Buckley 1 match

Remove this Banner Ad

After what I've been reading and hearing on the news sites and programs, I've come to the conclusion that one game is just about right.

http://abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-16jul2002-88.htm

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=47465

Should Buckley have gotten a bigger ban? Perhaps.

Did he deserve a bigger ban? Debatable.

But the fact of the matter is that the Tribunal has apparently judged the case on what Buckley did in bringing the game into disrepute by wiping blood onto Ling's jumper-- and nothing else. Not a single issue of public health fears entered into the decision on Buckley's case... not that they weren't considered, but apparently it played little role, if any, into the decision.

And since the decision can only be what the Tribunal considered and not what it didn't, it would seem that a one-game ban is just and fair.

Cheers,
William
 
A pretty good call by the Tribunal. A whopping great fine wouldn't have done a damn thing to a bloke like Buckley...but a one week suspension acknowledges the pettyness (as opposed to maliciousness) and yet also the underlying wrongness of the act.

Most importantly, it ensures that such behaviour will not be permitted in a Brownlow medallist. THis is how it should be, IMHO.
 
Originally posted by Nic


Would Buckley have done it if he was HIV positive?

Would Buckley even be allowed to play football, for that matter? I'm still a bit confused about that last point, actually.:confused:
Click to expand...

I assume your answers to my question was, that you would not prefer to have blood whipped on you from a HIV+ person.

My second point being, that since HIV+ status is protected by privacy laws, you would never know if Buckley was HIV+, so its all a question of odds.
You would not prefer eye gouging if he was definately not HIV+, but prefer eye gouging if he was 100% HIV+. What if the odds were he had a 50/50 chance. Where do you draw the line?

Footballers would be a reasonably high risk group. They have women throwing themselves at them. Probably around 5-10% are gay (as with the normal population) with men throwing themselves at them. You would be very niave to beleived there is not one single HIV+ AFL footballer.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Originally posted by Nic


Hall's was harsh yes, but offenses of similar horridness? Deliberately gouging a player's face or wiping a bit of blood on a shirt (essentially harmless). I know which one I'd prefer to happen to me if it had to happen.
Click to expand...

Oh your right, a few scratches potentially from Barry Hall is no where near how good Buckeys blood wipe with the potential of a life threatening disease :rolleyes:

Its a discrase, he should have gotten 5 weeks.
 
Originally posted by Nic


Would Buckley have done it if he was HIV positive?

Would Buckley even be allowed to play football, for that matter? I'm still a bit confused about that last point, actually.:confused:
Click to expand...

First Point. It doesn't matter, its still a health risk.
The blood rule is there for a reason to protect all players, he was in clear breach of that by wiping it on another player.
He can get charge for assault with the police if Ling wanted to take it further.

Point two. Why not? Why is the blood rule there? So it protects the players with people with disease. Of course he could play, for them to say he cant play would be against the law.
 
Originally posted by you_idiot
But the fact of the matter is that the Tribunal has apparently judged the case on what Buckley did in bringing the game into disrepute by wiping blood onto Ling's jumper-- and nothing else. Not a single issue of public health fears entered into the decision on Buckley's case... not that they weren't considered, but apparently it played little role, if any, into the decision.

And since the decision can only be what the Tribunal considered and not what it didn't, it would seem that a one-game ban is just and fair.
Click to expand...
Good post!

I don't know whether the AFL had anything to do with it but the health issues would be pretty difficult to factor into any decision because the tribunal member are not suitably qualified and the rule as it is to apply next would have looked irresponsible or even negligent if the health issues were deemed significant.
 
Bloody Buckley

If Buckley's act in trying to match Ling's guernsey with his hair was a health issue, why is it that the AFL is going to relax its blood rule laws in regards to claret spilt on guernseys.
Next year Ling wouldn't have had to join Buckley on the sidelines to change his guernsey.
The blood was wiped on the guernsey - I'm wondering next season when James Hird, or Ben Cousins has blood on his guernsey and they don't have to leave the field, supporters will be rejoicing, they will probably be the same ones who wanted Buckley suspended for six weeks because his action was a health risk.
Think about it you hypocrites and dont let your bias get in the way of the issues.
 
Bar Fight

3 weeks for spitting, 5 weeks for face clawing, and 1 week for deliberately wiping your blood on someone. Have a think about this ...

If you were in a bar fight, which of these 3 actions by your opponent would outrage you the most??

That's right... makes you wonder where that "River of Money" has been flowing to lately.
 
Couldn't believe Buckley only got 1 week. Talk about a slap on the wrist with a wet feather.

He admitted he did it on purpose to make Ling leave the field. Opens a whole can of worms - imagine the last 30 seconds of a Grand Final with scores locked - want to get the best player on the opposition team off for a while?

Besides which, the AFL is very big on what LOOKS good on TV, and IMO what Buckley did, didn't look good.


I repeat my point in another thread - in ice hockey, a player can get suspended for 2 years for a similar offence.

A person in the street can be gaoled for 2 years with a $5,000 fine.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
 
Absolute disgrace. Who the hell knows what 'evidence', if any, was used in making the decision. It is impossible to rely on the Tribunal to make a fair decision based on the evidence.

Hell, they didn't even seem to see Buckley swing his elbow at Ling. They clearly didn't take Ling's clean record into account, or the fact that he was only trying to break Buckley's illegal tackle.

They have no guts and no consistency. The only rule they seem to follow is that the length of a suspension is inversely proportional to the amount of money your club's got.

Absolute disgrace. The AFL must surely be the laughing stock of all the other football codes in the world now.
 
Originally posted by Crow54

He admitted he did it on purpose to make Ling leave the field.
Click to expand...

Oho, I see now.

1> Disrespect another player and potentially put his health at risk.

2> Blatantly cheat to send another player off.

3> Lie on TV about provocation.

Perform steps 1 to three to earn a one week holiday.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Once again the blinded fools are the Collingwood people. How eddie has brainwashed these dead fish to thinking that everything is ok.

Remember Collingwood Folk...only dead fish go with the flow.

I would love to be in the audience during the footy show and give it to McFatty.
 
I really haven't decided whether I think 1 week is right or not. It's a low risk / high disgust act. I think the Matthews' analogy with spitting is about right.

Should the penalty reflect the low risk or the high disgust end of the spectrum? I don't know. But I don't think the tribunal should be deciding that either. I think this highlights the compelling case for fixed penalties. The AFL has decided that wiping blood on another player is against the rules. They should also mandate the penalty. Does the AFL view it lightly or seriously? We can only know if they mandate the penalty.

Another advantage of mandating the penalty is that the focus on whether Buckley would be treated any differently to anyone else would be removed. It's unfair on other players if he has been, and it's unfair on him if there is speculation that he has been if he hasn't.
 
One week I think is sufficent.

he has kissed away his Brownlow, I think that is punishment enough....
 
Re: Bloody Buckley

Originally posted by Dogwatcher

Think about it you hypocrites and dont let your bias get in the way of the issues.
Click to expand...

Practice what you preach.
 
Re: Bar Fight

Originally posted by powerboi
3 weeks for spitting, 5 weeks for face clawing, and 1 week for deliberately wiping your blood on someone. Have a think about this ...
Click to expand...

If it was a professional athlete (not some drug addicted AIDS victim) wiping blood on my clothing - not onto my skin - , I think I would prefer that than have somebody attempt to rip my eyeballs out.
 
Re: Re: Bar Fight

Originally posted by hotpie


If it was a professional athlete (not some drug addicted AIDS victim)
Click to expand...

Who says the two are mutually exclusive? A top athlete can have the HIV virus and we'd never know. The athlete himself might not know.

Even if it was known to the player, or even the league, we wouldn't be told because the player has a right to privacy about his condition. He couldn't be legally prevented from playing the game either because that would be discrimination.

These reasons are why the blood rule is in place. If you don't know who is potentially infectious and couldn't stop him from taking the field if you did, the only thing you can do is make damn sure blood will not be transferred to other players.
 
Yes and Buckley was penalised accordingly. However the blood was wiped on clothing not skin.

I ask again - would you rather have Buckley wipe blood on your jumper or Hall try to pull your eyeballs out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

growly
Fixture Possible 2024 Round 1 match ups
Replies
21
Views
2K
Billy ray
Billy ray
Chief
News Tarryn Thomas - 18 matches and sacked from North Melbourne
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
266
Views
12K
memoryofmchale
M
Cleansweep17
  • Poll
21st century SOA match
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Guardian Hawk
G
Chief
News AFLW Round 1 2023 - Milestones, Key stats and matches
Replies
3
Views
467
Chief
Chief
T
Opinion Rank these players in order from 1-6: Gary Ablett Jnr, Nathan Buckley,James Hird, Chris Judd, Dustin Martin, Michael Voss
20 21 22 23 24
Replies
579
Views
18K
mike ross
mike ross
GC2015
Toast Pendlebury's 30th finals match
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
adammania9
adammania9
Chief
News Round 22 - Brad Scott 400 games coached! Taylor Walker 1 off 600 goals! Milestones, Key Stats, Matches and more.
Replies
0
Views
353
Chief
Chief

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top