Buddy - How many weeks?

[Lemma]

I just don't understand how Buddy gets 1 and May gets 3??? Can someone point out how May's incident was worse?

 

[telsor]

Clearly the Swans discount is still going strong.

 

[Brad_12345]

I just don't understand how Buddy gets 1 and May gets 3??? Can someone point out how May's incident was worse?

Based on this year its because rockliff got injured, if edwards got injured he would of got the same, should not matter, mrp is ****ed atm

 

[StevenwellerHFC]

IMO I don't think it's a good look for the Hawthorn football for it's supporters to be complaining about it, just accept it and move on.

Some things may go our way and some won't, but we just have to focus on what we have to do and not give any ****s about other clubs.

This will be meaningless come september.

 

[Stopher]

Should have been given the exact same suspension May got

Ha! I completely forgot about that one, but you are right. How the **** can they determine a 2-week penalty difference between those two incidents? If the only thing is the injury suffered, then we may as well give up, as I always remember Selwood getting multiple weeks for a bitch slap to the side of an opponent's head that caused a perforated eardrum. Joke.

 

[Procrastinator35]

No problems at all. I just note that you get worked up a lot. It's unhealthy. Cheers.

Your obsession with me as a poster is also unhealthy....Cheers

I just don't understand how Buddy gets 1 and May gets 3??? Can someone point out how May's incident was worse?

Buddy copped 2 weeks every time in a Hawks jumper for way less than what he did on Friday night....Waaaaaaay less.

This will be meaningless come september.

Not at all....The discounted penalty, so incommensurate as it is with the facts of the matter, will directly impact on where the Swans finish on the ladder come September....To suggest otherwise is a very short-ranged view not cognizant of all the permutations, of which the AFL is so painfully aware in their cynical decisions & media complicit silence on the matter.

 

[scoman]

So if it comes down to if a player gets seriously injured (see May on Rockliff) does that mean Luke Brown is in serious doubt to play next week after Steph Martin struck him in the neck. Or was Sam Mitchell ruled out with an injury to his ribs when Rocky gave him a tap last year or whoever Goddard walked in the guts a while back?
Might not be making much sense but it just seems that any of the classifications can be twisted to result in the length of suspension the AFL tribunal wants at the time.

 

[MinerBoy]

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.

I got no issue with Buddy's 1 week. If he got 0 I'd be ok..... but I'm confused...are you saying that he got 1 for the Malceski hit that isn't nearly as bad? Because that's kind of what everyone else is saying.

 

[BloodRet]

I got no issue with Buddy's 1 week. If he got 0 I'd be ok..... but I'm confused...are you saying that he got 1 for the Malceski hit that isn't nearly as bad? Because that's kind of what everyone else is saying.

Just as bad*

 

[Big Mart]

Disgraceful, laughable,

What Buddy did, was intentionally run past the ball with intent to take a player out that was bent over... It's the very action that needs to be eradicated as it can cause severe injury and DOES not need to occur. What if the same action caused injury... Oh, then he gets more weeks
So we adjudicate on outcome not intent or action... That's a farcical system...

Buddy could do the more courageous thing and actually put his nose over the ball.

Steven may attempted to clear a path so he could defend and accidentally bumped high, without intention. Unfortunately you can't avoid accidental contact... The intent was clearly to get a play on the ball.

Either it's incompetance or bias?

Either way it is a shameful decision, and another reason idiots are ruining the great game!!!!

One of the most pathetic rulings in recent memory,

 

[StevenwellerHFC]

Not at all....The discounted penalty, so incommensurate as it is with the facts of the matter, will directly impact on where the Swans finish on the ladder come September.

Oh I understand this, although we can jump them on the ladder in a few weeks, the AFL won't be able to stop us.

 

[MinerBoy]

Just as bad*

Like I said, no issue with this penalty, but I can't agree with that assessment. Shoulder to shoulder v front on contact.

 

[Mister B]

Ha! I completely forgot about that one, but you are right. How the **** can they determine a 2-week penalty difference between those two incidents? If the only thing is the injury suffered, then we may as well give up, as I always remember Selwood getting multiple weeks for a bitch slap to the side of an opponent's head that caused a perforated eardrum. Joke.

Buddy 2 weeks reduced to 1 with early plea (official finding is 2 weeks). May 3 weeks reduced to 2 for early plea but challenged and lost so back to 3. Selective to say a two week penalty difference.

Official decision differed only in the impact. Franklin graded as medium, May as High. May's hit resulted in a ko for memory? Franklin's opponent was still capable of playing. I'm struggling to see how people think that is unreasonable.

 

[Big Mart]

Wonder how many weeks Steven Baker would have got??

Perhaps execution?!

 

[MinerBoy]

Buddy 2 weeks reduced to 1 with early plea (official finding is 2 weeks). May 3 weeks reduced to 2 for early plea but challenged and lost so back to 3. Selective to say a two week penalty difference.

Official decision differed only in the impact. Franklin graded as medium, May as High. May's hit resulted in a fractured jaw for memory? Franklin's opponent was still capable of playing. I'm struggling to see how people think that is unreasonable.

Your explanation is precise and explains it clearly.

I guess it comes back to intent again and malicious v accidental in terms of how people process it.

I don't think Buddy was dirty by any means, but the choice to go past the ball and actually run through the player (which I actually don't mind as long as he doesn't get him high) v May simply trying to win the battle to get the ball ..... Buddy was also front on whereas May was more side on, so despite getting Rockliff high, it wasn't really a case of lining him up and running through him at the expense of competing for the ball him so much as accidentally getting high trying to compete for the space to win the ball.

In this regard I think May was desperately unlucky.

 

[Big Mart]

Because Steven May was competing for the footy and did what any good defender would do in that circumstance... Yes it was forceful, as he was being hard at the ball... And player... But it was a block that clipped him high. His intent was to clear a path to the footy, so when he picked it up he'd be clear and not user pressure

Buddy, cowardly ran over the ball like Byron Pickett used to, and made a soft effort to give a 1970s shirtfront to a guy Bent over.
He chose not to have a crack at the footy and tried (weak as piss) to make a physical point.
Buddy has many magical traits... Intimidation and courage are not his strong point...

 

[Mister B]

Your explanation is precise and explains it clearly.

I guess it comes back to intent again and malicious v accidental in terms of how people process it.

I don't think Buddy was dirty by any means, but the choice to go past the ball and actually run through the player (which I actually don't mind as long as he doesn't get him high) v May simply trying to win the battle to get the ball ..... Buddy was also front on whereas May was more side on, so despite getting Rockliff high, it wasn't really a case of lining him up and running through him at the expense of competing for the ball him so much as accidentally getting high trying to compete for the space to win the ball.

In this regard I think May was desperately unlucky.

This is exactly the point. Is Franklin's finding as horrendous as people are making out or was it in fact the May finding that was horrendous. I would say the latter.

 

[Big Sauce 21]

I thought Mays suspension was spot on. 2 weeks. Franklin deserves 3 or 4

 

[Mister B]

I thought Mays suspension was spot on. 2 weeks. Franklin deserves 3 or 4

So Intentional, high impact and high contact straight to the tribunal?

 

[Big Sauce 21]

So Intentional, high impact and high contact straight to the tribunal?

I don't speak tribunal ?

 

[MinerBoy]

This is exactly the point. Is Franklin's finding as horrendous as people are making out or was it in fact the May finding that was horrendous. I would say the latter.

May should have been applauded for great play while Rockliff should have just been considered unlucky. As it was, they both ended up unlucky.

May's decision was a disgrace. Buddy's is ok. I'm surprised based on his history and on the May decision that he got off so lightly, but in isolation I have no issue with it.

 

[YippeeYiYeo]

amazing that Yeo got suspended for the same amount of time as Franklins hit. Absolute joke. If it were a prelim final Buddy probably would have just got a fine

 

[Mister B]

May should have been applauded for great play while Rockliff should have just been considered unlucky. As it was, they both ended up unlucky.

May's decision was a disgrace. Buddy's is ok. I'm surprised based on his history and on the May decision that he got off so lightly, but in isolation I have no issue with it.

He got lucky with the history as it is a new system, all players have had their records cleared in terms of "bad records".

 

[Banyo Bloods]

This is exactly the point. Is Franklin's finding as horrendous as people are making out or was it in fact the May finding that was horrendous. I would say the latter.

Fair call and backed up with them challenging it

 

[Mister B]

I don't speak tribunal ?

Yes, I know. That's why you and others are throwing 3-4 week sentences around as options when they aren't working within the current system.