Buddy - How many weeks?

[bungwahl]

END COLA & YOU TOO CAN TRADE LIKE ANY OTHER CLUB....SIMPLE CHOICE.....THIS THREAD REGARDS BUDDY, SYDNEY & THE AFL/MRP RECORD

Actually your rant is somewhat incorrect. This thread is about Buddy and the MRP - it has nothing to do with Sydney, COLA, or any of the other topics being constantly raised every time a Sydney player does anything.

 

[bungwahl]

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

First frame of that series is after the initial contact to the chest. Still ended up getting the head and should have got 2-3 weeks, but it's a selective image set to support the writer's angle.

 

[pacman]

Hodge and Lewis were done for gutless strikes though. Bumps are still a legal part of footy at least.

Gutless is also hitting a bloke with his head down to pick up the footy, elbowing a bloke going for a mark and grabbing a blokes plums.

 

[Maddo11]

Gutless is also hitting a bloke with his head down to pick up the footy, elbowing a bloke going for a mark and grabbing a blokes plums.

I dunno what game you were watching but only one of these things actually happened.

How many hawks have been cited for striking this year? 5-6?
Snipers

 

[peternorth]

i think this incident is drawing as much attention, angst and OUTRAGE as this one (back then swans fans calling for buddys head)

 

[Maddo11]

i think this incident is drawing as much attention, angst and OUTRAGE as this one (back then swans fans calling for buddys head)

Slightly different scenario, seeing as it was the last round and we were playing them the next week haha. very rarely does an mrp decision directly benefit the aggrieved party.
And didn't he get two weeks down to one for that as well?

 

[The King!]

Anyone got a tin foil hat I can borrow?

 

[peternorth]

Slightly different scenario, seeing as it was the last round and we were playing them the next week haha. very rarely does an mrp decision directly benefit the aggrieved party.
And didn't he get two weeks down to one for that as well?

yes indeed he did! (good memory!). he did and this place went into meltdown. swans fans were filthy (despite being also happy he'd miss the return match) suggesting he get more weeks.

 

[The King!]

yes indeed he did! (good memory!). he did and this place went into meltdown. swans fans were filthy (despite being also happy he'd miss the return match) suggesting he get more weeks.

were they?

 

[cryptor]

i think this incident is drawing as much attention, angst and OUTRAGE as this one (back then swans fans calling for buddys head)

I suspect the AFL didn't want to see a player who draws larger crowds like Buddy does for 2 weeks of finals. If he served 2 weeks then good chance Buddy would only play one finals game and at worst none at all. A selfish financial decision on their part perhaps.

 

[The King!]

END COLA & YOU TOO CAN TRADE LIKE ANY OTHER CLUB....SIMPLE CHOICE.....THIS THREAD REGARDS BUDDY, SYDNEY & THE AFL/MRP RECORD

Lol

 

[peternorth]

were they?

sure were

 

[peternorth]

I suspect the AFL didn't want to see a player who draws larger crowds like Buddy does for 2 weeks of finals. If he served 2 weeks then good chance Buddy would only play one finals game and at worst none at all. A selfish financial decision on their part perhaps.

if the afl admitted that was an overriding factory (ratings, gate receipts, star player) then we, taxpayers, will understand, accept and move on.

 

[cryptor]

if the afl admitted that was an overriding factory (ratings, gate receipts, star player) then we, taxpayers, will understand, accept and move on.

No way would people understand that in terms of accepting it. That's basically admitting that that kind of stuff is more important than the integrity of the competition. Which is basically evident in what we're seeing here with this piss weak suspension.

 

[pacman]

Slightly different scenario, seeing as it was the last round and we were playing them the next week haha. very rarely does an mrp decision directly benefit the aggrieved party.
And didn't he get two weeks down to one for that as well?

Yea it was different cause Edwards is tougher than nails but typical Sydney flog went down quicker than a $2 hooker.
As per there effort in last years Grand Final.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

yes indeed he did! (good memory!). he did and this place went into meltdown. swans fans were filthy (despite being also happy he'd miss the return match) suggesting he get more weeks.

*Swans fans in meltdown mode*

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/franklin-reported-on-eve-of-finals.1029012/

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

yes indeed he did! (good memory!). he did and this place went into meltdown. swans fans were filthy (despite being also happy he'd miss the return match) suggesting he get more weeks.

*Swans fans going out of their collective minds in indignation!!!!*

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/franklin-gone.1029000/

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

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.

You're not crazy, but it's understandable why you're wrong. Because Gleeson is wrong, as is Derm, Humphrey Smith, and everyone else who fails to properly understand the Tribunal Guidelines as they are written. I have posted them in another thread on this board.

 

[Off The Couch]

You're not crazy, but it's understandable why you're wrong. Because Gleeson is wrong, as is Derm, Humphrey Smith, and everyone else who fails to properly understand the Tribunal Guidelines as they are written. I have posted them in another thread on this board.

We bow to your expertise

 

[smeltitdeltit]

You're not crazy, but it's understandable why you're wrong. Because Gleeson is wrong, as is Derm, Humphrey Smith, and everyone else who fails to properly understand the Tribunal Guidelines as they are written. I have posted them in another thread on this board.

I've read them. They say they will pay attention to the potential to cause injury.

They didn't in this case.

They don't exclusivly list all circumstances in which they will.

Gerard Whateley, probably one of the most intelligent footy journos agrees.


One could even argue that as Edwards had to miss 20 minutes of football, it could have been high impact, forget the "potential".
It was as soft a penalty as they could justify. Simple.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I've read them. They say they will pay attention to the potential to cause injury.

They didn't in this case.

They don't exclusivly list all circumstances in which they will.

Gerard Whateley, probably one of the most intelligent footy journos agrees.


One could even argue that as Edwards had to miss 20 minutes of football, it could have been high impact, forget the "potential".
It was as soft a penalty as they could justify. Simple.

Under what heading do they say that?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

We bow to your expertise

No need to bow. And it's not expertise. All I did was go to the appropriate source and read it.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

Under what heading do they say that?

B) IMPACT

Consideration will be given as to whether the impact is Low, Medium, High or Severe� In determining the level of impact, regard will be had to several factors�

Firstly, consideration will be given the extent of force and in particular, any injury sustained by the Player who was offended against�

Secondly, strong consideration will be given to the potential to cause serious injury� For example, contact to the head will generally have more impact than contact to the body if the force used is similar� 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; forceful round-arm swings that make head-high contact to a Player in a marking contest, ruck contest or when tackling;

»»Spear tackles; and»»Driving an opponent into the ground when his arms are pinned�

Thirdly, consideration will be given not only to the impact between the offending Player and the Victim Player, but also any other impact to the Victim Player as
a result of such impact� By way of an example, where a Victim Player as a result of the impact from the offending Player is pushed into the path of a fast-moving third Player, the impact to the Victim Player may be classified as High or Severe, even though the level of impact between the offending Player and the Victim Player was only Low or Medium�

In addition, consideration will be given to the body language of the offending Player in terms of flexing, turning, raising or positioning the body to either increase or reduce the force of impact� The absence of injury does not preclude the classification of impact as Severe�

It should be noted that Low impact (which is the minimum impact required for a Classifiable Offence to constitute a Reportable Offence) requires more than just a negligible impact� Most Reportable Offences require at least low impact and a collision or incident involving negligible force will not ordinarily result in a charge

 

[cryptor]

You're not crazy, but it's understandable why you're wrong. Because Gleeson is wrong, as is Derm, Humphrey Smith, and everyone else who fails to properly understand the Tribunal Guidelines as they are written. I have posted them in another thread on this board.

Wow. And Swans fans reckon Hawks fans are arrogant...

 

[smeltitdeltit]

The mrp guidelines say this incident is worth three weeks:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-05-10/roos-post-match

Now Terlich was subbed out due concussion, but this was easily a possible outcome in the Buddy / Edwards bump.

So why wasn't the potential to cause injury used here?