View Full Version : Burton out for 2 weeks
Truck Rutten
2 Jun 2008, 17:40
Just reported on 5AA that he's been offered and has accepted 2 weeks.
jenny61_99
2 Jun 2008, 17:43
Just reported on 5AA that he's been offered and has accepted 2 weeks.
Woo hoo! That means he'll play up here in three! :thumbsu:
Surprising thought he would get a reprimand
He's lucky, and he obviously knew it.
Blue Red and Gold
2 Jun 2008, 17:46
predictable
Enter Nick Gill
What's KG and Cornsey view of the penalty?
What are the callers saying about it?
Woo hoo! That means he'll play up here in three! :thumbsu:
Hardly worthy of a woo hoo and thumbs up. We've lost our most important forward for two weeks.
Whilst the match review panel had to suspend him under the current rules, there really needs to be a good look at the way these incidents are interpreted. Choco talks a lot of crap but he's spot on when he says the AFL are tearing at the fabric of our game. The problem is that there's a new controversy every week so we quickly forget about the last one. Before we know it, the whole game has changed before our eyes and the AFL just point to attendance figures to justify any rule changes. What they don't mention is what the attendance figures could be if they didn't disenfranchise the core footy fan by changing our game, or forecast what they may be once they have truly turned AFL into a non-contact sport.
I'm pretty sure they've pulled that news report from their asss...
Burton wouldn't accept a penalty so quick, and before its even announced publicly.
jenny61_99
2 Jun 2008, 18:04
Hardly worthy of a woo hoo and thumbs up. We've lost our most important forward for two weeks.
Whilst the match review panel had to suspend him under the current rules, there really needs to be a good look at the way these incidents are interpreted. Choco talks a lot of crap but he's spot on when he says the AFL are tearing at the fabric of our game. The problem is that there's a new controversy every week so we quickly forget about the last one. Before we know it, the whole game has changed before our eyes and the AFL just point to attendance figures to justify any rule changes. What they don't mention is what the attendance figures could be if they didn't disenfranchise the core footy fan by changing our game, or forecast what they may be once they have truly turned AFL into a non-contact sport.
Pffft. What a lot of hot air. Seriously, the man is lucky to have only been given two weeks and I am being entirely selfish when I say Woo hoo and :thumbsu: because I felt SURE he'd miss the game up here. Two weeks means he does not.
Head high contact MUST be taken seriously because of the implications for long term or even fatal injury. What Burton did was stupid. IMO he got off lightly.
Punchy Bassett
2 Jun 2008, 18:09
And the prick that hit Goody what did he get?
Head high contact MUST be taken seriously because of the implications for long term or even fatal injury. What Burton did was stupid. IMO he got off lightly.
OMG you have got to be joking me. That contact wasn't worth more than 2 weeks. It was a deliberate attempt to bump, but the contact was minimal. Slattery had to think about playing for the free. Burtons foot-odour was more likely to cause harm than the contact.
That's it, I'm giving away my AFC season ticket to watch lawn bowls!
McLeodMagic
2 Jun 2008, 18:11
I'm surprised Murphy only got 1 week, his hit was far worse than Burton and it left Ellis concussed with a blood nose.
What a joke! :thumbsd:
Geoffa32
2 Jun 2008, 18:13
Considering some were saying 3-4 weeks a good result. I personally thought it worthy of a reprimand, fine.
Pffft. What a lot of hot air. Seriously, the man is lucky to have only been given two weeks and I am being entirely selfish when I say Woo hoo and :thumbsu: because I felt SURE he'd miss the game up here. Two weeks means he does not.
Head high contact MUST be taken seriously because of the implications for long term or even fatal injury. What Burton did was stupid. IMO he got off lightly.
You can't possibly think Burton's bump was at any stage going to cause long term or fatal injury. Yes, he had to be suspended under the current rules but to say that he is lucky to only get two weeks is over the top.
You might think it is hot air, but think about rule changes that have infuriated you at the time. You're probably screaming for that very free now.
OMG you have got to be joking me. That contact wasn't worth more than 2 weeks. It was a deliberate attempt to bump, but the contact was minimal. Slattery had to think about playing for the free. Burtons foot-odour was more likely to cause harm than the contact.
That's it, I'm giving away my AFC season ticket to watch lawn bowls!
Slattery had his head over the footy!! Burton raced in and bumped him in the head when he was not in a position to protect himself. Two weeks is a fair penalty.
What did you think of Pickett's hit on Begley? This is similar, though not as severe as the imapct was lower.
I'm surprised Murphy only got 1 week, his hit was far worse than Burton and it left Ellis concussed with a blood nose.
What a joke! :thumbsd:
Did Murphy have a 30% loading for past reports?
ams4crows
2 Jun 2008, 19:31
barely makes contact 2 weeks
some other guy knockes a guy out and draws blood 1 week
what is the world coming too!
footy4ever
2 Jun 2008, 19:37
Just unlucky. He obviously dipped to hip and shoulder the instant Slattery dipped his body and head. Had burton been a little short arse it would have been a perfect hip and shoulder.
footy4ever
2 Jun 2008, 19:41
If Birdman's penalty is definite, has anyone seen Trent H. play recently. Who would be the better replacement? Gill or Hentschel?...or...?
Channel 7 (Melb) just said Burton got 3 !!!
Can someone please confirm 2 OR 3??
If Birdman's penalty is definite, has anyone seen Trent H. play recently. Who would be the better replacement? Gill or Hentschel?...or...?
Hentschel definitely isn't ready for AFL yet, he's only just making a slow return to SANFL footy (playing in the backlines) and didn't play this past weekend due to the SoO match. He is still weeks away from even being considered I would think.
Gill would still have to be a few weeks away as well. Unfortunately I think McGregor or Jericho are probably who they will go with, Sellar may be considered also but unlikely.
As for the confirmation:
Adelaide's Brett Burton and West Coast's Beau Waters were both cited during the panel's review and offered two-game bans, while Western Bulldog Robert Murphy was reported on Saturday and offered a one-game penalty.
The Crows have already indicated Burton will plead guilty to making forceful contact from front-on against Essendon's Henry Slattery last Friday night at AAMI Stadium in contact the panel deemed as reckless, of low impact and high contact.
http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsid=60704
It was three reduced to two with the 25% reduction for the early guilty plea. So if he hadn't accepted, he would have faced a three-game ban if the tribunal agreed with the ratings of the MRP.
By the way, it started at two but went up to three because of a past two-game suspension... then went back down to two for the guilty plea. Simple eh?
Markthirtytwo
2 Jun 2008, 21:23
Head high contact MUST be taken seriously because of the implications for long term or even fatal injury. What Burton did was stupid. IMO he got off lightly.
Exactly..........................providing the head was hit.
Are you sure that it was?
fantastic_crows
2 Jun 2008, 21:47
Predictable.
Bring in Gill.
Even his wayward kicking will be an improvement.
Burton suspension creates selection dilemma (http://www.afc.com.au/tabid/4417/Default.aspx?newsid=60706)
FORWARD Brett Burton was one of half a dozen players missing from Crows training on Monday, but it will be his absence in the next two games that will cause more concern for coach Neil Craig.
Burton and fellow Dream Team players Simon Goodwin, Andrew McLeod, Tyson Edwards, Ben Rutten and Nathan Bock have been given a few days off in lieu of their Hall of Fame tribute match involvement last month, but the high-flying veteran’s break was interrupted by the news of his two-match ban.
The in-form forward has accepted the two-match sanction for a head-high hit on Essendon’s Henry Slattery and will miss Adelaide’s next two games against Richmond and league leaders Hawthorn.
Burton’s ban will create a conundrum for the Crows match committee on Thursday.
Saturday’s state game between SA and Victoria couldn’t have come at a worse time for Adelaide with several key players in desperate need of match fitness.
Luke Jericho, who was left out of the side to play West Coast two weeks ago, is a possible replacement for Burton, but hasn’t played in almost three weeks having been an emergency in Subiaco and also having sat out last weekend’s SANFL bye.
Twin tall forwards Nick Gill and Trent Hentschel, who are both recovering from serious injuries, are also available but somewhat underdone, having played just a handful of SANFL league games between them.
Emerging midfielder/forward Jason Porplyzia said the selectors faced a “tough” decision this week.
“We’ve got Trent Hentschel and Nick Gill coming back after long injury lay-offs, so they could always come back into the mix and they are very good players in their own right,” Porplyzia said.
“It will certainly mean a bit of a re-jig in the forward line, but we’re confident that we can cover Brett’s absence.”
Gill, who was also hampered by injury in his first year at West Lakes, burst on to the AFL scene in round 17, 2007 and remained in the side to play the last six games.
The enigmatic forward quickly became a cult hero among Crows fans with his hard running and fierce attack on the ball and is a better chance to return to AFL this week than Hentschel, who is expected to be another few weeks away.
“We saw last year the impact Nick had in the few games that he played. He was certainly a big presence for us up forward,” Porplyzia said.
“He’s a strong marking guy and his running capabilities are up there with Brett. Nick is certainly someone we’re looking forward to getting back in the side.
“It’s a tough one [for the selectors]. Nick and Trent have both had a long time off, so they’re both probably still finding their feet a little bit.
“If they were to be rushed back into the side, it’s probably not ideal, but if they were to come back in they’d be expected to play at a certain level and I’m sure that they’ll be able to do that.”
I'd love to have Gill in assuming he was fit.
Predictable.
Bring in Gill.
Even his wayward kicking will be an improvement.
I'd rather see the selector's reward form (ie unlike the Sellar "we think he'll do well at AFL even though hes only had 2 touches every week at SANFL" theory). That would, in my humble opinion, involve bringing in Otten or Dangerfield ahead of Gill/Hentschel (as much as i'd like to see either come back) or Jericho (shudder).
It would require a rejig of the attack, however.
I'm surprised Murphy only got 1 week, his hit was far worse than Burton and it left Ellis concussed with a blood nose.
What a joke! :thumbsd:
Thats because he dosen't play for Adelaide.
Just reported on 5AA that he's been offered and has accepted 2 weeks.
That is unfair, it was an accidental hit.
If he played for Collingwood, he would only get 1 week.
jenny61_99
3 Jun 2008, 08:23
OMG you have got to be joking me. That contact wasn't worth more than 2 weeks. It was a deliberate attempt to bump, but the contact was minimal. Slattery had to think about playing for the free. Burtons foot-odour was more likely to cause harm than the contact.
That's it, I'm giving away my AFC season ticket to watch lawn bowls!
And you think Slattery was being melodramatic??? ;)
Look, the way the system is set up, and with his past record, Burton was ALWAYS going to go. Whether it's intentional or not, (it looked intentional to me - he had eyes on the man the whole time rather than the ball), and whether he actually made contact or not (he did make contact but he was VERY lucky it was only superficial) is irrelevant. The system is there to stop these head high "bumps". Had he made more forceful contact (undoubtedly would have caused serious injury), he would have gone for 6 weeks probably due to the fact he only had eyes for the player.
People are arguing the Murphy one was worse because he injured the player.... player wasn't actually over the ball like Slattery was, it was a front on bump and Murphy's arm rose up (in the act of the bump) making head high contact, quite a different bump to that of Burton.
Of course the whole inconsistency thing with the tribunal is a major problem and needs to be addressed. But I still maintain Burton was lucky to get just two.
I just found this in a news article:
The AFL toughened its stance against head contact, in particular the front-on bump, at the start of last season after clubs called for more protection against head-high contact to players attempting to win the ball.
And they sought clarification of what constituted a reportable offence.
The league told clubs any bump causing forceful contact to an opponent's head or neck would be reportable as rough conduct unless the alleged offender had a realistic alternative to either contest the ball, tackle or make an acceptable shepherd.
Burton didn't get rough conduct or negligent, rather a reckless tackle I think.
The Crows Truth
3 Jun 2008, 09:15
from theage today
Adelaide may look to injury-blighted forward Nick Gill as the action man to replace Brett Burton while he serves his two match AFL suspension for high contact on Essendon's Henry Slattery.
Gill, 25, has endured a lengthy series of treatment table misadventures since being picked up by the Crows at the end of 2006, initially affected by a chronic hamstring problem and more recently kept out of action with a calf injury.
However in his brief time as the lead-up spearhead of Adelaide's forward line late last year Gill looked quite literally capable of anything.
Gifted Crows midfielder/forward Jason Porplyzia said Gill would be a shrewd replacement for Burton given his combination of height (192cm), presence and running power - provided he is fit enough after injury.
Knee reconstruction victim Trent Hentschel is another player showing good form in the SANFL, but he is highly unlikely to be risked just yet.
"We saw last year the impact he had in a few games he played, he was a big presence for us up there, a strong marking guy and his running capacity is up there with Brett so he's certainly someone we are looking forward to having back in the side," Porplyzia said.
"It's a tough one, they (Gill and Hentschel) had a long time off and if rushed back it's probably not ideal but if they were to come back they'd be expected to perform at a certain level and I'm sure they'd be able to do that."
One area Gill isn't expected to help in is goalkicking, his set shot yips causing a good deal of mirth among AFL watchers last year.
Adelaide face a week of concerted effort to improve in that department ahead of their Saturday afternoon meeting with Richmond at the MCG following returns of 5.17 and 9.20 over the past two weeks.
"It's certainly not good enough, and it's up to us to change that and quickly," Porplyzia said.
"The responsibility lies with guys having shots, Burton, (Simon) Goodwin, Kurt (Tippett), myself have to make sure we're doing everything we can to make sure we kick the goals."
Asgardian
3 Jun 2008, 09:26
That is unfair, it was an accidental hit.
How can you say it was accidental when Burton dipped into a hip & shoulder position????????
3 weeks with a week reduced for the early plea was fair, you can't charge into a bloke's head & neck region these days.
Like Aka was saying on the TV somewhere that the players have all been taught about their responsibilities, plus "duty of care" to their opponents.
Dandy_GO
3 Jun 2008, 09:58
So the Essendon guy who charged Goodwin gets off without even being cited?
What an absolute pile of shit.
Punchy Bassett
3 Jun 2008, 10:07
How can you say it was accidental when Burton dipped into a hip & shoulder position????????
3 weeks with a week reduced for the early plea was fair, you can't charge into a bloke's head & neck region these days.
Like Aka was saying on the TV somewhere that the players have all been taught about their responsibilities, plus "duty of care" to their opponents.
My how the tune has changed now it is a Crow in the gun sights.
So the Essendon guy who charged Goodwin gets off without even being cited?
What an absolute pile of shit.
I've only seen Murphy's hit once, but it didn't look too dissimilar from the charge on Goodwin, front on contact was made in both instances.
showdownhero
3 Jun 2008, 10:18
I'd rather see the selector's reward form (ie unlike the Sellar "we think he'll do well at AFL even though hes only had 2 touches every week at SANFL" theory). That would, in my humble opinion, involve bringing in Otten or Dangerfield ahead of Gill/Hentschel (as much as i'd like to see either come back) or Jericho (shudder).
It would require a rejig of the attack, however.
Dangerfield has been playing in the SANFL?
Can't have been doing much I've heard nothing about it.
He's been playing for Geelong.
So the Essendon guy who charged Goodwin gets off without even being cited?
What an absolute pile of shit.
That IS a disgrace. Should have been cited for charging.
Dangerfield has been playing in the SANFL?
Can't have been doing much I've heard nothing about it.
He played one game on a back flank against Jessie Aish from Norwood and got about 17 possies and did ok.
Asgardian
3 Jun 2008, 10:53
My how the tune has changed now it is a Crow in the gun sights.
What tune is this that you are referring to????????
I challenge you to find a post, any post, that I have made that criticises the tribunal decision regarding Shaun Burgoyne's suspension.
What you will find, if you go back far enough, is my opinion that there was nothing wrong with the hit that Michael Long laid on Troy Simmonds in the 2000 Essendon Vs Melbourne Grand Final.
From that time to now, some 8 years later, my opinion has modified to the extent that I agree that the front on hit into a blokes head/neck region is no longer acceptable, that it is now worthy of a suspension.
It is not worthy of vilification towards the bloke who laid on the hit. Yes he does have "duty of care", but it is still footy, hits happen in play, Burton deserves a suspension, & in my opinion, 3 weeks was about correct, but he does not deserve to be lambasted, nor did Michael Long in the aforementioned incident.
The 2 incidents had some slight similarity, Long's was obviously worse, hence he deserved a longer suspension, but both blokes assumed the hip & shoulder stance, and delivered the hit. I considered Shaun more made contact with his backside, but it was still high.
There are two different arguments here.
The first is in regards to whether all of these hits - Burton's, Burgoyne's, Waters', Murphy's etc. - are reportable under what we all know as "the spirit of the game/the game we grew up with". The answer to that is no.
The second argument - and the only one that really matters now - is that all of these hits are reportable under the game as it is today. The answer to that is yes.
Asgardian
3 Jun 2008, 11:02
Well said
There are two different arguments here.
The first is in regards to whether all of these hits - Burton's, Burgoyne's, Waters', Murphy's etc. - are reportable under what we all know as "the spirit of the game/the game we grew up with". The answer to that is no.
The second argument - and the only one that really matters now - is that all of these hits are reportable under the game as it is today. The answer to that is yes.
IMO the rules are a total utter joke and one of the main reasons, deep down, I no longer have the real desire to watch today's version of football. Flooding has ruined it, along with players diving on the ball inviting these high hits along with ducking into tackles.
I was trying to explain Aussie Rules to some of my American mates and the it shocked me when the best shortened version I could come up with was this. "There are 18 players on each side at the one time time making a total of 36. The ball is bounced in the middle and then the players try and move it by hand or foot to their end and scored a goal. There is a lot of diving and running around". I left it there because I realised the game was exactly that. 36 men running around in no particular direction and doing a lot of falling over. Now no-one is allowed to touch each other unless it is to grab a player and drive him into the ground. Somebody is about to get seriously hurt the way these tackles are heading.
We got the rugby blokes in to the clubs to teach tackling and now the players have gone way to far. Take the Douglas affair. He hestitated for a split second before kicking for goal in the forward pocket and the opposing player came home and wrapped him up and drove him into the ground. HTB was the result. Fair enough you say. However, with the force of the tackle a case could be made for in the back. The only difference IMO to the Thomas and Bassatt tackle was that Douglas was tackled from behind and not on the side like Bass was, resulting in Bass getting knocked out. The whole point being is that there is no need for these tackles to be applied like that. People will get seriously hurt very soon, mark my words.
To combat the flooding we either need to have defined areas players from certain positions can play in or an offside rule ala soccer introduced.
This headless chook running around is pointless.
I didnt want it to happen either but Burton getting two games seemed appropriate....it was headhigh!
If the shoe was on the other foot and an Essendon player copped a crow in the same manner Burton copped whatever his name was, some on here would be baying for the death penalty.
And Ozzie, the last thing we want is an off side rule.
Weve already seen the impact of a quazi-soccer rule where the opposition get to kick the ball in after Bock happened to find touch with a 40 metre kick that went in the direction it did because of the opposing players out stretched arms. Next you'll want a hands free game.
ams4crows
3 Jun 2008, 14:11
I didnt want it to happen either but Burton getting two games seemed appropriate....it was headhigh!
If the shoe was on the other foot and an Essendon player copped a crow in the same manner Burton copped whatever his name was, some on here would be baying for the death penalty.
but that's the point something did happen! to goodwin you could actually see evidence, his face blew up the size of a balloon and that guy got NO weeks! we're just pissed at the inconsistantcy of it all how can you tap a blokes head and get 2 weeks while you can charge right at him and cause damage to the players face and still get off!
I didnt want it to happen either but Burton getting two games seemed appropriate....it was headhigh!
If the shoe was on the other foot and an Essendon player copped a crow in the same manner Burton copped whatever his name was, some on here would be baying for the death penalty.
And Ozzie, the last thing we want is an off side rule.
Weve already seen the impact of a quazi-soccer rule where the opposition get to kick the ball in after Bock happened to find touch with a 40 metre kick that went in the direction it did because of the opposing players out stretched arms. Next you'll want a hands free game.
Nope I want a game product that is enjoyable to watch. This stuff is basketball with a touch of diving along with WWF type acting. If you enjoy that go for it!
I guess the 3 way contest involving Goodwin was a less clear cut;no pun intended. Burtons bump left no doubt.
Pffft. What a lot of hot air. Seriously, the man is lucky to have only been given two weeks and I am being entirely selfish when I say Woo hoo and :thumbsu: because I felt SURE he'd miss the game up here. Two weeks means he does not.
Head high contact MUST be taken seriously because of the implications for long term or even fatal injury. What Burton did was stupid. IMO he got off lightly.
Goodwin has a head too. With a great big egg on his cheekbone.
Not that any body seems to give a stuff about that. :rolleyes:
Asgardian
3 Jun 2008, 16:59
The difference is that Goodwin was upright, whereas the Bomber had his head down.
The impact to the Bomber lad was from front on, hence there was possible risk of a spinal compression injury, here's a bit to read -
"Severe compression fractures from forceful impact on the spine, as can happen in a car accident, can cause fragments of the vertebral body to push into the spinal canal and press against the spinal cord. This can cause damage to the spinal cord that can result in partial or complete paralysis below the waist."
"Traumatic compression fractures can produce intense pain in the back that spreads into the legs. If the fracture severely damages the vertebral body, bone fragments may lodge in the spinal canal, pressing on the spinal cord. This can paralyze muscles and impair sensation in the areas supplied by the damaged nerve tissue. Such a fracture may also cause the spine to become unstable. When this happens, the spine eventually tilts forward into increased kyphosis, and the potential grows for future complications with the spinal cord."
http://www.eorthopod.com/public/patient_education/6547/spinal_compression_fractures.html
Goodwin was in no danger of this type of injury, which is a lot more serious than facial contusions, lacerations or even fractures. Yes they can be important, but not as important as a spinal injury.
I'm not trying to minimise Goodwin's injury, yes it looked bad for him for a while, but he was not in the same danger that the Essendon player was exposed to by Burton.
ams4crows
3 Jun 2008, 17:10
The difference is that Goodwin was upright, whereas the Bomber had his head down.
The impact to the Bomber lad was from front on, hence there was possible risk of a spinal compression injury, here's a bit to read -
"Severe compression fractures from forceful impact on the spine, as can happen in a car accident, can cause fragments of the vertebral body to push into the spinal canal and press against the spinal cord. This can cause damage to the spinal cord that can result in partial or complete paralysis below the waist."
"Traumatic compression fractures can produce intense pain in the back that spreads into the legs. If the fracture severely damages the vertebral body, bone fragments may lodge in the spinal canal, pressing on the spinal cord. This can paralyze muscles and impair sensation in the areas supplied by the damaged nerve tissue. Such a fracture may also cause the spine to become unstable. When this happens, the spine eventually tilts forward into increased kyphosis, and the potential grows for future complications with the spinal cord."
http://www.eorthopod.com/public/patient_education/6547/spinal_compression_fractures.html
Goodwin was in no danger of this type of injury, which is a lot more serious than facial contusions, lacerations or even fractures. Yes they can be important, but not as important as a spinal injury.
I'm not trying to minimise Goodwin's injury, yes it looked bad for him for a while, but he was not in the same danger that the Essendon player was exposed to by Burton.
yes I Understand that it's dangerous and what not but Slattery did not obtain any sign of injury? why penalise Burton? perhaps if Slaterry had been knocked out or drawn blood then a 2 week suspension is fair enough but they guy hopped up a second later and was in the next contest hell the umpire didn't even deem it a free kick!
really the severity of the whole thing was minimal! minimal contact was made! MINIMAL for christ sake! 2 weeks is a load of crap no injury should have been just a reprimand!
Asgardian
3 Jun 2008, 17:25
Are you taking the piss:confused:
Slattery was not injured by luck only.
The actions that Burton committed are the very thing the AFL is trying to banish from the game.
They want to ban ALL impact to the head of a player when he has his head down over the ball.
Remember players are suspended for committing an act deemed worthy of a guilty finding, they are not suspended for an injury. The injury will only come into it if the bloke is found guilty.
Thats because he dosen't play for Adelaide.
If his name was goodes, he could have curb-stomped him and gotten 0.
If his name was burgoyne he'd be waiting for '09.
I guess we just have to live with the compromise.