Buddy - How many weeks?

[BruceFromBalnarring]

B) IMPACT
»»Any head-high contact with a Player who has his head over the ball, particularly when contact is made from an opponent approaching from a front-on position; forceful round-arm swings that make head-high contact to a Player in a marking contest, ruck contest or when tackling;

That's right. But understand this. They are looking at the actual impact itself, not the potential impact. So what they have said with Buddy is that the actual impact itself to the head (because that's the only impact that counts) was not so severe as to warrant a higher assessment. Now you could say "But yeah one millimetre to the right and he could've been killed". That potential is irrelevant. It's only the potential of the impact that actually occurred.

So to take Gibbs for instance, the impact that counted was Gray's head hitting the turf. The MRP said that the impact there should be assessed as high. He was knocked senseless etc. In the case of Edwards, the actual impact to the head was relatively mild (in the context of the hit as a whole). There was little potential in the impact itself for serious injury.

Can you understand the difference?

 

[JoeHawk]

That's right. But understand this. They are looking at the actual impact itself, not the potential impact. So what they have said with Buddy is that the actual impact itself to the head (because that's the only impact that counts) was not so severe as to warrant a higher assessment. Now you could say "But yeah one millimetre to the right and he could've been killed". That potential is irrelevant. It's only the potential of the impact that actually occurred.

So to take Gibbs for instance, the impact that counted was Gray's head hitting the turf. The MRP said that the impact there should be assessed as high. He was knocked senseless etc. In the case of Edwards, the actual impact to the head was relatively mild (in the context of the hit as a whole). There was little potential in the impact itself for serious injury.

Can you understand the difference?

And why are Lewis and Hodge any different to Buddy? It's bullshit no matter how you spin it.

 

[Vankri]

Just a comparison between May's and Franklin's bump:


May comes from the side, is never close enough to the ball to pick it up and bumps in order to get the ball.
Franklin comes front on, actually elects to leave the ball behind – he clearly has time to pick it up – and even worse accelerates to put all his weight in and bump his opponent.
May gets 3 weeks, down to 2 with an early plea, rightfully contests the charges and ends up sidelined for 3 games.
Franklin gets 2 weeks, down to 1 with an early plea, and ends up sidelined for the one game.

It's not necessarily that the AFL MRP favours the Swans, although anything is possible with the shady way the AFL operates its business, it's that the rules are so poorly design they are unable to get consistent and fair outcomes.

 

[Maddo11]

*Swans fans in meltdown mode*

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/franklin-reported-on-eve-of-finals.1029012/

Wow, buddy got the same penalty as an identical bump with the identical outcome. Look at all the fans losing their minds in that thread.


The only difference I see with those two bumps is the jumper colors.

Must be a conspiracy

 

[smeltitdeltit]

That's right. But understand this. They are looking at the actual impact itself, not the potential impact. So what they have said with Buddy is that the actual impact itself to the head (because that's the only impact that counts) was not so severe as to warrant a higher assessment. Now you could say "But yeah one millimetre to the right and he could've been killed". That potential is irrelevant. It's only the potential of the impact that actually occurred.

So to take Gibbs for instance, the impact that counted was Gray's head hitting the turf. The MRP said that the impact there should be assessed as high. He was knocked senseless etc. In the case of Edwards, the actual impact to the head was relatively mild (in the context of the hit as a whole). There was little potential in the impact itself for serious injury.

Can you understand the difference?

I understand, but disagree, and not sure where you get that from.

Otherwise there will never be a "potential for injury" because x amount of force in y spot will = z outcome.

As in, the only possible injury, if they look at it the way you do, is what injury occurred. You can't have potential for injury, because that potential would have eventuated.


Lewis hit Goldstein about as flush as possible, yet that was increased.

 

[Maddo11]

And why are Lewis and Hodge any different to Buddy? It's bullshit no matter how you spin it.

They're different because they were gutless snipes in one case off the ball and the other very late.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Just a comparison between May's and Franklin's bump:
It's not necessarily that the AFL MRP favours the Swans, although anything is possible with the shady way the AFL operates its business, it's that the rules are so poorly design they are unable to get consistent and fair outcomes.

Correct.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

They're different because they were gutless snipes in one case off the ball and the other very late.

Late like tippets?

 

[JoeHawk]

They're different because they were gutless snipes in one case off the ball and the other very late.

Like Buddy who left the ball and decided to smash into Edwards same shit mate. Not much courage there either.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

And why are Lewis and Hodge any different to Buddy? It's bullshit no matter how you spin it.

Well none of us can really tell from the vision just how hard the impact to the head was. In the case of Hodge and Lewis, I would look at both and say "You could've broken their jaw with that hit. We can see the level of force. Not the same with Buddy. So with Buddy, they've no doubt been guided by a medical which might have said something like "There was no immediate concern but we did do a concussion test at half time to be on the safe side and he passed." Therefore "impact = medium".

 

[JoeHawk]

Well none of us can really tell from the vision just how hard the impact to the head was. In the case of Hodge and Lewis, I would look at both and say "You could've broken their jaw with that hit. We can see the level of force. Not the same with Buddy. So with Buddy, they've no doubt been guided by a medical which might have said something like "There was no immediate concern but we did do a concussion test at half time to be on the safe side and he passed." Therefore "impact = medium".

You're such a delusional bunch. Both Buddy and Tippet had the potential to break a jaw. If you can't see that then there's no point arguing with you mob. I'm outta here. Just going around in circles.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I understand, but disagree, and not sure where you get that from.

Otherwise there will never be a "potential for injury" because x amount of force in y spot will = z outcome.

As in, the only possible injury, if they look at it the way you do, is what injury occurred. You can't have potential for injury, because that potential would have eventuated.


Lewis hit Goldstein about as flush as possible, yet that was increased.

You've answered your own question. Lewis could've broken Goldstein's jaw. Or Gibbs could have caused a brain injury. But you're right, it's mostly about what injury actually occurred.

Where I get it from is where they talk about "the contact". And the only contact that is relevant is the contact which is illegal. That is, the contact to the head. The rest of the contact is irrelevant.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You're such a delusional bunch. Both Buddy and Tippet had the potential to break a jaw. If you can't see that then there's no point arguing with you mob. I'm outta here. Just going around in circles.

You're perhaps right with Tippett, in the sense that you can see for yourself and make your own judgement on the level of force applied in the hit.

On the face of it, Buddy's is by far the worst, because he had the potential to break Edwards' neck! But as I keep saying, the potential contact is irrelevant, only the actual contact counts.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

You've answered your own question. Lewis could've broken Goldstein's jaw. Or Gibbs could have caused a brain injury. But you're right, it's mostly about what injury actually occurred.

Where I get it from is where they talk about "the contact". And the only contact that is relevant is the contact which is illegal. That is, the contact to the head. The rest of the contact is irrelevant.

So you have no reference then?
Fact of the matter is that buddy's could have easily caused a serious injury. Fact.
Yet the potential to cause injury here wasnt taken into account.
Blind Freddie can see from the vision there was a significant contact to the head.
The Lewis one, whilst Ot is pretty clear they went that way because of the lool of the game.
Which means they're picking and choosing when to apply their own rules.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

So you have no reference then?
Fact of the matter is that buddy's could have easily caused a serious injury. Fact.
Yet the potential to cause injury here wasnt taken into account.
Blind Freddie can see from the vision there was a significant contact to the head.
The Lewis one, whilst Ot is pretty clear they went that way because of the lool of the game.
Which means they're picking and choosing when to apply their own rules.

You keep confusing the "act" with the "impact". Neither of us know in the Buddy one how they assessed the impact because there was an element (and we can argue all day the relevant percentage balance) of contact to the body but "no blood, played on, no concussion" suggests that actual impact to the head that occurred, not what could have occurred, was only medium. The head didn't get all of it so they, in their wisdom, have assessed the level of contact actually worn by the head as medium. Perhaps if, like in May's case, he'd got him in the temple it might have been different. Remember Rockliff was asleep before he hit the ground, and his head hitting the ground would also have been relevant.

 

[MinerBoy]

They're different because they were gutless snipes in one case off the ball and the other very late.

So more like Tippett then?

 

[Maddo11]

So more like Tippett then?

Yeah that's why he got suspended for two weeks

 

[MinerBoy]

Yeah that's why he got suspended for two weeks

So less than Lewis for an equivalent incident?

 

[Maddo11]

So less than Lewis for an equivalent incident?

Tippett didn't charge at the bloke from 25m away with eyes only for the bloke and swing a round arm at his chin.
If anything Lewis should have been graded intentional

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Best thread. Particularly love the Hawks who think they're hard done by somehow.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Wow. And Swans fans reckon Hawks fans are arrogant...

It's not arrogance.

Does it not frustrate you that people who are paid big dollars to communicate matters around football (and politics and the economy etc) are either too lazy to consult the rules that count or are deceitful in how they communicate or represent those rules to readers and/or listeners? It drives me crazy.

 

[MinerBoy]

Tippett didn't charge at the bloke from 25m away with eyes only for the bloke and swing a round arm at his chin.
If anything Lewis should have been graded intentional

Lewis at least made a veiled attempt at a spoil. His forearm was in the same post code as the ball. Tippett just hung the elbow out for the old how do you do.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Lewis at least made a veiled attempt at a spoil. His forearm was in the same post code as the ball. Tippett just hung the elbow out for the old how do you do.

Come on mate, please, Tippett's wasn't good but Lewis was just a good old fashioned clothesline.

Even in the 70s, Lewis would have been considered a dog act. Tippett would have been "making him earn it".

 

[blue harvest]

Best thread. Particularly love the Hawks who think they're hard done by somehow.

??????
It was a great outcome for the Hawks, if Buddy and Tippet got 2 weeks then they would have been nice and fresh for their game against us in 3 weeks.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

You keep confusing the "act" with the "impact". Neither of us know in the Buddy one how they assessed the impact because there was an element (and we can argue all day the relevant percentage balance) of contact to the body but "no blood, played on, no concussion" suggests that actual impact to the head that occurred, not what could have occurred, was only medium. The head didn't get all of it so they, in their wisdom, have assessed the level of contact actually worn by the head as medium. Perhaps if, like in May's case, he'd got him in the temple it might have been different. Remember Rockliff was asleep before he hit the ground, and his head hitting the ground would also have been relevant.

He hit him hard enough in the head for Richmond to take one of their best performed player in 2015 from the field for 20 minutes of concussion testing.
Must have been all body though I guess. Edwards' brain must reside in a different location to most.

Again, using Lewis, if there was potential to break a jaw, and they only take into account the exact action as you say (a mm to the side is irrelevant) his jaw would have been broken. If I get ten Todd Goldstein clones and hit with x amount of force in y spot, the same thing will happen, every time.
the only possible outcome IS THE OUTCOME. There can be no potential for further injury.