Buddy - How many weeks?

[juss]

Runs past the ball with eyes only for his opponent, cleans him up and forces him off the ground for a concussion test after a bump to the head and only cops a week. Very lucky.

 

[le dominateur]

As a hawk he wouldve gotten 3-4 weeks.

If you don't think the Hawks get free a free ride at the tribunal then there is no cure for your condition.

 

[Hamingja]

Cleared last year for the exact same bump for which he copped 2 weeks for in a Hawk jumper & now 2 weeks down to 1 for an incident 5 times worse than anything previous.

Now that he is getting away with his sniping the crowd will have to start booing him too

 

[bugalugs213]

If you don't think the Hawks get free a free ride at the tribunal then there is no cure for your condition.

Your reply needs more potential to injure clause.

 

[swiftdog]

Cannot work out how they aren't intentional, just careless, it looked pretty much to me as if both intended to do what they did, tribunal is a joke.

I think that intentional refers to whether Buddy was intending to bump the head or not. He does get down as if to avoid the head so I think that's fair enough to classify as careless.

 

[Ron The Bear]

At the same time though:

"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"

It's clear to see that Edwards was began bending down to pick up the ball, likely with the assumption that Franklin would do the same thing, before lifting his head as a defensive mechanism when he realised Buddy was going for the bump. I would have thought that potential for serious injury would be high when lining up a player who's looking to put his head over the footy. Subjective terminology is open to discussion though.

Careless, high impact (due to the potential for serious injury), and high contact for me - 3 down to 2 seems the right call, Buddy's got off light I think.

In saying this though, take a look at who Sydney play in three weeks time.... Conspiracy!

I wouldn't say Edwards was bent over the ball in the accepted sense, though.

What happens to the bumped player really is in the lap of the gods. Edwards has been KO'd before; one would assume if he was forced into retirement a la Michael Mitchell, Buddy gets a year off.

 

[Swansujelly]

wonder how many weeks if he fell on the ball, tooks his knees out, and put him out for 12 weeks with a PCL?

 

[el toado]

Going on recent history (last 2 seasons or so) of very similar incidents (player ran past the ball, impact made with the opponents head with shoulder) then it looks like Lance is pretty lucky. I would have expected 3 down to 2.

As an aside, I think the tribunal really has a problem when players are copping harsher penalties for accidental incidents (Gibbs' tackle, a legitimate football action) than reckless (Buddy) or even deliberate actions (any number of striking charges which seem to be ignored lately).

 

[JoeHawk]

If you don't think the Hawks get free a free ride at the tribunal then there is no cure for your condition.

Free ride? Recently Lake, Lewis and Hodge got their fair whack and deservedly so. But the Buddy decision now in the red and white just stinks.

 

[caitsith01]

I think that intentional refers to whether Buddy was intending to bump the head or not. He does get down as if to avoid the head so I think that's fair enough to classify as careless.

That's rubbish.

For years the AFL has been crapping on about how if you "choose to bump" then you are 100% responsible for the consequences. Suddenly in this isolated case it's "careless" for a guy to intentionally smash into another guy's head. In legal terms it was reckless at best, but on balance it went exactly as planned.

Absolute joke of a decision. Just when the MRP was starting to look relatively sane in 2015 we get the Gibbs decision and this one in quick succession. A good, hard tackle is now a worse offence than deliberately running past the ball and smashing into an undefended player's head.

 

[irish]

Disgrace any other player would have got 3 weeks minimum

 

[caitsith01]

Free ride? Recently Lake, Lewis and Hodge got their fair whack and deservedly so. But the Buddy decision now in the red and white just stinks.

Like Geelong in the 2007-2009 era, Hawthorn had a very good run for a couple of years but lately have started to cop suspensions a bit more regularly. If you follow the same trajectory as the Cats your players will be suspended for showing up next year.

 

[JoeHawk]

Like Geelong in the 2007-2009 era, Hawthorn had a very good run for a couple of years but lately have started to cop suspensions a bit more regularly. If you follow the same trajectory as the Cats your players will be suspended for showing up next year.

I've always thought that we're running about 2-3 years behind Geelong in terms of peaking. I'll be keeping an eye on this. Cheers

 

[romeohwho]

Thought it was between 1& 2 , so ok with me.

 

[Swansujelly]

Disgrace any other player would have got 3 weeks minimum

if he wasn't able to play on, probably, but he did play on. Fair enough result.

 

[calaisking]

1 week?

Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow.

Why did I expect any different

 

[romeohwho]

Like Geelong in the 2007-2009 era, Hawthorn had a very good run for a couple of years but lately have started to cop suspensions a bit more regularly. If you follow the same trajectory as the Cats your players will be suspended for showing up next year.

Geelong copped a couple of tough findings in that era but also got away with a couple-nothing to complain about from us I wouldn't have thought.

 

[docks]

I think that intentional refers to whether Buddy was intending to bump the head or not. He does get down as if to avoid the head so I think that's fair enough to classify as careless.

and Tippet??

 

[Tsongkie]

1) In 2013 Demetriou raked in $3.8 million - $1.47 million from salary and a further $2.33 from hitting KPI's ($330k was from an unlisted "performance bonus" and special $2 million bonus for hitting long-term performance bonus). McLachlan's bonuses hinge on him hitting KPI's, and he cannot hit his KPI's without the NSW market. Gillon McLachlan is aware of this and want's a bigger slice of the pie.

2) The AFL is operating a business. The AFL broadcasting rights expire at the end of 2016, the last contract (signed in 2012) went for $1.25 billion with reports indicating the new contract could climb as high as $2 billion. The AFL need Sydney and GWS performing well because winners get bums on seat, sell merchandise and attract viewers which attract advertisers. Attendance throughout Victoria is down - 7.5% at Etihad and a whopping 10% at the MCG. These loses can and have been absorbed by a increase in attendance at NSW games but a losing Sydney is no asset to the AFL, particularly when Buddy isn't playing.

3) It is quite clear that the AFL/MRP worked back from a 1 week penalty. AFL collusion with the MRP and it's adjudications would be far too obvious if Buddy and Tippet were to both get off, they decided on giving them both a week and used their criterion/matrix to justify it. That is the only reasonably conclusion one can draw from the obvious incompatibilities between what we all saw and the official MRP verdicts.

4) The MRP panel members are on 1 year contracts. If they do not adjudicate in accordance with the implicit directions of the AFL, those contracts will not be renewed. If the members are in anyway interested in self-preservation they will not rock the boat. They have mortgages at the end of the day.

Do you honestly think they (the AFL) care about upholding the rules of the game when there are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake?

 

[HowYouDoin]

Were you laughing when you saw Stefan Martin got two weeks?

Damn! Guess our final hopes are all but gone now.

 

[grouse mate]

1 week. Not as bad as being made out.

Ok, where do I collect my prize?

 

[kickthething]

Where did I say I agreed with the Gordon assessment? Stop putting words in my mouth.

Thanks for the four points though, don't forget to donate again.

No problem, I am happy to help the needy....

 

[Procrastinator35]

3) It is quite clear that the AFL/MRP worked back from a 1 week penalty. AFL collusion with the MRP and it's adjudications would be far too obvious if Buddy and Tippet were to both get off, they decided on giving them both a week and used their criterion/matrix to justify it. That is the only reasonably conclusion one can draw from the obvious incompatibilities between what we all saw and the official MRP verdicts.

4) The MRP panel members are on 1 year contracts. If they do not adjudicate in accordance with the implicit directions of the AFL, those contracts will not be renewed. If the members are in anyway interested in self-preservation they will not rock the boat. They have mortgages at the end of the day.

Do you honestly think they (the AFL) care about upholding the rules of the game when there are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake?

Finally....An overview with the perfect perspective & summation....I salute you sir.

 

[AM]

Somehow think the MRP has moved from being too harsh to too lenient. One week for Franklin is to soft. No wonder he grabbed it.

 

[flyinghi64]

2 weeks reduced to 1, read the verdict (and watch the entire passage of play).

Oh yes that old chestnut. 2 weeks plead guilty get 1.
What the hell else would you plead when you do something so obvious.

As far as watch the entire passage of play......you mean when Lance runs to the ball and decides to run over it to bump a player instead. You mean when he looks past the ball and up to Shane then braces for a bump which collects Shane high.

Fair dinkum mate, If Shane Edwards ended up getting concussed or worse and got subbed the penalty would have been much higher.
The sheer luckiness that he wasn't injured saved Lance at least 2 more weeks. That is the inconsistency I refer to. It now has nothing to do with intent or the incident just the resultant outcome.