Burton offered one week

[slappy]

Now this is optimism - I think one week was optimistic though and I'm happy with that result.

seem to recall farmer got off for deliberately kneeing doughty (think it was doughty) in the face

you cant get more deliberate and he got off. why wouldnt you contest this?

 

[RoosterLad]

yeah but he didnt go for the ball at all, ran straight past it and straight at the man, i dont have a problem with him doing this but it is reportable, he hit him high too

 

[RoosterLad]

seem to recall farmer got off for deliberately kneeing doughty (think it was doughty) in the face

you cant get more deliberate and he got off. why wouldnt you contest this?

that is a very very good point, disgraceful decision. smashed doughtys cheek bone/jaw? put him out for ages, next week Farmer kicks a bag in a win over the Swans. one of the worst tribunal non-decisions ever

 

[brucetiki]

I think Burton is lucky to get 1 match, and I'm very surprised the club is contesting it.

 

[cro_Magnum]

show me a link where the afl say you cant bump ... the ball was right there ffs!

This is from the AFL website on what constitutes a reportable offence.

19.2.2 Specific Offences
Any of the following types of conduct is a Reportable Offence:-( a) intentionally, recklessly or negligently making contact with or striking an Umpire;
(b) attempting to make contact with or strike an Umpire;
(c) using abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene language towards or in relation to an Umpire;
(d) behaving in an abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene manner towards or in relation to an Umpire;
(e) disputing a decision of an Umpire;
(f) intentionally, recklessly or negligently:-
(i) kicking another person;
(ii) striking another person;
(iii) tripping another person whether by hand, arm, foot or leg;
(iv) engaging in Time Wasting;
(v) Charging another person;
(vi) throwing or pushing another Player after that Player has taken a Mark, disposed of the football or after the football is otherwise out of play;
(vii) engaging in rough play against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable;(viii) engaging in a melee, except where a player’s sole intention is to remove a teammate from the incident.
(ix) Kicking or otherwise causing the football to hit any part of a stadium roof’s structure;
(x) spitting at or on another person.
(g) attempting to kick another person;
(h) attempting to strike another person;
(i) attempting to trip another person whether by hand, arm, foot or leg;
(j) intentionally shaking a Goal or Behind Post when another Player is preparing to Kick or is Kicking for Goal or after the Player has Kicked for Goal and the ball is in transit;
(k) wrestling another person;
(l) using abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene language;
(m) failing to leave the Playing Surface when directed to do so by a field Umpire;
(n) wearing boots, jewellery and equipment prohibited under Law 9;
(o) any act of misconduct.

Not saying the report was right but what he did must be in one or more places on this list for it to be reportable.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

seem to recall farmer got off for deliberately kneeing doughty (think it was doughty) in the face

you cant get more deliberate and he got off. why wouldnt you contest this?

They are and they may get off on a technicality, but based on previous decisions of this type alone 1 week is a very good result.

Deliberately kneeing was I think your interpretation - not saying your neccessarily wrong, but others intepreted that result differently.

 

[slappy]

They are and they may get off on a technicality, but based on previous decisions of this type alone 1 week is a very good result.

agree but if i was birdman id be stuffed if i was gonna plead guilty to a head high tackle when it was a perfectly fair bump.

i think the fact that he hasnt jumped and hasnt raised an elbow are very solid arguments.

anyway if he does go hopefully knights will come in so we are in a win-win situation.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

agree but if i was birdman id be stuffed if i was gonna plead guilty to a head high tackle when it was a perfectly fair bump.

i think the fact that he hasnt jumped and hasnt raised an elbow are very solid arguments.

anyway if he does go hopefully knights will come in so we are in a win-win situation.

If it wasn't in the current AFL climate no-one would have batted an eyelid - your right perfect bump - poorly defended by Hyde (he better keep that helmet on) - but thats the evironment.

I would say the AFL themselves appear to realise they have become toooooo technical with reports (at this rate no-one would qualify for the Brownlow )
- they appear to be backing off - you can touch an umpire now all you like

 

[macca23]

agree but if i was birdman id be stuffed if i was gonna plead guilty to a head high tackle when it was a perfectly fair bump.

i think the fact that he hasnt jumped and hasnt raised an elbow are very solid arguments.

anyway if he does go hopefully knights will come in so we are in a win-win situation.

The AFL are very sensitive about hits to the head which is why Burton is in this situation. Didn't mean to hit him in the head but did, although not drastically.

But I reckon you're right - this whole situation is going overboard, when his intention clearly was to deliver a legitimate bump.

On that basis that would make the reason for the appeal - negligent instead of intentional - a reasonable chance of getting up, which should get him off the suspension on reduced points - I think.

Whether he will or not is a different matter.

 

[-VC-]

The Crows hadn't even had a player cited all year until this incident. We were the last club with a clean record.

 

[PsychoTiger]

... the ball was right there ffs!

it's all in the eyes...Hyde wanted the ball...Burton wanted Hyde.