Buddy - How many weeks?

[Jakksynn]

What's with all the faux outrage? 2 weeks down to one is about right. No injury, just a bump that ended up too high. I honestly thought Tippett would just get a fine, a week off is maybe a touch harsh but I'm not against it. Gordon getting off is the only one I have a problem with. Elbow to the head? Deserves a week

 

[skipper kelly]

2 weeks is a bit rough for a bump. Thought it should have been 1 week down to 0 with his good record.

 

[MF]

It's not our fault that all you talk about on your board is flower arranging and where the best place to get a pedicure in Darling Point is

Do you write Brian Taylor's jokes?

 

[Jaeger]

How the bloody hell did he only get one week!?!?

You know how. We all do, except for some delusional supporters of the team he plays for.

 

[RW]

No special treatment here. Let's examine the verdict.

High contact: Well duh, no arguments here.

Careless: Fair enough as he did bump, but he was chasing the ball at the time, so it's not like he lined him up.

Medium impact: Admit Buddy was lucky here, but the fact that Edwards wasn't hurt and passed the concussion test saved him as the MRP seems to be assessing incidents based on damage caused these days.

It was always going to be either 2 games reduced to 1 or 3 games reduced to 2. As it turned out, Buddy got the lighter penalty, so he should take it and run.

 

[RustyHawk]

So what were Franklin's suspension lengths at the Hawks?

What am I? The library of Congress. Look it up yourself.

 

[Jaeger]

No special treatment here
Medium impact: Admit Buddy was lucky here, but the fact that Edwards wasn't hurt and passed the concussion test saved him as the MRP seems to be assessing incidents based on damage caused these days.

That's interesting, because Hodge and Lewis were both graded high and neither Swallow or Goldstein had to leave the ground, let alone be subbed off under the concussion rule.

No special treatment at all.

 

[skipper kelly]

What am I? The library of Congress.

Do they keep the records of the AFL?

 

[Banyo Bloods]

It's absolutely relevant. May got 3 down to 2 because his bump was deemed "high impact" even though it had a fraction of the force of Franklin's.

Anyway, winners are grinners. Sydney can chew on some more angry pills.

You do recall Rockliff's concussion right ?

 

[Maddo11]

" Delicious"
-B Macaveney.

 

[ashep]

What am I? The library of Congress. Look it up yourself.

I did. He copped a week for hitting Malceski late and high.

Next?

 

[OneEyedHawk]

In isolation I probably wouldn't care (and still don't really) but it is a pretty laughable penalty considering what he copped for comparable or lesser offences at Hawthorn. Ie. the Ben Cousins "hit", 2 down to 1 for the most pissy contact ever.

 

[skipper kelly]

In isolation I probably wouldn't care (and still don't really) but it is a pretty laughable penalty considering what he copped for comparable or lesser offences at Hawthorn. Ie. the Ben Cousins "hit", 2 down to 1 for the most pissy contact ever.

6 years ago?

 

[QuietB]

Bryce Gibbs does not like this.

So AFL, answer me this, is the head sacrosanct or not. Cause last week it was and Bryce Gibbs got 3 weeks down to 2 for an errant but essentially good tackle, and this week Franklin gets 2 down to 1 for a deliberate high bump straight to the head

Me no comprehend

 

[Jakksynn]

That's interesting, because Hodge and Lewis were both graded high and neither Swallow or Goldstein had to leave the ground, let alone be subbed off under the concussion rule.

No special treatment at all.

You're sounding like a bitter ex girlfriend at the moment. Hodge and Lewis got what they deserved, so has buddy and Tippett. Move on.

 

[RUNVS]

What am I? The library of Congress. Look it up yourself.

So you say it is disgusting that Franklin got 1 week and that it shows clear bias from the AFL but you could not be bothered to look up other incidents Franklin has been involved in and how many weeks he got from them.

Franklin has always been like this. Sometimes he does stupid things but from memory most of his stupid things he has done on the field has only resulted in 1 or 2 game bans.

 

[MF]

For anyone who wants to verify if all the Hawthorn supporters claims of how much worse Buddy's penalties were at the Hawks, here's an incident that was graded exactly the same as this one by the MRP...

 

[JoeHawk]

Rubbish. The bump he made on Malceski that got 2 down to 1 was worse than this.

You have got to be joking. Buddy ran right past the ball and hit the Richmond player head on. It was pure luck that he didn't knock him out cold. The "potential to cause injury" clause appears to have been completely ignored. As for the Malcelski hit, that was side on as well as deliberate, and given 2/1 only because the Sydney squealing and doctors reports that made it look worse. Look around, you'll find it's not just Hawthorn but the wider AFL supporter base that will agree that 2 down to 1 week is a farce.

 

[Inspector Malceski]

Hawthorn made a thread on their board. LOL!

Hawthorn believe, the Swans are Cinderella and they are just the ugly step sister.

of course they want to be us!!

 

[Mister B]

In isolation I probably wouldn't care (and still don't really) but it is a pretty laughable penalty considering what he copped for comparable or lesser offences at Hawthorn. Ie. the Ben Cousins "hit", 2 down to 1 for the most pissy contact ever.

Different match review system. Do we look at the hanging of Ned Kelly and say hey that's an outrage because he would have got 20 to life now?

 

[hk89]

Careless: Fair enough as he did bump, but he was chasing the ball at the time, so it's not like he lined him up.

Agree with the rest of your post, but this is purely delusional. Sure it was a last second decision, but definitely not going for the ball, and definitely lined him up in the last second before impact.

 

[Jakksynn]

You have got to be joking. Buddy ran right past the ball and hit the Richmond player head on. It was pure luck that he didn't knock him out cold. The "potential to cause injury" clause appears to have been completely ignored. As for the Malcelski hit, that was side on as well as deliberate, and given 2/1 only because the Sydney squealing and doctors reports that made it look worse. Look around, you'll find it's not just Hawthorn but the wider AFL supporter base that will agree that 2 down to 1 week is a farce.

Hawthorn fans have no right to be bagging other teams for squealing to the MRP.

 

[Oneiros]

Well that came in lighter than I expected.

 

[skipper kelly]

You have got to be joking. Buddy ran right past the ball and hit the Richmond player head on. It was pure luck that he didn't knock him out cold. The "potential to cause injury" clause appears to have been completely ignored. As for the Malcelski hit, that was side on as well as deliberate, and given 2/1 only because the Sydney squealing and doctors reports that made it look worse. Look around, you'll find it's not just Hawthorn but the wider AFL supporter base that will agree that 2 down to 1 week is a farce.

Not really. There is a few posters from the other 16 clubs but the majority of the whinging is coming from 1 club.

 

[Jaeger]

Unsurprisingly they haven't used the "potential to cause injury" consideration for the star swan.

From the MRP 2015 guidelines:

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:
*snip*
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

I guess not on this occasion.