- Oct 9, 2003
- 44,902
- 42,626
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Eagles (NFL), Suns (NBA)
That is ridiculous, the second one much worse as there was more elevation in the tackle.
Buddy Elbow -how many week?
- Thread starter go_the_dockers
- Start date
- Tagged users None
That is ridiculous, the second one much worse as there was more elevation in the tackle.
‘suspended’ him to make it look like they took it seriously.
Medium impact and reckless is a gift to the swans so you can successfully challenge.
Maybe say intentional next time if you truly want him suspended.
It's hard to argue its not an intentional action. Ridiculous...but typical AFL.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,483
- 40,654
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
In Rugby League if the tackle lifts the player's feet above horizontal and the head is driven in to the ground they start at 3 weeks.
In the AFL they only punish when the media get outraged. All the talk was about Worpel's dangerous tackle. Clearly we should have contested and showed the Swans tackle getting zero weeks and had the charge thrown out.
Because elbows and slamming heads in to the ground during tackles arent actually that bad.
- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,063
- 34,270
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Ah, yes... One set of rules for the AFL Swans and another set of rules for the Vic/SA/WA clubs
I've lost count of the number of times the AFL have exonerated Buddy for careless strikes, stray elbows and head high bumps from 2014-2021
Geez, it would've been nice if Hawthorn was given the same generosity from 2005 to 2013 when Bud was suspended about 7 times for some of the softest most-pissweak bumps you'll ever see. He'd be well past the 1000 goal barrier by now.
I've lost count of the number of times the AFL have exonerated Buddy for careless strikes, stray elbows and head high bumps from 2014-2021
Geez, it would've been nice if Hawthorn was given the same generosity from 2005 to 2013 when Bud was suspended about 7 times for some of the softest most-pissweak bumps you'll ever see. He'd be well past the 1000 goal barrier by now.
Millky95
Starchild > You
Most reasonable post in here so far
He sure knows how to get a team into top 4.....Hawks had the biggest ump ride ever during their era.....dogs in 16....and trent should have missed half of 2017 for tiges, but he got him off 3 times.
ExYarraValley
Team Captain
- Apr 27, 2021
- 480
- 380
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Banned
- #285
The AFL again looking after their first franchise.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,483
- 40,654
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Hawks have never been top 5 for free kicks.
Ah, yes... One set of rules for the AFL Swans and another set of rules for the Vic/SA/WA clubs
I've lost count of the number of times the AFL have exonerated Buddy for careless strikes, stray elbows and head high bumps from 2014-2021
Geez, it would've been nice if Hawthorn was given the same generosity from 2005 to 2013 when Bud was suspended about 7 times for some of the softest most-pissweak bumps you'll ever see. He'd be well past the 1000 goal barrier by now.
Sydney Swans chairman Andrew Pridham blasts ‘disgraceful’ AFL decision as Tom Lynch move opens up old wounds
Buddy wound re-opens: ‘I’m expecting a three-year trade ban for Richmond’
www.foxsports.com.au
"The ban was handed down despite the AFL integrity department investigating the deal and finding no wrongdoing."
- Jun 19, 2016
- 20,798
- 39,852
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Well said.Dons supporter
AFL made a mistake in not suspending Astbury when almost everyone thought it was worth a week given the new protect head stance. So once they set the precedence with Astbury just getting fined, all others this year would go the same way. Rewrite the rule and enforce it AFL!
Yes in normal circumstances Buddy was worth a week, most definitely.
By letting other players off for whatever reason, including incidents against two of our players, there was no choice but to adjudicate Buddy the same.
Not more or less but the same.
Was this evidence accepted and did it influence the decision? Was under the impression that precedent has never been viable at the tribunal. I'm certain that clubs have been forbidden from tabling it in the past.
Essentially it permits all verdicts to align with the most lenient previous punishment.
Last edited:
Oh I’m not unhappy ( big fan of buddy’s), and I didn’t even look at the others- I just looked at buddy’s and gave my assessment. Simple.
Fair enough Romeoh.
When I first saw it, I thought Bud took exception at the Ryan twisting him around while his boot was planted into the turf after it was out of play.
Could have done his knee.
All done now.
If you go by reaction, Ryan was the only one that didn't get stunned, suggesting it was low impact.
- Banned
- #294
Not really.
Tribunals aren't compelled to follow precedent but that doesn't mean precedents aren't relevant. Natural justice, which applies to the Tribunal, requires at least a semblance of consistency. If there had only been the one precedent, I dare say Buddy would have got his week. The fact that there were 3 suggests that a suspension would have been unfairly singling him out.
Sure, but it is inconsistent by nature. No two incidents are ever exactly alike and different sets of eyes can fall either side of the line. It's been inadmissible in the past for a reason.
There is no point having an "intentional" category that is never used except when the AFL wants to really whack somebody.
So far, in the wake of Hocking we need the rules and the MRO overhauled. Anything else?
- Banned
- #296
Precedents have never been inadmissible.
It has always been up to the Tribunal how much weight they give them.
UM wasn't it claimed that this was a first offense or some such?
You know the AFL are corrupt when your wife who really doesn't follow the footy commented when I was watching AFL news said "Buddy will get off, he a protected species for some reason".
Then I mentioned he is close to kicking 1,000 goals and she laughed, "yep, that will be why this time."
Everyone knows there are different rules for different classes of footballers. We shouldn't be surprised, the rules are different depending on which end of the ground you play at.
No wonder non Australian's really struggle to understand the game.
"The AFL has previously disallowed precedents as it believes no two incidents are the same and that in law precedent normally applies in sentencing not in determining fact. The league is also reluctant to allow one case to become a rehearing of an earlier case and to draw out the process."
Players' union calls for greater fairness at tribunal
AFL tribunal should have greater scope to vary player punishments as they sit fit, AFL Players' Association has says.
I've been hearing this since video evidence was permitted in the 1980's. When did it change?
- Banned
- #299
"The AFL has previously disallowed precedents as it believes no two incidents are the same and that in law precedent normally applies in sentencing not in determining fact. The league is also reluctant to allow one case to become a rehearing of an earlier case and to draw out the process."
Players' union calls for greater fairness at tribunal
AFL tribunal should have greater scope to vary player punishments as they sit fit, AFL Players' Association has says.www.theage.com.au
I've been hearing this since video evidence was permitted in the 1980's. When did it change?
I can't read the article but I suspect that, as the Tribunal could have last night, they have in particular cases rejected evidence of "like cases". Probably because they weren't "like enough".
It was unusual to allow 3 which is what leads me to the "scapegoat" argument.
I can't recall a previous case of precedent even being presented. The AFL, like the VFL before it, forbade the practice.
PS Clear your cookies
