Buddy - How many weeks?

[Crows4Eva]

Very lucky to only get one IMO, looked pretty bad, guess he's just fortunate the guy he hit wasn't badly hurt or he'd have copped a few more.

 

[Swansujelly]

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

waa waa Bill Burr..it's like a Philly Pitcher..

 

[Kummerspeck]

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

He aimed for the chest and missed

Lol.

 

[Big Mart]

The Hawthorn vs Sydney thing is ****ing me here

Has nothing to do with the jumper and more to do with the player, and what the desired outcome is, with a corrupt money making machine like the AFL.

How many times to I hear cliched crap like,
"We don't want to see good players missing" by dumb arses like Wayne Carey.
Bogan supporters who idolise these morons actually believe ridiculous comments like this... Just listen to SEN and listen to the regurgitated crap from callers, who can't think for themselves.

Fact is, the player shouldn't matter, and reality is... It obviously does.

Even happens in games with decisions.

Can anyone honestly suggest
Hayden Ballantine, Steven Milne, Steven Baker, Ryan Crowly or any random player who is not a glamour boy star... Would not have fared worse?!
Seriously Baker got 9 weeks for a check on Jeff Farmer, which gave him a blood nose, in which he stopped in front of him and Jeff ran into the back of him. There was no video, Wiz supported Bakes and the tribunal dismissed the evidence.

Often the competition is corrupt (Hall vs Maguire) to get desired outcomes.

Buddy on the sidelines, does not help 'grow the game'
FFS

 

[Hardhat11]

We've now set the bar ...unless you injure the guy it's 1 week

It's was 3-2 ...not 2-1

The afl has always favoured swans ...

 

[Crankyhawk]

That's kind of a key part of the grading. You can't just ignore it because it ****s with your outrage. "Well, I don't think he intended to hit him in the head, but I do think he intended to bump." Yeah, no shit.
?

Looks like Patrick Smith and David king also say this should have been graded as intentional.

Dear god my viewpoint must be in trouble then...

 

[hawker11]

This verdict spoke volumes of the AFL and its affiliated media.

 

[wallyt99]

A snip from Mark Evans (AFL Operations manager and tribunal boss) was played on SEN this morning.

Try to recall verbatim:

"Yes I popped into the MRP to see how they were going - they did consider a higher penalty for one case but ultimately were confident the decisions were in line with their past decisions."

WTF was he doing at the MRP?!

This clearly indicates interference with the process.... 'shit the boss is here better go easy on Buddy'.

The AFL is rotten from the head down. It has more control over the media than the liberal party.

 

[Caj]

A snip from Mark Evans (AFL Operations manager and tribunal boss) was played on SEN this morning.

Try to recall verbatim:

"Yes I popped into the MRP to see how they were going - they did consider a higher penalty for one case but ultimately were confident the decisions were in line with their past decisions."

WTF was he doing at the MRP?!

This clearly indicates interference with the process.... 'shit the boss is here better go easy on Buddy'.

The AFL is rotten from the head down. It has more control over the media than the liberal party.

Yes, lucky Buddy only to one week as we've got to face the mighty Brisbane Lions in 2 weeks time and we really need him for such a danger game

 

[dread and might]

Yes, lucky Buddy only to one week as we've got to face the mighty Brisbane Lions in 2 weeks time and we really need him for such a danger game

If we play like we did on Friday, they could beat us

 

[smeltitdeltit]

We've now set the bar ...unless you injure the guy it's 1 week

It's was 3-2 ...not 2-1

The afl has always favoured swans ...

Neither Lewis or hodge hurt their North melbourne counter part, neither did others..

 

[Maddo11]

Neither Lewis or hodge hurt their North melbourne counter part, neither did others..

Hodge and Lewis were done for gutless strikes though. Bumps are still a legal part of footy at least.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

Hodge and Lewis were done for gutless strikes though. Bumps are still a legal part of footy at least.

That gets taken into account in the table offenses - strike vs rough conduct.
They other two variables are intent and impact.
You don't get a double hit, ie more penalty for a strike, as well as increased the impact because it was a strike.

And Buddy's wasn't legal, if so, why are we even having this convo?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

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 about the most sensible post I've read on it. FWIW, I think Buddy should have got 3. I hate it when players hit a bloke bending over. But it stems back to all the screaming last year about how confusing the MRP was. It wasn't confusing. It was simple. And it still is (although now it is stupid). But for this you can blame all the bush lawyers like Dermott. The meaning of "intentional" hasn't changed. No one ever gets intentional because you have to prove 1. the act was intentional (easy in this case) and 2. the contact was intentional (he deliberately got him in the head). To prove 2. you have to be inside Buddy's mind. It's not like it was a king hit. There were alternative explanations. He might have been trying to get him in the hips. In fact, the way he bends to bump, that is probably what he was doing.

I don't know why the AFL don't simply appoint someone to explain properly how the system works. By giving all the oxygen on the matter to flogs like Derm, it's no wonder people are confused.

 

[Maddo11]

That gets taken into account in the table offenses - strike vs rough conduct.
They other two variables are intent and impact.
You don't get a double hit, ie more penalty for a strike, as well as increased the impact because it was a strike.

And Buddy's wasn't legal, if so, why are we even having this convo?

I didn't say buddy's bump was legal, I said that you can still legally bump. I'm content that getting 2 weeks down to one for a poorly executed legal act is appropriate.
Throwing punches and elbows and hitting blokes behind the play is where players should be getting 2+ weeks.

And didn't Hodges go straight to the tribunal?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

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

Still the only player ever to have served weeks for sliding.

 

[Mister B]

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

Yes we made the AFL look silly and they reacted by implementing an unjustifiable and unfair penalty. Hardly preferential treatment.

Now on to the MRP "preferential treatment".
Goodes
2007 Rd 5 Charging Simon Godfrey (Melbourne) Guilty (early plea) Reprimand and 70.31 carry-over points [20][21]
2008 Rd 2 Striking Matt Thomas (Port Adelaide) Not guilty (won at tribunal) – [22]
Rd 11 Rough conduct Adam Selwood (West Coast) Guilty (early plea) Reprimand and 93.75 carry-over points [23]
Rd 13 Engaging in rough conduct (1) Clint Bartram (Melbourne) Guilty (early plea) One-match suspension [24]
2012 Rd 3 Rough conduct Jacob Surjan (Port Adelaide) Guilty (lost at tribunal) One-match suspension and 80.75 demerit points
That's a lot of guilty verdicts for someone given preference.

Buddy
You could try to argue intentional and medium rather than careless and medium. That gets one extra week. Does that justify the complete outrage on here?

Hall
Hall was able to escape suspension based on the rules as they stood at the time. The hit on McGuire was by legal definition in play and the Swans defence team knew it. There was nothing the AFL could do about it. That's not preferential treatment, that's following the rules as they stood at the time. Unless you are suggesting they should have not followed the rules to manufacture a severe punishment? Now that sounds rather bias.

Let's also not forget Hall was suspended for a week for "attempting to strike" Wakelin of Collingwood. How many players have been suspended for attempting to strike? How many have actually struck a person and been let off for insufficient contact? So attempting to strike is worse that hitting a person but being to weak to do damage? Sounds like Hall was harshly done by to me. While in the Red and White no doubt.

The hysteria surrounding this is laughable, all for Franklin receiving one week less than most of us thought.

 

[Bayer_]

Barry Hall should have been given a year's ban in 2008, and ended up getting I think 7 weeks, which happened to coincide with him inuring his hand in the same game. The man was a recidivist animal who got a very easy ride in the end.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Barry Hall should have been given a year's ban in 2008, and ended up getting I think 7 weeks, which happened to coincide with him inuring his hand in the same game. The man was a recidivist animal who got a very easy ride in the end.

Hall did exactly the same thing as Hodge. Turned and threw a punch. He was just more accurate. And more damaging.

Intentional. High. Severe. 7 weeks.

Intentional. High. Medium. 3 weeks.

Seems Hodge is the AFL's love child.

 

[MightyHawks]

Yes we made the AFL look silly and they reacted by implementing an unjustifiable and unfair penalty. Hardly preferential treatment.

Now on to the MRP "preferential treatment".
Goodes
2007 Rd 5 Charging Simon Godfrey (Melbourne) Guilty (early plea) Reprimand and 70.31 carry-over points [20][21]
2008 Rd 2 Striking Matt Thomas (Port Adelaide) Not guilty (won at tribunal) – [22]
Rd 11 Rough conduct Adam Selwood (West Coast) Guilty (early plea) Reprimand and 93.75 carry-over points [23]
Rd 13 Engaging in rough conduct (1) Clint Bartram (Melbourne) Guilty (early plea) One-match suspension [24]
2012 Rd 3 Rough conduct Jacob Surjan (Port Adelaide) Guilty (lost at tribunal) One-match suspension and 80.75 demerit points
That's a lot of guilty verdicts for someone given preference.

Buddy
You could try to argue intentional and medium rather than careless and medium. That gets one extra week. Does that justify the complete outrage on here?

Hall
Hall was able to escape suspension based on the rules as they stood at the time. The hit on McGuire was by legal definition in play and the Swans defence team knew it. There was nothing the AFL could do about it. That's not preferential treatment, that's following the rules as they stood at the time. Unless you are suggesting they should have not followed the rules to manufacture a severe punishment? Now that sounds rather bias.

Let's also not forget Hall was suspended for a week for "attempting to strike" Wakelin of Collingwood. How many players have been suspended for attempting to strike? How many have actually struck a person and been let off for insufficient contact? So attempting to strike is worse that hitting a person but being to weak to do damage? Sounds like Hall was harshly done by to me. While in the Red and White no doubt.

The hysteria surrounding this is laughable, all for Franklin receiving one week less than most of us thought.

Buddy has made 2 bumps at Sydney... He got nothing for the first one and 1 week for the second (the heaviest bump he's ever laid)- in all his time at Hawthorn he never got such favourable treatment

For Goodes - check out his bump on Selwood last year

It's obvious to all that the Swans get a more than favourable run at the tribunal

 

[Bayer_]

Hall did exactly the same thing as Hodge. Turned and threw a punch. He was just more accurate. And more damaging.

Intentional. High. Severe. 7 weeks.

Intentional. High. Medium. 3 weeks.

Seems Hodge is the AFL's love child.

Hodgey never intended to damage, and he didn't. Hall would have been facing prison time if he'd done what he did off the field. Two or three orders of magnitude worse, not just incrementally worse

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

So the MRP had the perfect opportunity to send a message about the exact head-high contact that they've been trying to stamp out of the game...and they give it a week. Good job, jerks.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Hodgey never intended to damage, and he didn't. Hall would have been facing prison time if he'd done what he did off the field. Two or three orders of magnitude worse, not just incrementally worse

How can you possibly say that? Because Hodgey did and he's a good bloke who would never lie? Never intended to cause damage? What was it? A cuddle gone wrong? Spare me.

Hodge is 185cm. Swallow is 182cm. Hodge raised his forearm above his own ear to hit Swallow.

By the way. I agree Hall's was doubly bad. More than. That's why he got more than double the penalty.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

So the MRP had the perfect opportunity to send a message about the exact head-high contact that they've been trying to stamp out of the game...and they give it a week. Good job, jerks.

Hang on.......so you want the MRP to use a single player from a single club to "send a message"? Do you actually understand the role of the MRP?

 

[Off The Couch]

Hang on.......so you want the MRP to use a single player from a single club to "send a message"? Do you actually understand the role of the MRP?

No - they should of continued with the penalty handed to lewis to show some consistency and that would of been a very clear message. Before I cop the usual shit I also advocated that firrito should of copped a suspension for the punch to the back of buddy's head. They are either protecting the head or they aren't