Buddy's whack

[Obeanie1]

Gil accepts BJs from short people in lieu of payment.

Speaking from experience are we?

 

[The King!]

Hamling should of got a week for head butting

 

[The King!]

Eagles fans are going to sook about everything after Nic Nat getting suspended then

 

[The Falcon Strike]

So if you got the ball swinging your elbow into a tacklers face and breaking their nose is ok?

Its the swinging upraised elbow that is the issue here.

How can a player not reasonably foresee that that action has the potential to cause head high contact and serious injury.

Kick boxers use elbows for a reason. They are 10 times harder than a fist and pack a more powerful impact.

Of course it’s ok

He wasn’t swinging to injure someone - he used to it get his hands free to handball

It’s a contact sport, people get hurt

What next someone is forced to change direction and do their ACL and all of a sudden someone is suspended for making them change direction

 

[Matera92]

Show us one example where he has hit a tackler head high with a swinging elbow!

Take a deep breath, calm down and re read my post before you look sillier than you already do.

 

[HairyO]

Terrible decision. Open season to throw an elbow to break a tackle now.

Hammling didn't even get a free.

Yep. Coaches should teach their players to swing their elbows when they have the ball. The MRP believe that is a reasonable action.

I wonder if we see this 8 or 10 times per round whether they will change their mind.

Sydney discount applied perfectly by the AFL.

 

[Matera92]

Yep. Coaches should teach their players to swing their elbows when they have the ball. The MRP believe that is a reasonable action.

I wonder if we see this 8 or 10 times per round whether they will change their mind.

Sydney discount applied perfectly by the AFL.

Tom Mitchell still getting the same discount then as a former player?

 

[Number37]

Speaking from experience are we?

Yes I am an angry midget & a sore loser and I met with the CEO last monday for coffee*





*coffee = BJ

 

[frggr]

When he is done you could release a DVD purely of his "accidental" high contact incidents.

Remember that time he 'accidentally' had his arm around that guys neck in a marking contest and they hit the ground....still with his arm around the opposition's neck.

 

[frggr]

Raises and swings elbows, knocks a bloke out....

But you know......buddy, so, no case,

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

 

[Topkent]

Swung his elbow, knocked someone out. Seems pretty clear to me that you shouldn’t do that.

Careless, high impact, high contact, 2 weeks.

The chart makes it pretty simple.

This


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Terrible decision. Open season to throw an elbow to break a tackle now.

Hammling didn't even get a free.

So easy to brand it careless when a player accidentally brushes an umpire. How that elbow could not be seen as careless is beyond me. But I do realise it's not Christian making the decisions, he's just a puppet for the corrupt above him.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

Parker gets off, now Buddy again

GWS failing miserably so the 2nd AFL lovechild must be protected

Nothing new, nothing to see

Jog on

Fremantle lost. Get over it flogs. Had this been Fyfe no way you idiots call for a suspension.

 

[HairyO]

Tom Mitchell still getting the same discount then as a former player?

Tom Mitchell got a fine for a hit that Goldy said was like a hit from a fly.

Buddy sent a player in to next week and got nothing.

That was a pretty dumb comparison. By the Mitchell standard Buddy should have got 4 weeks.

Still feel clever about yourself?

 

[peppy la pew]

NN does do that, he just hasn't cleaned anyone up yet. You can't penalise a player due to their size and strength, otherwise you get absolutely garbage decisions like the NN tackle suspension.

Show me one example where NN has raised an elbow into an opponents jaw causing concussion

AFL house have pinged him for the way he drives players heads into the turf, not because of the way he breaks a tackle

 

[cruiser80]

Seems Buddy just has to touch someone and people call for a suspension. Maybe that’s the real Buddy factor with some on this forum.


I can see it now.

Buddy winds up for one of his long 60 bombs for goal with a player on the mark.

Buddy goes a bit too close while the man on the mark jumps high with arms in the air. The ball gets him clean in the face and knocks him out.

Half this forum call for Buddy to be suspended because he didn’t take due care.

Buddy should know his kicks have more power than regular players and should pull the kick if opposition are within the vicinity.

Supporters of the knocked out player will claim Buddy did it deliberately as his eyes were looking in the direction of the player while lining up for goal.

Sounds stupid but so are some of the comments in the last 4 pages.


Players every game raise their arms in tackles when they have the ball to get a hand ball away. They are not wanting to get caught holding the ball.

If Hamling didn’t get whacked so hard then it would have just been another knock to the head that lots players get when laying tackles and we take no notice of because it happens so quickly, apart from supporters claiming they deserved a free kick which this should have been.

If anyone other than Buddy, Tom Hawkins or Nic Nat had done it then then everyone would say ‘no suspension – just an unfortunate accident’.

 

[WilloTree]

"When a player has possession of the ball his duty of care is perhaps not as high as if he was tackling or bumping"

There it is fellas. As long as you've got the ball - knock out whoever you want.

This is a horrible precedent. Genuinely has future litigation written all over it. It's such as easy case now; 'I was concussed several times and the AFL has no rule that says I shouldn't have been. There was no deterrent to other players hitting my head so hard I was knocked out as many times as they would like, as long as they had the ball.'

 

[WilloTree]

other than Buddy, Tom Hawkins or Nic Nat

 

[cruiser80]

"When a player has possession of the ball his duty of care is perhaps not as high as if he was tackling or bumping"

There it is fellas. As long as you've got the ball - knock out whoever you want.

This is a horrible precedent. Genuinely has future litigation written all over it. It's such as easy case now; 'I was concussed several times and the AFL has no rule that says I shouldn't have been. There was no deterrent to other players hitting my head so hard I was knocked out as many times as they would like, as long as they had the ball.'

Did you call for Fyfe to be suspended after kneeing Carlisle in the head. Based on Freo supporters claiming Buddy did it on purpose then is there a chance that Fyfe only had eyes for Carlisle's head at the time? And Fyfe didn't even have the ball so more duty of care required from him. Or was that just a footy accident?

 

[WilloTree]

Did you call for Fyfe to be suspended after kneeing Carlisle in the head. Based on Freo supporters claiming Buddy did it on purpose then is there a chance that Fyfe only had eyes for Carlisle's head at the time? And Fyfe didn't even have the ball so more duty of care required from him. Or was that just a footy accident?

Dude - why the anger? Buddy got off... again. Have a coke and a smile...

 

[cruiser80]

Dude - why the anger? Buddy got off... again. Have a coke and a smile...

No anger from me. Just enjoyable debate about a sport we all love. Heck if we all agreed then imagine what this forum would look like.

 

[liz]

"When a player has possession of the ball his duty of care is perhaps not as high as if he was tackling or bumping"

There it is fellas. As long as you've got the ball - knock out whoever you want.

This is a horrible precedent. Genuinely has future litigation written all over it. It's such as easy case now; 'I was concussed several times and the AFL has no rule that says I shouldn't have been. There was no deterrent to other players hitting my head so hard I was knocked out as many times as they would like, as long as they had the ball.'

Except that neither the sentence you quoted nor the MRO assessment say you can knock out whoever you want if you're in possession. Christian assessed that Franklin's actions weren't unreasonable in the circumstances, the circumstances being that he was in possession and trying to free his arms to dispose of the ball.

There are actions, even in possession, that wouldn't be acceptable. For example, if a player with the ball deliberately fends off an opponent with a fist or an elbow, I don't think it follows that his actions will be deemed to be reasonable in the circumstances.

 

[peppy la pew]

Lol, faux outrage.....

If you think that’s worth a suspension, you either hate buddy or hate football.

Player took on the 2x tacklers and lifted his arms higher, to so they wouldn’t get pinned. Moved his arm that had the footy under it in preparation for the HB, while simultaneously being tackled. A reasonable person could not have foreseen where hamling head was going to be, while simultaneously being tackled by another player.

Incidental contact. free kick.

To Buddy obvs

 

[Matera92]

Tom Mitchell got a fine for a hit that Goldy said was like a hit from a fly.

Buddy sent a player in to next week and got nothing.

That was a pretty dumb comparison. By the Mitchell standard Buddy should have got 4 weeks.

Still feel clever about yourself?

Tom Mitchell was an attempted snipe off the ball which luckily didn't connect properly, it was a piss weak action and should have resulted in a week due to it being a deliberate attempt at hurting another player. Buddy was breaking a tackle and accidently collected a player high. Pay a free kick for a high fend off sure, but suspending the bloke for crashing a pack and trying to keep his arms free to dispose of the ball is ridiculous.. Your bias and panty twisting crying is hilarious, considering the multitude of excuses you Hawks fans came up with for 'Good Bloke Hodgey' over the years for being the dirty sniper that he was.

The only thing 'dumb' here (incorrect use of the term by the way, good job smart guy) is your hysterics over an accident.

Show me one example where NN has raised an elbow into an opponents jaw causing concussion

AFL house have pinged him for the way he drives players heads into the turf, not because of the way he breaks a tackle

I understand that reading comprehension isn't something that comes easily to Freo supporters, but if you had actually read my post thoroughly, you'd see I said he hasn't knocked anyone out yet, however the way he raises his arms to keep them free when tackled to dispose of the footy is very similar. At Buddy and NN's height, there is always a chance of a head knock due to their shoulders and arms being at head level for 80% of the league.

If this was Fyfe against a 170cm player you'd be applauding the decision, take the blinkers off for 2 seconds.

 

[WilloTree]

Except that neither the sentence you quoted nor the MRO assessment say you can knock out whoever you want if you're in possession.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

Christian assessed that Franklin's actions weren't unreasonable in the circumstances, the circumstances being that he was in possession and trying to free his arms to dispose of the ball.

You can argue 'in the circumstances' to any incident, as no two will be exactly the same. The 'in the circumstances' has been used in this case as a get-out-of-jail-free card. It's a throwaway line to make just about any outcome sound reasonable.

There are actions, even in possession, that wouldn't be acceptable. For example, if a player with the ball deliberately fends off an opponent with a fist or an elbow, I don't think it follows that his actions will be deemed to be reasonable in the circumstances.

I would be strongly arguing my case if I knocked someone out fending off an opponent now and got a week. All I'd have to do is use Christain's own words: "he's entitled to try and break the tackle, which he did and was eventually able to get the handball off". How anyone can expect reasonable protection from the MRP now is beyond me.

Basically, what we have now it: Player A knocks out Player B. Player A is sent to tribunal/MRP. Player A shows the vision of him handballing after the incident. Player A cleared. Player B misses a week due to a concussion. I suppose that's fair in your assessment?

 

[WilloTree]

I understand that reading comprehension isn't something that comes easily to Freo supporters

Stay classy.

 

[HairyO]

Tom Mitchell was an attempted snipe off the ball which luckily didn't connect properly, it was a piss weak action and should have resulted in a week due to it being a deliberate attempt at hurting another player.

The week Mitchell got his fine 2 others got fines for similar things, and a couple got off for it just being below force required. Following week the same thing happened.

In fact if you look, every single week this happens. Players get no or reduced penalties when there is no force in a potentially dangerous action but dont actually cop a week.

So ask yourself, why has all the focus been on Mitchell?

Why was there so much focus on Burton and the accidental head clash and zero focus on Fyfe doing exactly the same thing?

Who in the media constantly harps on about Hawthorn players and which club does he support? The hint would be the non-journo who is a co-host of AFL 360.