is referring to: http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,4705020%5E19742,00.html
I would still like to see Buckley's original prose in its respective context-- I'll endeavor to try and extricate that article-- but if the Tribunal takes the above into account, it looks like there's a smoking gun that shows that his actions may have been premeditated...
Might as well cop a "guilty" plea, Nathan...
Cheers,
William
Heard on the radio last night that if an Ice Hockey player smears blood on an opponent, he automatically gets a TWO YEAR suspension.
Can you see Eddie's face if Nathan got 2 years?
Defender
16 Jul 2002, 09:58
and rightly so..i find it amusing that some people cannot see the severity of the offence
we haven't been putting up with players being sent off on the blood rule holding up so much game time for someone to come out and SMEAR blood purposely on an opponent! That is total and utter disrespect for the game, the players, administrators and given that so many people have been infected by aids all of man kind.
Throw the book at him. It will be deserved!
Originally posted by MarkT
Secondly, it is most definately Eddie's job as presedent to get Buckley off - and that is irrespective of whether that is the morally right thing to do or not. We are not talking about murder charges here. Yes they are serious but Eddie has an absolute responsibility to do all he can to mitigate the penalty in so far as it will impact Colloingwoods on field performance. If I vote for him it is because I believe he does and will continue to do that.
No problem with him doing this as Collingwood President, but should we expect Channel 9 presenters to be going to bat for any particular player or team. I would expect my commentators to commentate in a fair and impartial manner.
That is where two interests of Eddies collide, or you could even say conflict.
Having said that I don't think he has been too bad over the Buckley thing, although I am sure (As Collingwood president) he has been very busy organising the spin that has come out and will come out in the next day (or week if there is a suspension).
Moomba
Originally posted by Defender
and rightly so..i find it amusing that some people cannot see the severity of the offence
we haven't been putting up with players being sent off on the blood rule holding up so much game time for someone to come out and SMEAR blood purposely on an opponent!
Why is it more severe than purposely breaking the skin of another human being to make him bleed?
What if Ling had have broken the skin on his elbow upon the strike and both players had exchanged blood?
Buckley was infuriated to have to leave the field by a snipe from the Geelong scragger and wiped blood on him to make his shirt to make him leave the field also. A poor act that deserves to be punished, but to those of you who are calling for 3+ weeks, pull your head in!!
Originally posted by moomba
No problem with him doing this as Collingwood President, but should we expect Channel 9 presenters to be going to bat for any particular player or team. I would expect my commentators to commentate in a fair and impartial manner.
That is where two interests of Eddies collide, or you could even say conflict.
Having said that I don't think he has been too bad over the Buckley thing, although I am sure (As Collingwood president) he has been very busy organising the spin that has come out and will come out in the next day (or week if there is a suspension).
Moomba
I guess that issue has been done to death. It is up to Ch.9 to decide what Eddie can and can't do. It is then up to the AFL to decide whether it conforms to their rules or otherwise. "We", as such, have no more say that our ratings votes allow us. That's how I see it anyway.
Not sure what your issue re the commentary is as it relates to this case. As a media person Eddie will use all his skills and resources just as will any President in respect of their skills when required. That's one of the reasons we vote for Presidents - because of their skill set and contacts. I don't think there is any doubt Collingwood are advantaged in all things media related but so may some other clubs be in respect of their Presidents political and business contacts. Would it be any more of less unfair if a club President was a lawyer when it came to player defense? There have been some before.
As for spin doctoring, well it happens with every club and the AFL employ people to do it. Eddie just does it better because it is part of his profession. Once again, though, all the predictions of saturation pro Collingwood media coverage and inappropriate spin doctoring have proven unfounded. No more or less than, say, Essendon with Rioli.
McAlmanac
16 Jul 2002, 11:02
Eddie has been fairly reasonable this time around.
He's certainly a better club president than Clinton Casey.
Originally posted by MarkT
I guess that issue has been done to death. It is up to Ch.9 to decide what Eddie can and can't do. It is then up to the AFL to decide whether it conforms to their rules or otherwise. "We", as such, have no more say that our ratings votes allow us. That's how I see it anyway.
True, although I am sure it costs Channel 9 viewers. Obviously they still have more than enough to make it worthwhile but that is really an issue more for Channel 9 than anyone. I would have watched the Footy Show about twice in the last three years, a show that I used to like, and watch regularly has been spoiled by Eddie and to a degree Sam. Again an issue for Channel 9 but I don't have to like it.
Not sure what your issue re the commentary is as it relates to this case. As a media person Eddie will use all his skills and resources just as will any President in respect of their skills when required. That's one of the reasons we vote for Presidents - because of their skill set and contacts. I don't think there is any doubt Collingwood are advantaged in all things media related but so may some other clubs be in respect of their Presidents political and business contacts. Would it be any more of less unfair if a club President was a lawyer when it came to player defense? There have been some before.
My problem again is more from the channel 9 side than anything. Of course Eddie, as club president is going to do anything he can to get Buckley off, however these sort of actions lessens my enjoyment of the footy coverage.
As for spin doctoring, well it happens with every club and the AFL employ people to do it. Eddie just does it better because it is part of his profession. Once again, though, all the predictions of saturation pro Collingwood media coverage and inappropriate spin doctoring have proven unfounded. No more or less than, say, Essendon with Rioli.
Like I said I don't think Eddie has been too bad with this, and although I hate most forms of spin (football, political etc) you would expect Collingwood to use it where beneficial. I question the integrity of several people in the media who I believe are more interested in pushing a persons or a clubs interests at the expense of their own integrity. I have no doubt that Eddie has leant on some friends (no real problem with that) to paint this issue in the least serious light.
Moomba
Originally posted by Rocky
Come on Defender........Give Buckley a go will you.
This goes for all you BIG AFL supporters.
Why not ask yourself
1) Why did Buckley loose his cool.
2) What was done to Buckley for him to get a cut on the head.
3) What did LING do to him.
4) Check out why and what the main story is before making any judgement.
Investigate what ling did if you want, but that is an entirely seperate incident. Provocation is a flimsy defense at the best of times and is only really used by abused wives to get their murder change downgraded to manslaughter. ie they are still guilty and still do time.
As was in the Sydney papers today, what Buckley did is a criminal offence, with a maximum 2 years jail sentence, and any police officer at the ground could have made an arrest.
Even neglecting the criminal element, and just going on AFL rules, the whole "blood" based rules brought in several years ago, are designed to stop a players blood getting in contact with another player. Buckley has purposely vialated the very base of those rules.
He should be suspended for a very long time, and be very grateful if Ling doesnt ask the police to press changes or at least make him undergo a blood test.
BluesBabe666
16 Jul 2002, 12:28
I agree with Defender - all these people saying that this has been blown out of proportion obviously arent getting the severity of this - like someone pointed out, look at what happens in hocky? This is a MASSIVE issue which needs to be addressed by the AFL and the tribunal, because if its dealt with too lightly, all hell is going to break loose.
On another note, if i was Ling, i'd be asking for a ... poor taste
Originally posted by barry
As was in the Sydney papers today, what Buckley did is a criminal offence, with a maximum 2 years jail sentence, and any police officer at the ground could have made an arrest.
Even neglecting the criminal element, and just going on AFL rules, the whole "blood" based rules brought in several years ago, are designed to stop a players blood getting in contact with another player. Buckley has purposely vialated the very base of those rules.
He should be suspended for a very long time, and be very grateful if Ling doesnt ask the police to press changes or at least make him undergo a blood test.
Yes it is and so is what Ling did to Buckley and what Hall did on the weekend. Most tribunal appearances could result in criminal charges. That is hardly an issue IMO.
Originally posted by barry
Even neglecting the criminal element, and just going on AFL rules, the whole "blood" based rules brought in several years ago, are designed to stop a players blood getting in contact with another player. Buckley has purposely vialated the very base of those rules.
While I agree with you ias a matter of fact, the blood rule changes for next season and if you are trying to guage the severity of the offence by the rule then next year Ling would not leave the field. That is how severe the consequences are in reality. That does not make it any more unpleasant. Spitting is pretty ordinary but in reality it is harmless. That is a better analogy IMO.
Originally posted by barry
He should be suspended for a very long time, and be very grateful if Ling doesnt ask the police to press changes or at least make him undergo a blood test.
I hardly think some one who hits someone on camera would be silly enough to charge the person he hit with retaliation. I am not commenting on the appropriateness of the response here, just your interpretation of the incident.
Originally posted by Rohan_
He will get a week for it
NOSTAROHAN.
machiavelli
20 Jul 2002, 16:30
Originally posted by Defender
i hope the fine Buckley got was worth softening everyone up
more rules being broken..
i am still disgusted in this whole incident. I think its time that the AFL grab the bull by the horns and give it the SEVERE tug it deserves!
No, one of the moderators here has confirmed that once you were born your parents were so shocked with what they produced they committed joint suicide.
And really, who could blame them? Put them out of their misery!
THat is why I feel sorry for you....b/c it was left to you favourite pet Fido (who later became your mysterious lover) to raise you, and that explains why you are a dog now!
SO I feel vewy vewy sad for you!