Buddy's whack

[Dazzler9]

Watching the Swans Dockers coverage lastnight, I was amazed that Buddy's knock on Hamling's chin was raised by Riccuito as something that might be looked at. Then again, the way the MRO and tribunal have been operating this year maybe I shouldn't be amazed.
Caro this morning suggested Bud may have a case to answer, while the AFL website itself has an article posing the question about 'Buddy's whack'.
My view, obviously, is that it's just another unfortunate incident in a contact sport. Franklin is being tackled from behind and in his motion to free himself swings his arm (with the ball still tucked under it FFS) and inadvertently collects Hamling on the chin and concusses him. No malice or intent as far as I could tell, but what do others think?

 

[DirtySandman]

Raises and swings elbows, knocks a bloke out....

But you know......buddy, so, no case,

 

[Oxirane]

I'm not sure how the MRO works nowadays but I think that if the act would draw a suspension if they did think there malice/intent, then it is also a reportable offense that can also incur a punishment (fine or suspension) if it is deemed careless (based on the impact). Then the duty of care stuff will appear again.

I would also like to know if it should have been a free kick against buddy (like a high fend-off), or if it is an act where all contact is deemed incidental and subsequently play on.

 

[bfff]

Swung his elbow, knocked someone out. Seems pretty clear to me that you shouldn’t do that.

 

[RUNVS]

Swung his elbow, knocked someone out. Seems pretty clear to me that you shouldn’t do that.

It was very clearly not his intent though as he used his other arm to try and fend the Fremantle player off, and in the process of twisting in an attempt to get the space he needed to handball he ended up elbowing someone in the face.

I am not sure what will happen in terms of if he will get off or not, but it was very very clearly an accident.

 

[Pusswah]

Careless, high impact, high contact, 2 weeks.

The chart makes it pretty simple.

 

[Banyo Bloods]

Media just about react to every incident like this rightly or wrongly so nothing new in that. Sometimes the commentators down play it other times they suggest they will go for it. They are as inconsistent as the decision itself.

Don't think it was intentional but hitting the head unintentioanly can still cause a suspension. What other options did he have is probably where it sits and really the only other would be to absorb the tackle and risk holding the ball. A risky action where you probably are looking to use your strength to break a tackle and risk is getting someone high as has happened.

Would think most footy followers would look at it as consequentual contact but can understand that the reultant concussion puts this in the murky category as to what might happen.

Oh and in before - At Hawthorn he would be suspended and at Sydney free to play.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

When he is done you could release a DVD purely of his "accidental" high contact incidents.

 

[Mitchell54]

This should be a week the way they reviewed the Nic Nat incident.

High contact, medium impact & Hamling was ruled out of the game with Concussion.

1 week is an appropriate penalty.

If the Nic Nat decision was a fine then Buddy should get a fine but that wasn't the case

 

[Beak_A]

Careless, high impact, high contact, 2 weeks.

The chart makes it pretty simple.

This


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pablo668]

I dunno how it all works. It's a nasty hit, but I couldn't see any intent, other than he was in the middle of breaking a tackle.

Mind you, the way I look at these things is very old school.

 

[Orange Agent]

Nothing in it.

 

[Glenn_]

Hmm tackled front on , raises the arms to try and keep the Ball free as anyone is trained to do in that situation. Any contact is purely incidental.

 

[Tex9798]

Why are we even discussing this? Wasn't a strike, tackled, twisting and turning trying to get his arms free and just happens to get someone on the sweet spot.

If he goes for that we are one step closer to touch football.

 

[deltablues]

I dunno how it all works. It's a nasty hit, but I couldn't see any intent, other than he was in the middle of breaking a tackle.

Mind you, the way I look at these things is very old school.

...is very Aussie Rules [not AFL].

Fixed it for ya, bud.

 

[cruiser80]

Careless, high impact, high contact, 2 weeks.

The chart makes it pretty simple.

Well if that all it is then, if Buddy and Hamling had clashed heads and they both got concussed and left the ground then I guess both get suspended under those rules.

 

[SA HAWK]

I think he will be fine.

 

[West World]

Hmm tackled front on , raises the arms to try and keep the Ball free as anyone is trained to do in that situation. Any contact is purely incidental.

So when attempting to break a tackle its perfectly ok to lift your arm and elbow and concuss a defender attempting to lay a legal tackle?

No other alternative to be taken other than to charge through a tackle with a raised elbow face high?

Really?

I suppose it is Buddy and Sydney so play on.

 

[hoss]

This is Buddy. Hamling will probably be fined for misconduct in trying to tackle him. Look three umpires didn't even think it was a free kick for high contact. The officiating in AFL is a laughing stock. Nothing quite so bad in 'professional' sport.

 

[liz]

Swung his elbow, knocked someone out. Seems pretty clear to me that you shouldn’t do that.

And last week Fyfe knocked a St Kilda player with his knee and caused concussion. (Neither player actually "knocked someone out.) That was (correctly) deemed to be completely accidental, so it goes to show that accidental contact is still possible in the game, regardless of the severity of the consequences.

I think it's a hard one to assess because clearly we do want players to be careful with their elbows. It's also hard to assess because incidents like this are, fortunately, uncommon so there's not much to compare it to.

For the table of sanctions to apply, first he has to be deemed to have committed a reportable offence. The AFL make it pretty hard to find relevant information sometimes. The most recent version of the Tribunal Booklet I can find is 2015. I think this is the last time there was a major overhaul of sanctions (as opposed to the MRP process) and it is probably therefore still applicable.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/2015TribunalBooklet.pdf

Mind you, this isn't helpful in the case of striking because the only definition of striking it provides is "striking...(is) interpreted in accordance with (its) commonly accepted meaning." So it will come down to the MRO's judgement whether his action was a strike.

Interestingly, the rules go onto say that striking with an elbow will generally considered to be intentional (not careless), though I can't imagine they will apply that in these circumstances, if indeed the MRO determines it was a strike.

The comparison to NicNat's tackle is completely irrelevant because there is a different section addressing rough conduct (dangerous tackles) and hence a different set of criteria involved.

 

[Obeanie1]

And last week Fyfe knocked a St Kilda player with his knee and caused concussion. (Neither player actually "knocked someone out.) That was (correctly) deemed to be completely accidental, so it goes to show that accidental contact is still possible in the game, regardless of the severity of the consequences.

I think it's a hard one to assess because clearly we do want players to be careful with their elbows. It's also hard to assess because incidents like this are, fortunately, uncommon so there's not much to compare it to.

For the table of sanctions to apply, first he has to be deemed to have committed a reportable offence. The AFL make it pretty hard to find relevant information sometimes. The most recent version of the Tribunal Booklet I can find is 2015. I think this is the last time there was a major overhaul of sanctions (as opposed to the MRP process) and it is probably therefore still applicable.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/2015TribunalBooklet.pdf

Mind you, this isn't helpful in the case of striking because the only definition of striking it provides is "striking...(is) interpreted in accordance with (its) commonly accepted meaning." So it will come down to the MRO's judgement whether his action was a strike.

Interestingly, the rules go onto say that striking with an elbow will generally considered to be intentional (not careless), though I can't imagine they will apply that in these circumstances, if indeed the MRO determines it was a strike.

The comparison to NicNat's tackle is completely irrelevant because there is a different section addressing rough conduct (dangerous tackles) and hence a different set of criteria involved.

Question. Did Buddy have a reasonable alternative?

Did he breach a duty of care in running and raising his elbow?

Could he foresee an injury by doing that?

Was his action careless?

If it was a hand fend to the face its a free no argument.

But a raised elbow to the face causing a concussuon is ok?

 

[Snake_Baker]

I don't know if he'll be suspended, but he must be cited for reckless.

If they let this slide now, then they have to let it slide if he busts someones jaw with the same action.

 

[Wayne Dwop]

Hamling 3 weeks for headbutting Franklin's elbow.

 

[Tex9798]

I don't know if he'll be suspended, but he must be cited for reckless.

If they let this slide now, then they have to let it slide if he busts someones jaw with the same action.

There is only careless/intentional now.

It's obviously not intentional.

If Luke Parker can bump a player in the head who had his head over the pill then Buddy, who actually has the ball in his hand is fine.

Do people seriously think that this big dumb footballer in a split second in trying to break a tackle and get his arms free thinks "I know ill elbow this guy in the face as he comes in!"

 

[Struggle]

People who think this is worth a suspension should never watch another game of football.