Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

Buddy - How many weeks?

  • Thread starter Thread starter muzzy2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Maddo11 said:
Hodge and Lewis were done for gutless strikes though. Bumps are still a legal part of footy at least.
Click to expand...

**** OFF !!! Look at Fyfe's last year, that was the precedent set that if you bump, and collect an opponent high, you are in a great deal of trouble. He hit a bloke that had the footy in his hands. Now Buddy goes and runs past the footy to clean a guy up and only gets a week. You lot are a protected species and it's bullshit !!!
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
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?
Click to expand...
What's the difference between using this to send a message and the Gibbs tackle to send a message, which is what a lot of people were advocating last week?

Buddy ran past the ball and hit someone in the head. Worth more than 1 week in my opinion.
 
Maddo11 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the afl try and tell us they have this table of offenses and its a methodical approach to determine the penalty, as opposed to what your saying : deciding that an isolated offense is with X amount of weeks.
When in fact often it appears that they do just what your saying, they come up with a pre determined penalty and then make the gradings to suit. It's a farce.
Jordan Lewis: impact - high because 1 week wasn't enough, yet Goldstein was next to fine afterwards.
The worst that could have come from Lewis hit was a concussion or maybe a broken nose, or jaw.
Edwards could potentially have ended up in a wheel chair.


Fact is, buddy's impact was way higher than Lewis, but graded medium? (I say again: impact)

The way they pick and choose is a laugh, and in the same breath they pat themselves on th back for being so objective.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

MEB_ said:
What's the difference between using this to send a message and the Gibbs tackle to send a message, which is what a lot of people were advocating last week?

Buddy ran past the ball and hit someone in the head. Worth more than 1 week in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Because what is assessed is the impact to the head. Not the impact overall. I have said I think Buddy's was worth 3 weeks. And under previous rules he might have got 3 weeks, although under those rules it would have been negligent rather than reckless so probably not.

What I actually think should happen is that they should go back to the previous rules, but have a couple of overlayers, like bumps off the ball and sling tackles, and say "irrespective of the rules, these type of incidents will be assessed as reckless as a minimum."
 
smeltitdeltit said:
Fact is, buddy's impact was way higher than Lewis, but graded medium? (I say again: impact)

The way they pick and choose is a laugh, and in the same breath they pat themselves on th back for being so objective.
Click to expand...

It's the impact to the head which is assessed. Most of Franklin's impact was to the body, otherwise Edwards would have been asleep (which is why I think it should be worth 3 weeks).
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
It's the impact to the head which is assessed. Most of Franklin's impact was to the body, otherwise Edwards would have been asleep (which is why I think it should be worth 3 weeks).
Click to expand...
Buddy's very very very lucky Edwards didn't wake up on a stretcher.
Hence why the medium impact, when they supposedly look at potential to cause injury, being at the least on the light side.
Either bring it out (potential to injure) on every case or none, but I believe they used it on Lewis purely because of the aesthetics. And that's wrong.
 
Last edited:
smeltitdeltit said:
Buddy's very very very lucky Edwards didn't wake up on a stretcher.
Hence why the medium impact, when they supposedly look at potential to cause injury, being at the least on the light side.
Either bring it out (potential to injure) on every case or none, but I believe they used it on Lewis purely because of the aesthetics. And that's wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree with that (Buddy being lucky). What I don't agree with is this constant "protected species" crap.
 
Bayer said:
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.
Click to expand...


The afl wanted the swans to win a flag
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I agree with that (Buddy being lucky). What I don't agree with is this constant "protected species" crap.
Click to expand...


I think many of use feel the swans get unfair advantages in lots of areas

Academy
Extra home in Canberra where they were allowed to have home games from other teams ...
Cola

So when you get a ruling like franklin and Tippett people just get peeved at the swans .....

Sorry that's the reality of it .....it is what it is
 
Hardhat11 said:
I think many of use feel the swans get unfair advantages in lots of areas
Click to expand...

Well I think a lot of you need to stop listening to the likes of Eddie and Demie, look at things a bit more objectively, and form your own views.

I refuse to defend those other issues yet again in this thread.
 
So much for the head being sacrosanct....And what ever happened to: If you choose to bump where an alternative exists & hit the head, then be prepared to suffer the consequences?

This shoulder charge of Buddy's - directly to the head - was the perfect exemplar of what the AFl said, it was endeavoring to stamp out of our game....And what verdict does it deliver?....A free pardon!

The hypocrisy with regards all things Sydney & the rules - as applied to every other club - has become so naked & transparent, that they don't even bother trying to hide it anymore....So ingrained has become the cynicism from an all-powerful, media manipulating, MRP complicit, despotic regime.

Their now 'overt agenda' of ensuring Sydney finish Top 2, no matter what, lies bare-assed naked before every right-minded AFL follower, barr the Swans supporters themselves.

There is no defense for indefensible corruption....We all assumed that Vlads' demise would end this fiasco....How wrong we all were!

The media silence on the reports over the weekend was deafening & a dead-give-away of what was to transpire on Monday.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Procrastinator35 said:
The hypocrisy with regards all things Sydney & the rules - as applied to every other club - has become so naked & transparent, that they don't even bother trying to hide it anymore....
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree with that - every other club is allowed to trade!
 
To see some of the laughable bumps Buddy was punished for at Hawthorn then see him do this and get one week... well it's hard to keep pretending Sydney isn't the AFL's utter bum boy. Just ridiculous.
 
Gerard whitely has it spot on when he said that the whole "potential to cause injury" thing is the most arbitrary in football
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

smeltitdeltit said:
Gerard whitely has it spot on when he said that the whole "potential to cause injury" thing is the most arbitrary in football
Click to expand...

He doesn't have it spot on. And it's not that difficult. It is not the act but the impact that is being assessed here. And on the relevant impact. I really wish the AFL would appoint a decent communicator (I'd do it for a carton a week).

The actual impact to Edward's head (in the context of the bump as a whole) was quite light. Franklin was lucky Edwards' body took most of it.

So when they are looking at impact, it's how hard Gibbs head hit the turf, and how hard Lewis hit whoever in the head, and how hard Buddy hit Edwards in the head. Not whether if he'd been an inch to the left he could have broken his neck. That doesn't come into it (it should). But it's not arbitrary and really Gerard Whately gets paid a lot to know this stuff and should be able to communicate it.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Right. He got 2 down to 1 for knocking out Malceski. What's the complaint? He didn't even get reckless.
Click to expand...
Knocked out? I guess you and I have different understandings of the words " promptly returned"

Swans defender Malceski had facial scans at the weekend as a result of the bump to his head by Franklin last Friday night, which triggered the Hawks spearhead being reported for rough conduct. Malceski left the ground straight after for treatment but he promptly returned, and while he was substituted in the second half it was due to a sore foot rather than any lingering effects from Franklin’s bump.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top