Buddy - How many weeks?

[Kummerspeck]

The force of impact graded as medium where others who do not knock out players get graded as high - if this had been the case it would have been 3 down to 2 which would have been a fair result. It also is a bit convenient that his prior record got wiped given his multiple prior high contact bumps. Yet a Freo poster earlier mentioned Ballantyne still had a bad record loading.

Edwards wasn't knocked out and MRP points were wiped (for every player in the league), not records. Jesus, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Mummy - Ellard same as the Gibbs one that some think was harsh. Barry Hall - Wakelin suspended for attempted strike I'm not sure i've seen too many suspensions for zero contact (admittedly without context of the Staker incident was probably for the best). The Lewis suspension in my opinion is just the look of it and not properly adjudicated. A bump gone wrong just seems part of football unless those shoulder in the head ones with a player bent over. Swinging arm in the snoz a bit late just has that vintage Rob Muir look to it. I totally agree he copped a tough suspension but the conspiracy line is just garbage. Some clubs have players who are hard at it and walk a fine line others are just bloody clumsy and should give it up. Hawthorn have a culture of hard take no prisoners football and therefore will have more suspensions due to that fine line and the unpredictability of body mechanics . However the culture also has lead to premierships. I think Freo after years of being a bit laughed at have adopted a bit of mongrel but don't execute the hard stuff as well and have had a few clumsy suspensions but it's a smart road to go down.

Swans are pretty useless at the rough stuff and I think this year are trying to respond to an insipid GF performance. Doesn't suit our list for the most part but if we continue with it don't worry we will have our fair share of suspensions ahead. At some point you have to match or better the best if you want t dominate.

Anyway off on a tangent.............um yeah Buddy getting a week....seemed ok to me ha ha

Wish more swans supporters were like yourself acknowledging your good fortune in this instance.

Re Hall vs Wakelin - Rioli also got done for attempted striking with no contact (I think he was the last). This was a charge that was used more in the Neil Busse Tribunal days (late 80s/ early 90s) if I recall; I think Rioli was the only one they tried to do under the points system which gave the ridiculously large number of activation points because he got 3 points for intentional and force of contact disregarded because the charge was attempted striking. While other charges got thrown out for insufficient force.

 

[bkozican]

There is nothing wrong with it at.

Except for the fact the way the bump has been adjudicated recently flies in the face of this decision.

Spot on, but how about the precedent that was set with the Lewis case?

Lewis 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’.

The new system was brought in to provide consistency and transparency, so why hasn't Buddys bump been tried under the same rules as Lewis'? Collecting a bloke in the head while running at full tilt should surely be seen as having the potential to cause serious injury.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Edwards wasn't knocked out and MRP points were wiped (for every player in the league), not records. Jesus, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

http://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/2015-04-14/ballantyne-accepts-suspension

So why was Ballantyne's record not wiped then?

Edwards didn't bounce straight up that's for sure. While Swallow and Goldstein did. I would think that high impact should mean a more severe impact than a medium one, so expect more damage, or player to be more injured. So lets see - Edwards dazed on ground, has to have concussion test. No such test needed for Swallow or Goldstein.

And I'm the one without a clue. I'd rolleyes you, but that'd be a waste of a rolleyes.

 

[Procrastinator35]

'Unsociable' Hawks are good guys compared to some
Date
June 29, 2015 - 8:37PM

Jesse Hogan
Sports writer for The Age
View more articles from Jesse Hogan

Follow Jesse on Twitter Email Jesse

Bad guys? Hawthorn and North Melbourne players wrestle with each other after a high hit by Luke Hodge on Andrew Swallow in round five. Photo: Getty Images

• Follow the Age Sport on Twitter

They've built a reputation around their brand of "unsociable football", the club that plays closest to the edge, in terms of aggression. But how do Hawthorn stack up in a forensic look at clubs' recent records before the tribunal and match review panel?

Jordan Lewis and Luke Hodge have been suspended this season, defenders Josh Gibson and Ben Stratton were fined in round 12 for off-the-ball striking incidents while Sam Mitchell has received significant media scrutiny in the past fortnight, first for a collision in which he made contact with his knee to Taylor Walker that the Adelaide captain reckoned was deliberate and a provocative injecting gesture to Essendon players ensnared in the WADA doping probe.

Nevertheless, the reigning premiers rank comfortably in the middle for both the number of players charged with offences and the number of matches missed as a result.

Since the start of 2011 there have been 25 instances in which a Hawthorn player has either accepted or been found guilty of an offence that could have resulted in suspension, rather than an offence like wrestling which exclusively triggers financial penalties. While that is 10 more than the league's best-behaved teams on that measure, it is 11 fewer than Fremantle.

Seven of the Dockers' 35 charges over that period are for one player: Hayden Ballantyne.

The Swans fare best in terms of matches missed due to suspension. Since 2011 their players have missed only nine matches. Even if the imminent one-match suspensions for Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett were included they would still sit on top, ahead of Adelaide, Port Adelaide and Western Bulldogs. They were the first suspensions for Swans since Ben McGlynn received a three-match for striking in round 16, 2013.

Besides Sydney, the next-best for both fewest charges and fewest matches missed is Collingwood, with Western Bulldogs and the Crows also faring well.

By contrast, Geelong fare worst across both rankings. With 35 charges over the past four and a half years they are only one behind the Dockers. Their players have also missed a total of 33 matches over that period, more than Richmond (30), North Melbourne (29) and Essendon and Melbourne (27). The Cats' poor ranking is weighed down by incidents between 2011 and 2013. Over the past season and a half their players have missed a total of five matches, all of them one-match bans. Over that period there have been only eight instances of players being charged.

The Kangaroos are the closest club to Geelong for poor rankings in both proven charges and matches missed due to suspension. Six of their players have been fined this year, although all were for incidents mild enough to escape with a fine rather than suspension.

CHARGES LAID SINCE 2011: BEST TO WORST

Eq 1. Sydney, GWS* (15 charges)
3. Collingwood (17)
Eq 4. Port Adelaide, Western Bulldogs (18)
Eq 6. Adelaide, Carlton (19)
8. Gold Coast (20)
9. Brisbane (24)
10. Hawthorn (25)
11. Melbourne (27)
Eq 12. Richmond, St Kilda (28)
14. Essendon (30)
15. West Coast (32)
16. North Melbourne (34)
17. Geelong (35)
18. Fremantle (36)

MATCHES MISSED SINCE 2011: BEST TO WORST

1. Sydney (9)
Eq 2. Adelaide Port Adelaide, Western Bulldogs (12)
5. Collingwood (14)
6. GWS* (15)
7. Brisbane (17)
8. St Kilda (21)
Eq 9. Carlton, West Coast (23)
11. Hawthorn (25)
Eq 12. Fremantle, Gold Coast (26)
Eq 14. Essendon, Melbourne (27)
16. North Melbourne (29)
17. Richmond (30)
18. Geelong (33)

Excludes offences which only trigger fines, such as wrestling, and charges overturned at tribunal. GWS not enter league until 2012.

 

[Kummerspeck]

http://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/2015-04-14/ballantyne-accepts-suspension

So why was Ballantyne's record not wiped then?

Because no one's record was wiped, their MRP points were.

Edwards didn't bounce straight up that's for sure.

Yeah that's great, he wasn't knocked out like you tried to claim.

And I'm the one without a clue.

Well, given that you asked why Ballantyne's record wasn't wiped in direct response to a quote from me where I said MRP points were wiped, not records...

yeah.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Because no one's record was wiped, their MRP points were.


Yeah that's great, he wasn't knocked out like you tried to claim.


Well, given that you asked why Ballantyne's record wasn't wiped in direct response to a quote from me where I said MRP points were wiped, not records...

yeah.

And did I ever say it was buddy's points that were the issue? I said his record seems to have been wiped when he has been suspended 5 times over 6 years or so, with the most recent being when he, as other swans posters put it, "cleaned up" Malceski. Thought bad records were based off what you had done in the past 5 years in terms of loading.

Oh yeah, misread your post about mrp vs records.

 

[Swansujelly]

bunch of currents..the defence rests..

 

[Swansujelly]

'Unsociable' Hawks are good guys compared to some
Date
June 29, 2015 - 8:37PM

Jesse Hogan
Sports writer for The Age
View more articles from Jesse Hogan

Follow Jesse on Twitter Email Jesse

Bad guys? Hawthorn and North Melbourne players wrestle with each other after a high hit by Luke Hodge on Andrew Swallow in round five. Photo: Getty Images

• Follow the Age Sport on Twitter

They've built a reputation around their brand of "unsociable football", the club that plays closest to the edge, in terms of aggression. But how do Hawthorn stack up in a forensic look at clubs' recent records before the tribunal and match review panel?

Jordan Lewis and Luke Hodge have been suspended this season, defenders Josh Gibson and Ben Stratton were fined in round 12 for off-the-ball striking incidents while Sam Mitchell has received significant media scrutiny in the past fortnight, first for a collision in which he made contact with his knee to Taylor Walker that the Adelaide captain reckoned was deliberate and a provocative injecting gesture to Essendon players ensnared in the WADA doping probe.

Nevertheless, the reigning premiers rank comfortably in the middle for both the number of players charged with offences and the number of matches missed as a result.

Since the start of 2011 there have been 25 instances in which a Hawthorn player has either accepted or been found guilty of an offence that could have resulted in suspension, rather than an offence like wrestling which exclusively triggers financial penalties. While that is 10 more than the league's best-behaved teams on that measure, it is 11 fewer than Fremantle.

Seven of the Dockers' 35 charges over that period are for one player: Hayden Ballantyne.

The Swans fare best in terms of matches missed due to suspension. Since 2011 their players have missed only nine matches. Even if the imminent one-match suspensions for Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett were included they would still sit on top, ahead of Adelaide, Port Adelaide and Western Bulldogs. They were the first suspensions for Swans since Ben McGlynn received a three-match for striking in round 16, 2013.

Besides Sydney, the next-best for both fewest charges and fewest matches missed is Collingwood, with Western Bulldogs and the Crows also faring well.

By contrast, Geelong fare worst across both rankings. With 35 charges over the past four and a half years they are only one behind the Dockers. Their players have also missed a total of 33 matches over that period, more than Richmond (30), North Melbourne (29) and Essendon and Melbourne (27). The Cats' poor ranking is weighed down by incidents between 2011 and 2013. Over the past season and a half their players have missed a total of five matches, all of them one-match bans. Over that period there have been only eight instances of players being charged.

The Kangaroos are the closest club to Geelong for poor rankings in both proven charges and matches missed due to suspension. Six of their players have been fined this year, although all were for incidents mild enough to escape with a fine rather than suspension.

CHARGES LAID SINCE 2011: BEST TO WORST

Eq 1. Sydney, GWS* (15 charges)
3. Collingwood (17)
Eq 4. Port Adelaide, Western Bulldogs (18)
Eq 6. Adelaide, Carlton (19)
8. Gold Coast (20)
9. Brisbane (24)
10. Hawthorn (25)
11. Melbourne (27)
Eq 12. Richmond, St Kilda (28)
14. Essendon (30)
15. West Coast (32)
16. North Melbourne (34)
17. Geelong (35)
18. Fremantle (36)

MATCHES MISSED SINCE 2011: BEST TO WORST

1. Sydney (9)
Eq 2. Adelaide Port Adelaide, Western Bulldogs (12)
5. Collingwood (14)
6. GWS* (15)
7. Brisbane (17)
8. St Kilda (21)
Eq 9. Carlton, West Coast (23)
11. Hawthorn (25)
Eq 12. Fremantle, Gold Coast (26)
Eq 14. Essendon, Melbourne (27)
16. North Melbourne (29)
17. Richmond (30)
18. Geelong (33)

Excludes offences which only trigger fines, such as wrestling, and charges overturned at tribunal. GWS not enter league until 2012.

why limit it too 2011. statistical error?

 

[Kummerspeck]

And did I ever say it was buddy's points that were the issue? I said his record seems to have been wiped when he has been suspended 5 times over 6 years or so, with the most recent being when he, as other swans posters put it, "cleaned up" Malceski. Thought bad records were based off what you had done in the past 5 years in terms of loading.

Well, needless to say you're wrong.

 

[Swansujelly]

Well, needless to say you're wrong.

it completely shits me when rules are changed..

 

[Procrastinator35]

why limit it too 2011. statistical error?

Wouldn't matter....Swans always come out smelling of roses at the MRP....Stats prove you're the Protected Species of the AFL.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

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.

Lewis on Goldstein was found to be high impact, yet Goldstein played out the game too.
Thats where I and a few others struggle with the consistency.

 

[Banyo Bloods]

Wouldn't matter....Swans always come out smelling of roses at the MRP....Stats prove you're the Protected Species of the AFL.

Stats prove we have better discipline than other teams

 

[MightyHawks]

Okay, so he didn't aim for the head, therefore intentional was out. With carryover points wiped and the new system, two weeks was what it was going to get.

Hodge didn't intentionally try and hit Swallow in the head

He aimed for the chest and missed

Still classed as intentional

This has been argued at the tribunal before - tribunal always the same

Buddy intentionally bumped and got the head - should have been classed as intentional, amazing how it wasn't

The MRP statement is saying he didn't intentionally try and bump his opponent

 

[MightyHawks]

Nothing wrong with the bump imo

Ran past the ball? The ball is within 5 metres so no problem there.
Intention? The intent is to hit...clearly. That isnt illegal
Impact? Seems moderate but isnt enough to knock him out. He gets up and takes his kick
High contact? Some contact if you slow it down but is really all on the upper chest

Conclusion, just a good old shirtfront. Some of you need to learn that footy is a contact sport and the bump/shirtfront is apart of the game.

Its the most severe bump Buddy has delivered yet - interpretation on Bud seems to have changed since he changed teams



There's a 4 down to 3 for you

 

[Bayer_]

Stats prove we have better discipline than other teams

And protected players allowed to lead with their legs and interfere with defenders on the goal line, now even squirrel gripping.

 

[Banyo Bloods]

And protected players allowed to lead with their legs and interfere with defenders on the goal line, now even squirrel gripping.

Oh going for individuals not team. Suspended for leading with his legs not protected. Shepherds on the goal line which restrict a player happen every week and very very rarely ever get called and if you are that easily mislead by media with a photo then simply there is no hope for you. Simply a more disciplined unit doesn't mean it makes them a better team so stop getting your knickers in a knot.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Its the most severe bump Buddy has delivered yet - interpretation on Bud seems to have changed since he changed teams



There's a 4 down to 3 for you

dangerous for sure but only half as dangerous as Buddy on Edwards.

You can just imagine Buddy snapping their hand off when he got 2 down to 1 offer, and running for the door before they changed their minds.

 

[Swansujelly]

Wouldn't matter....Swans always come out smelling of roses at the MRP....Stats prove you're the Protected Species of the AFL.

wow..you angry..Randy, get your Dad to settle..

 

[Swansujelly]

Its the most severe bump Buddy has delivered yet - interpretation on Bud seems to have changed since he changed teams



There's a 4 down to 3 for you

umm, that wasn't Buddy?

 

[MightyHawks]

umm, that wasn't Buddy?

Thats a 4 weeks down to 3 bump - & with less force than this weeks Buddy bump

 

[YippeeYiYeo]

You mean like when the league banned us from trading for following league rules? Yes. I can see how preferential that is to us.

That was because you made the AFL look stupid by signing tippett and buddy.

Goodes has been given preferential treatment countless times by the MRP. Same with Hall, and now buddy

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Fair penalty, lets just move on. Was always copping a week or two, and frankly needed a rest anyway. Just wish it wasn't this week that is all.

 

[HawkMongrel]

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

of course they want to be us!!

ROFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

Why the f**k would we want to be you?