Buddy Elbow -how many week?

Remove this Banner Ad

Seb78

Premiership Player
Aug 27, 2008
3,547
2,703
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Can you imagine being so upset at a tribunal decision that you create this garbage that drags a players wife into it?

Stay classy.
I didn't create it champ. Not really that upset about the decision either lol. Just saw it on twitter and thought it was quite humorous.
No need to jump on your high horse little snowflake. 😭
 

Log in to remove this ad.

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
28,026
30,227
AFL Club
Hawthorn
That is ridiculous, the second one much worse as there was more elevation in the tackle.
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.
 

Back One Out

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 2, 2015
16,548
28,548
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.


 

Millky95

Starchild > You
Jul 6, 2014
39,713
53,909
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Renegades
Swans fans enjoying what us Cats fans went through with Selwood after his unnecessary hand to the face in the Dogs game a few weeks back.

Another action that should be suspended, but the incompetence of the MRO and tribunal has meant previous players haven’t.

It doesn’t stop the nuffies trotting out the preferential treatment, protected species arguments with their pitchforks at the ready when both were inevitably cleared.

It seems to only become an important issue to the masses when it’s a star player that they dislike. And yet somehow when they are treated the same as every other player in terms of punishment, it’s further confirmation to them of some sort of AFL directive for star treatment/discount.

And for the record I hate Buddy as much as the next bloke.
Most reasonable post in here so far
 

Achy Blakey Heart

Premium Platinum
Jun 29, 2011
1,054
1,281
Australia
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Celtics,Red Sox,Patriots,Dragons,
Even with all the rorts they still got flogged by the 17th placed team at home.

Gil must have all the troops trying to work out how to get the Swans to the top 4.
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tedeski

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 2, 2006
19,765
24,036
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sunnybrook Farm
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.



"The ban was handed down despite the AFL integrity department investigating the deal and finding no wrongdoing."
 

Tedeski

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 2, 2006
19,765
24,036
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sunnybrook Farm
Dons supporter:rolleyes: - kettle, meet pot!

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!
Well said.
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.
 

Ron The Bear

Up yer arse, AFL
Jul 4, 2006
35,845
36,652
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
"Mr Gleeson is now going through three examples put forward by Sydney and disputing the similarities.
He says Astbury and Daniher each made contact to their opponents' shoulders"
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:

Romeoh1

All Australian
Apr 27, 2021
985
1,244
AFL Club
Geelong
He'll get a week.
We'll rest him now.
Just proving a point that if the other 3 are a fine, Buddy's is a fine.
He paid more than the others so be happy!
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.
 

Tedeski

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 2, 2006
19,765
24,036
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sunnybrook Farm
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.
 

BruceFromBalnarring

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 13, 2007
12,177
15,599
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
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.
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.
 

Ron The Bear

Up yer arse, AFL
Jul 4, 2006
35,845
36,652
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Natural justice, which applies to the Tribunal, requires at least a semblance of consistency.
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?
 

Obeanie1

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 26, 2007
25,121
21,789
Darwin
AFL Club
West Coast
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.
 

Ron The Bear

Up yer arse, AFL
Jul 4, 2006
35,845
36,652
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Precedents have never been inadmissible.

It has always been up to the Tribunal how much weight they give them.
"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."

I've been hearing this since video evidence was permitted in the 1980's. When did it change?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad