Buddy - How many weeks?

[mick]

I would have thought the bump on Edwards was significantly worse than Franklin's bump on Malceski that kept Buddy out of the qualifying final.

Edwards had his head down and it certainly fit the "potential to cause serious injury" clause. Guerra got three weeks for similar contact with the ball a little closer. http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne...brent-guerra-round-14-match-review-incidents/
Buddy's hit on Cousins..when he had the ball..copped a bigger penalty.

I don't for one minute believe the conspiracy theories about the Swans getting a better run by the MRP, but the media certainly treats the unsociable hawks far differently than the Swans. Goodes gets defended for throwing an imaginary spear to the crowd, while Mitchell's imaginary syringe is investigated even though it was directed to opponents in the field of play.

I'm more outraged by Tippet's 1 week, I'm not sure how it was half as bad as Lewis' hit or 3 times less than Hodge's hit. I doubt the MRP conciously think that "They are Swans, let's let them off", but maybe there is some media bias that influences the result.

Edit: FCK I sound like James Hird, blaming media propaganda, man I feel a little dirty.

 

[ashep]

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.

Lake: fair dinkum choked a bloke
Lewis: wound up and swung a haymaker from behind that would make Clubber Lang proud
Hodge: threw a malicious elbow that landed square on the jaw

All 3 were FAR worse than Buddy. The penalties they got make Buddy's look spot on by comparison.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

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.

For it to be classed intentional the MRP has to prove (not just believe) that Buddy was going for his head. That's why barely any cases are deemed intentional these days, even punches to the back of the head.

The Gibbs decision was bang on.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Probably about as upset as you are relieved no doubt....Proportionally so.

Buddy in a Hawk jumper: 4 weeks down to 3...High impact & intentional.... & the entire AFL world knows it!

Did Buddy get intentional when he hit Malceski?

 

[Nostradumbass]

Hahahah 1 week.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I would have thought the bump on Edwards was significantly worse than Franklin's bump on Malceski that kept Buddy out of the qualifying final.

I agree. But the rules have changed since then.

 

[Big Sauce 21]

Should have been given the exact same suspension May got

 

[Kummerspeck]

Guerra got three weeks for similar contact with the ball a little closer. http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne...brent-guerra-round-14-match-review-incidents/
Buddy's hit on Cousins..when he had the ball..copped a bigger penalty.

Both were under a different system.

Goodes gets defended for throwing an imaginary spear to the crowd, while Mitchell's imaginary syringe is investigated even though it was directed to opponents in the field of play.

He didn't throw an imaginary spear and I don't think you can call the response he got "being defended".

I'm more outraged by Tippet's 1 week, I'm not sure how it was half as bad as Lewis' hit or 3 times less than Hodge's hit. I doubt the MRP conciously think that "They are Swans, let's let them off", but maybe there is some media bias that influences the result.

Do you believe there was media bias influencing Sam Mitchell not being suspended for elbowing a player in the face off the ball as he did against the Swans? Or Firrito punching a player in the back of the head late in a contest?[/QUOTE]

 

[Off The Couch]

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.

Let's compare the two

Jordan Lewis, Hawthorn, has been charged with striking Todd Goldstein, North Melbourne, during the first quarter of the Round Five match between Hawthorn and North Melbourne, played at Etihad Stadium on Saturday May 2, 2015.

In summary, he can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea, after the incident was classified as a three-match sanction. Media should note the MRP provided the assessment of high impact among its reasons below, based on point 4.2(b) of the Tribunal guidelines on page 9 ‘.. strong consideration will be given to the potential to cause serious injury’.

Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the North Melbourne Football Club, it was the view of the panel the incident should be classified as careless conduct with high impact to the head. The offence was classified as a three-match sanction. The player has no applicable record. An early plea can reduce the penalty to a two-match sanction.


Goldstein didn't even leave the ground
Edwards spent twenty minutes off the ground under the concussion rule
Fwiw - lewis deserved his suspension and the three weeks down to two, there is no disputing that - I'm just interested in knowing how they arrived at the two different outcomes and why clause 4.2(b) wasn't used here

 

[JackFlash]

1 week for running past the ball and smashing into an opponent forcing him from the field for an extended time. Yep, the MRP are on the ball again, you have to really wonder if there is any intelligence at all associated with the MRP? Buddy is dead set lucky that wasn't a minimum of 2 weeks.

 

[demon21]

Can't believe how many soft people in here or is it that people just hate Syd and Franklin, I have no problem with Buddy only getting 1 week i think lot of people are overreacting he went for the bump and caught him high so misses 1 week im ok with that.

 

[ashep]

This persecution complex some - only some - Hawks fans have is utterly bizarre.

Seems to me it would make sense for Swans fans to err on the side of defending one of their players but the way Hawthorn fans seem to flock to any Swans-related thread to complain about conspiracies on the rest of the AFL's behalf is pretty sad.

You'd think giving us the mother of all hidings last year would be satisfaction enough...

 

[kaiserchief13]

Franklin's bump was not the same force as Tippett's strike so how are they both assessed as the same impact? Edwards needed to go off and get checked out so you would've thought it would be high impact. Tippett's as medium impact, was either that or low impact.

 

[Ordovician]

Lake: fair dinkum choked a bloke
Lewis: wound up and swung a haymaker from behind that would make Clubber Lang proud
Hodge: threw a malicious elbow that landed square on the jaw

All 3 were FAR worse than Buddy. The penalties they got make Buddy's look spot on by comparison.

You are moron.

It was a forearm not an elbow.

Hodge's blow was aimed squarely at the top of Swallow's chest and as Swallow was leaning backwards the blow slipped up the chest and made weakish contact under the jaw. There was no contact above the underside of the jaw. The bulk of the blow fell on the neck and anyone other than a fool like you would realise that a serious blow to the neck will disrupt blood flow to the brain and potentially cause serious injury.

But hey being a fool let's not let reality impinge on the discussion.

 

[DrEvil_]

I agree. But the teams have changed since then.

EFA

 

[ashep]

You are ******* moron.

Missing a word there champ.

What did I get wrong?

 

[Here2tellyouwhy]

Oooh oooh my turn to melt.
Steven May likes this

May 2 weeks.
Gibbs 2 weeks.
Yeo gets the same penalty as Buddy for a miss spoil.

Fist is inches from the ball and after the contact Yeo's arm flings back meaning it wasn't a roundhouse cheap hit.
Yeo got a week and probally deserved it because it was a whack in the head.

If Buddy had the ball then it's 1 week or a fine but he lined Edwards up and his arm even followed through after the impact. Eyes only on the player and he lowered himself into the bump.
It was a decent hard shirt front. Not a oopsie bump in the contest.

So which one was worse?
MRP as consistent as ever.

 

[Tyrone Time]

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

Brian Lake says Hi.

 

[ashep]

Brian Lake says Hi.

Drew Petrie's trying to say Hi back.

 

[BloodRet]

"If he was in a Hawthorn jumper, he would have been rubbed out for a month!!!" waaaa waaa



I would just like to leave this here for the flogs saying that. He got one week for this, too, which was not nearly as bad.

 

[MAGPIE2013]

Even dinosaurs are less endangered than the sydney swans

 

[Spook]

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

But what about the potential to cause injury? You know the rule that seems only to have ever been used twice!

 

[Hoops]

There's more Sydney related threads on their board than there is on ours.

With Geelongs demise hopefully the obsession passes on to you guys. Just a tip, it can be like talking to a ******ed kid it's best just to nod and smile.

 

[mick]

Both were under a different system.

He didn't throw an imaginary spear and I don't think you can call the response he got "being defended".


Do you believe there was media bias influencing Sam Mitchell not being suspended for elbowing a player in the face off the ball as he did against the Swans? Or Firrito punching a player in the back of the head late in a contest?

[/QUOTE]

Yep, different system, but given that Buddy is the only player to be reported for a high bump since the inception of the new system then what are we to compare it to?

Most articles called it a spear, including the supportive article one from Flanagan, or are you saying he stabbed rather than threw the spear? I don't think it matters. Goodes was inflaming the crowd and Mitchell was sledging an opponent. Mitchell was put in the position of having to apologise and still be investigated while Goodes (rightly) was defended by the AFL.com, AGE and ABC.

I don't recall the Mitchell or Firrito incidents, I do remember Mitchell being investigated for raising a defensive knee toward an oncoming Tex Walker bump, no doubt because of Sheehans scurrilous accusations in 08 about Mitchell and Hodge deliberately corking opponents on a weekly basis.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Yep, different system, but given that Buddy is the only player to be reported for a high bump since the inception of the new system then what are we to compare it to?

Buddy is not the only player to be reported for a high bump this year and even if that were true, comparisons to the old system would still be meaningless.