Buddy - How many weeks?

[smeltitdeltit]

He doesn't have it spot on. And it's not that difficult. It is not the act but the impact that is being assessed here. And on the relevant impact. I really wish the AFL would appoint a decent communicator (I'd do it for a carton a week).

The actual impact to Edward's head (in the context of the bump as a whole) was quite light. Franklin was lucky Edwards' body took most of it.

So when they are looking at impact, it's how hard Gibbs head hit the turf, and how hard Lewis hit whoever in the head, and how hard Buddy hit Edwards in the head. Not whether if he'd been an inch to the left he could have broken his neck. That doesn't come into it (it should). But it's not arbitrary and really Gerard Whately gets paid a lot to know this stuff and should be able to communicate it.

Lewis had bugger all contact to goldsteins head, so why was it hig impact?

 

[smeltitdeltit]

Again. He bumped him in the head. I don't get the complaint.

If you think that the acker one and the Edwards one are the same level of impact, I cannot help you.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Lewis had bugger all contact to goldsteins head, so why was it hig impact?

I disagree. He belted him hard.

 

[Kummerspeck]

If you think that the acker one and the Edwards one are the same level of impact, I cannot help you.

They were also assessed under a different system.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

If you think that the acker one and the Edwards one are the same level of impact, I cannot help you.

As far as the head contact is concerned, there is little doubt. Although to be fair, he could have got low impact for that.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

They were also assessed under a different system.

Yes, that's it is a valid point, but arguing the aker hit was as big hard as the Edwards one which old mate is, is noddy world

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I have posted the Tribunal Guidelines in another thread. I hope this helps.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

I have posted the Tribunal Guidelines in another thread. I hope this helps.

So was the potential for injury the same in all three incidents?

 

[smeltitdeltit]

I disagree. He belted him hard.

Like tippet?
If it was so damn hard, how come goldstein was fine?
How come Edwards had to sit out your 20 minutes to be assessed for brain trauma?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Like tippet?
If it was so damn hard, how come goldstein was fine?
How come Edwards had to sit out your 20 minutes to be assessed for brain trauma?

Edwards conveniently availed himself of the half time break to undergo his assessment.

EDIT: Hang on, you're changing direction on the argument here. If you're comparing the Lewis hit with the Tippett one in terms of impact, you need your head read.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

So was the potential for injury the same in all three incidents?

I would say the potential for injury (insofar as the level of impact to the head is concerned) was the most in the Malceski one and the least in the Aker one. But all reasonably classed as medium (again, Aker could have been given low impact imo).

 

[smeltitdeltit]

I would say the potential for injury (insofar as the level of impact to the head is concerned) was the most in the Malceski one and the least in the Aker one. But all reasonably classed as medium (again, Aker could have been given low impact imo).

Fair enough, I disagree. The Malceski outcome was about as bad as it could have been, Ie left the field but returned. Edwards could have been much much worse.
It seems we're at polar opposites, and it no doubt we're both viewing through brown and gold/ red and white glasses, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle .
No point continuing this argument, Good luck for the restf the year.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

Edwards conveniently availed himself of the half time break to undergo his assessment.

EDIT: Hang on, you're changing direction on the argument here. If you're comparing the Lewis hit with the Tippett one in terms of impact, you need your head read.

Pretty sure it has to be 20 miniutes of game time

 

[hawkman]

Pretty sure it has to be 20 miniutes of game time

Well 18 minutes 40 seconds according to some AFL officials

 

[peternorth]

many pundits in the media have stated we need the stars to play. sydney is the most populated city and competative market. afl wants to be no 1 there.

 

[Off The Couch]

The perfect summation IMO of how most people are feeling about the MRP decision

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news...ss-on-buddy-tippett-bans-20150630-gi1rc0.html

 

[PetterdHoisted]

The perfect summation IMO of how most people are feeling about the MRP decision

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news...ss-on-buddy-tippett-bans-20150630-gi1rc0.html

Thank you for posting it, I felt a huge relief when I read this, I'm not crazy after all, the MRP is just a joke.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Careless & Medium impact!The AFL & their overt hypocrisy exposed....Hidden Agenda?....YEAH....NAH

 

[Tigerland]

The decision just confirms that the MRP is a joke and Mark Evans a complete and absolute fool for stating that the penalties were right.
I have little faith in Evans if that's the way his mind works. Idiotic.

 

[Procrastinator35]

The decision just confirms that the MRP is a joke and Mark Evans a complete and absolute fool for stating that the penalties were right.
I have little faith in Evans if that's the way his mind works. Idiotic.

They have basically just given 'carte-blanche' for any player to be shoulder-charged head-on....Indefensible AFL Curruption!

BY this decision they have contravened every line they have been pushing these past 5 seasons about the protection of the ball-player & the player's head.

Inexcusable....This farce should be, & needs to be met with a huge media s**t-storm, if it was doing it's job properly...But their all in the AFL's hip-pocket.

Cynical boys-club racket.

 

[JoeHawk]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news...ss-on-buddy-tippett-bans-20150630-gi1rc0.html

Edit: just noticed already posted earlier but won't hurt to see it again.

 

[JoeHawk]

The perfect summation IMO of how most people are feeling about the MRP decision

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news...ss-on-buddy-tippett-bans-20150630-gi1rc0.html

Unless you're a $wan of course.

The articles focus on the absence of "potential to cause injury" clause still stands out as the major flaw in the MRP decision.

Read on:

Just have a little refresher peek at the rules: "The potential to cause serious injury is also relevant in the following cases ... any head-high contact with a player who has his head over the ball particularly when contact is made from an opponent approaching from a front-on position". Edwards' head was not yet exactly over the ball, but that was only because Franklin knocked it into Oxford Street as he got close enough.

The tribunal heard about this potential to cause serious injury issue when Luke Hodge was banned on the night they also looked at Jordan Lewis' round-arm to the head of Todd Goldstein. You remember that, it was the one Lewis got three weeks for. It was just like the whack Kurt Tippet gave Dylan Grimes at the weekend.

Hang on a minute ... Tippett only got a week. Or, like his Buddy, two with one for the plea which of course was so breathlessly accepted the MRP had barely dropped to one knee with the proposal when they had the ring on their fingers.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

It was the quickest acceptance of a penalty I can remember.

And it seems I'm not alone in thinking the tippet and Lewis ones are very similar........

 

[MinerBoy]

Edwards conveniently availed himself of the half time break to undergo his assessment.

EDIT: Hang on, you're changing direction on the argument here. If you're comparing the Lewis hit with the Tippett one in terms of impact, you need your head read.

Haven't minded your posting in this thread but Tippett's was extremely comparable to Lewis. In fact the elbow rather than the forearm actually makes it worse for mine. Not even a veiled attempt to spoil, just a big old 'how do you do' with the elbow.

Tippett was the one who was far luckier than Buddy for mine. I'm still kind of okay with the big old shirt front but of course they have to be careful. Having said that though, even when Buddy went too high, I don't think it's dirty so much as a poorly executed skill. Tippett on the other hand was clear as day thuggery. The sort that would have seen articles written for days on end about how Hawthorn play over the edge if it was Lewis/Hodge/Buddy(HFC version)/ Campbell Brown/Mitchell etc...

Very, very lucky indeed was Kurt.

 

[docks]

I think that intentional refers to whether Buddy was intending to bump the head or not. He does get down as if to avoid the head so I think that's fair enough to classify as careless.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ss-on-buddy-tippett-bans-20150630-gi1rc0.html