franklin case

Remove this Banner Ad

Mervyn Beasley

Mervyn Beasley

Norm Smith Medallist
Veteran
Mar 12, 2007
7,395
1,307
Yarraville
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hibs FC, Blackburn Rovers
Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

Serious question.
Would the MRP have come to the same decision had Cousins bounced back up?
ie Everything remains the same. The bumps just as hard and to the same parts of the body.

I think no fwiw
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

Probably not.

But how often is that the case?

Ill ask you a question - Ben Cousins is a tough nut, do you think Franklin could hit him in the head that hard and not knock him out?? I dont think so.

Doesnt that make your question irrelevant?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

rainman06 said:
Probably not.

But how often is that the case?

Ill ask you a question - Ben Cousins is a tough nut, do you think Franklin could hit him in the head that hard and not knock him out?? I dont think so.

Doesnt that make your question irrelevant?
Click to expand...

i have watched the replay a lot, and still fail to see where franklin connects with cousins' head like poeple are making out.


It was the force of impact to cousins which knocked him out. You try getting hit by something weighing 100kg travelling at over 20km an hour... youd be sent into next week also.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

Probably, because it's the same act, it's not the effect that's being measured.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

Steven King got what 4weeks? with a good record for concussing another player. plus it was a head on head collision. if the head on head contact hadn't been made there would be nothing to report, even when it was accidental.

so to Franklin, personally think that no concussion would be no suspension. If Cuz got up straight away, wouldnt even be looked at.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

Mervyn Beasley said:
Serious question.
Would the MRP have come to the same decision had Cousins bounced back up?
ie Everything remains the same. The bumps just as hard and to the same parts of the body.

I think no fwiw
Click to expand...
Probably not because you can barely see in the vision where he hits him on the head. This is because the concussion brings attention to the hit to the head. It would still be a suspendable offence, he just wouldn't be suspended for it because it would not have been noticed.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

Mitchell Madness said:
i have watched the replay a lot, and still fail to see where franklin connects with cousins' head like poeple are making out.


It was the force of impact to cousins which knocked him out. You try getting hit by something weighing 100kg travelling at over 20km an hour... youd be sent into next week also.
Click to expand...

How can you get concussed without hitting your head?? Franklin wasn't travelling at 20km/h anyway, he was barely moving.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

If he'd got up and run off, they would have shown the replay once and praised Buddy for the bump.

As it stands, Cuz got concussed and the MRP has gone into hysterics.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

poceys4ljk4vrfbbl1.jpg
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

I think the AFL has made it clear after the Maxwell case that the head in sacroscant and won't tolerate any contact with it that can be avoided.

Franklin could have tackled Cousins but choose to bump. I don't necessarily agree with the MRP but read the rules and thats why Franklin was charged.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

yes, Hayden Ballantyne of Freo got rubbed out for a bump that didn't even touch the head. he took it to the tribunal and still got 2 weeks
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

I'm with Pazza.

Get over it. He got off before the Collingwood game, he's not gettign off twice.

The AFL changed the rule after Maxwell broke McGinnity's jaw. Lance had the option to tackle and didn't.

Bad luck.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

If ANYTHING, they should suspend him simply because Hawthorn don't deserve to be in the finals, and anything they can do to make sure they don't make it would be good for football.

Hawthorn playing in this years finals would make the AFL look like a joke. Not that Essendon making it would look much better, but 10 and a half wins is a crapload better than 10 wins and no percentage.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

Mitchell Madness said:
i have watched the replay a lot, and still fail to see where franklin connects with cousins' head like poeple are making out.


It was the force of impact to cousins which knocked him out. You try getting hit by something weighing 100kg travelling at over 20km an hour... youd be sent into next week also.
Click to expand...


It happens about 200 times in a game of rugby and you dont see people getting knocked out each time it happens. Why dont you just stop being hysterical, realise that Buddy gave cousins a head high bump which of course he is going to be penalised for and stop trying to twist it around to make it look like buddy is the victim of some AFL conspiracy. Never seen so many crybabies out in force on bigfooty.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

If cousins didnt get concussed then Franklin would not be on report. Same with Maxwell. If his jaw didnt get broken and he got straight back up he would not have gotten reported.

With the new rule after the maxwell case, if a player decides to bump and makes incedental contact to the head and injury occurs, then he gets suspended. Stupid rule and thought so when they introduced it. But cant see how franklin can get off it, under the new rule
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

budge11 said:
Probably, because it's the same act, it's not the effect that's being measured.
Click to expand...
Incorrect- the MRP always uses the result to measure a sentence
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

kolchak said:
Did Cousins head hit the turf after being bumped?
Click to expand...

oh for god's sake stop reaching.

Watch the replay, Cousin's was out LONG before he hit the turf. He hit the turf like a sack of s**t.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

FFS......The head is taboo and the "tackler" has a duty of care not to touch the head. Cousins was hit in the head and concussed, end of story. That is the rule whether you like it or not. Franklin had the choice to tackle or bump and he chose to bump and unfortunately made contact with the head.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

If you run to bump a player and you get them in the head you are liable in todays football. without the concussion it would have been less punishment obviously, part of the tribunals decision is based on the impact the hit had on the player, and becuase this one resulted in a concussion its considered high impact..

im going to the hawks bombers game this week because my lil brother who barracks for the hawks has never been to a game, so i really want him to see Franklin, and I want him to play, but unfortunately I cant see it changing..

When it first happened i thought he might be safe, but watching the replay i think the MRP got it right...

It reminds me a little of the maxwell case earlier this year, who knows, maybe the hawks can pull what the pies pulled in the pre season...
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

kirky said:
I think the AFL has made it clear after the Maxwell case that the head is sacrosanct and won't tolerate any contact with it that can be avoided.

Franklin could have tackled Cousins but choose to bump. I don't necessarily agree with the MRP but read the rules and that's why Franklin was charged.
Click to expand...

I don't condone any hits on the head, and if the result is so severe, then the MRP must take action. Depending where the hit connects, the effect can range from virtually nothing to severe concussion. And I am not talking about elbows, which is a totally different thing.

I consider it most appropriate to consider the resultant injury.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

Shpeshal Ed said:
Watch the replay, Cousin's was out LONG before he hit the turf. He hit the turf like a sack of s**t.
Click to expand...

I disagree. He definitely braced himself before he hit the ground.

I actually feel sorry for Hawks fans on this one (even though they gave us a lot of stick over the Maxwell bump!!).

The extent of an injury shouldn't determine a suspension IMO. Play on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Laird have a case to answer ?
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
Shadow89
S

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top