Tom Bugg - In trouble? how many weeks? - now with a poll!

[A11dAtP0w3R]

In light of everything that week it had to be 6. What an idiot.

Ridiculous notion. The suspension should be for the action not extra weeks because someone else ****ed up the week before.

 

[Steven Toast]

Big Danny fan but he's got this one wrong. I agree he didn't line him up and intend to flush him but that's where it landed. It's not even a chin shot. It's caught him flush on the cheekbone and rattled the whole head sideways enough to cause the brain injury and concussion. Danny has mixed up his emotional reaction to realising it wasn't intended to really knock him out with the actual result.

Danny has made a stupid comment because he is a stupid individual.

 

[Steven Toast]

Settle down, he (Bugg) is wearing the consequences and copped the six weeks as most people thought.

He has no other choice but to wear it?

 

[thetank]

6 weeks is ridiculous for a soft jab. 2-3 weeks tops. Afl run by pansies.

 

[telsor]

2 points.

1. Yes, its assault, but there is a general exception for actions taken in sporting contests. Technically, this only covers actions within the laws of those sports, but by custom, the exception includes those incidents handled by the sports rules and penalties (Otherwise a push in the back would be assault) and this includes tribunal proceedings. It really comes down to where the line gets drawn, and the few times the courts have gotten involved, they seem to strongly prefer to leave it up to the sporting bodies.


2. People talking about the police needing to make an investigation/arrest....nah.

Legally speaking ANYBODY (in Victoria at least, probably in other states too) can arrest anyone so long as they have a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and the arrest is necessary (not sure how you'd prove that in a case like this). Having done so, they can then take that person to the police or even directly before a magistrate. You'd probably be laughed out of court if you did the latter (at least...), especially in this case as a lot of police would have seen the incident and decided NOT to make the same arrest, but you *can* do it.

*MUCH* more common practice (and for good reason) is that the police arrest if they think there is grounds, then the crown prosecutors office determines if there is sufficient evidence to go before the courts...but there is no actual requirement to go that route. Having a complaint/victim/witness certainly isn't required.

nb. There is a lot more to this, but really, you shouldn't arrest people unless you have a far better idea of the laws involved than I've outlined anyway. While there is a fair bit of leeway for 'good faith' and 'reasonable belief', unlawful arrest is also a crime after all.

 

[Tiger71]

Not arguing about the 6 weeks cause what Bugg did was stupid. But how this same tribuneral came up with 2 weeks for Houli last week and 6 weeks for Bugg this week is laughable. There is no way there is 4 weeks difference between the two incidents. Start the inquiry or just have AFL house decide the penalties for now on FFS.

Actually your question should be why bug got 6 when lewis got 3 and hogan got 2 for very similar dog acts

 

[Nostradumbass]

One of the greatest boxers of all time

Danny Green

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Melb to appeal and ask for a priority pick.

 

[QS]

You could ask a barrister I suppose, because barristers/solicitors are very, very honest people (up there with car sales men).
And a barrister is usually a very creditable person (time to belly laugh out loud).....

Would you like a broom for that sweeping statement?

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

Actually your question should be why bug got 6 when lewis got 3 and hogan got 2 for very similar dog acts

Well when people say "in light of last week he should get ..." i was simply comparing what happened last week at the tribunal to Houli.

Im not trying to make this a club dick measuring argument about who has done the bigger "dog acts". If i was i would simply bring up Conca and Rance's very own "dog act" hits to the back of people's heads, wouldnt i?

To your point above, i agree, it just shows how stupid the system is when you compare the three doesnt it? Its trial by media outrage/agenda, not the action.

 

[roscreasl98]

Would you like a broom for that sweeping statement?

No.
Just a big tick will do thanks.

 

[roscreasl98]

2 points.

1. Yes, its assault, but there is a general exception for actions taken in sporting contests. Technically, this only covers actions within the laws of those sports, but by custom, the exception includes those incidents handled by the sports rules and penalties (Otherwise a push in the back would be assault) and this includes tribunal proceedings. It really comes down to where the line gets drawn, and the few times the courts have gotten involved, they seem to strongly prefer to leave it up to the sporting bodies.


2. People talking about the police needing to make an investigation/arrest....nah.

Legally speaking ANYBODY (in Victoria at least, probably in other states too) can arrest anyone so long as they have a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and the arrest is necessary (not sure how you'd prove that in a case like this). Having done so, they can then take that person to the police or even directly before a magistrate. You'd probably be laughed out of court if you did the latter (at least...), especially in this case as a lot of police would have seen the incident and decided NOT to make the same arrest, but you *can* do it.

*MUCH* more common practice (and for good reason) is that the police arrest if they think there is grounds, then the crown prosecutors office determines if there is sufficient evidence to go before the courts...but there is no actual requirement to go that route. Having a complaint/victim/witness certainly isn't required.

nb. There is a lot more to this, but really, you shouldn't arrest people unless you have a far better idea of the laws involved than I've outlined anyway. While there is a fair bit of leeway for 'good faith' and 'reasonable belief', unlawful arrest is also a crime after all.

If you, and others, look up the Jim O'Dea assault on John Greening. St Kilda vs Collingwood at Moorabbin in 1972....
You'll all change your opinions about this whole issue.

 

[QS]

No.
Just a big tick will do thanks.

What do you do for a living?

 

[roscreasl98]

What do you do for a living?

I'm an average every day person, who doesn't suffer fools, and gives everyone a fair go...

 

[telsor]

If you, and others, look up the Jim O'Dea assault on John Greening. St Kilda vs Collingwood at Moorabbin in 1972....
You'll all change your opinions about this whole issue.

Not really.

That you need to go back 45 years shows that it's pretty rare.

There is nothing stopping the courts from taking extreme cases like that now, or for that matter, for the tribunal to pass it on to the courts as being beyond their capacity to adequately punish.

 

[SBYM]

Is there a prize for guessing right?

Bugg is a Thugg badge perhaps?

 

[F_therest]

Actually your question should be why bug got 6 when lewis got 3 and hogan got 2 for very similar dog acts

Bugg and Houli bans are about right for their actions...they have no place in the game.

Hogan and Lewis should have got an extra week than they did.

 

[roscreasl98]

Not really.

That you need to go back 45 years shows that it's pretty rare.

There is nothing stopping the courts from taking extreme cases like that now, or for that matter, for the tribunal to pass it on to the courts as being beyond their capacity to adequately punish.

You don't get the point....

 

[Tiger71]

Bugg and Houli bans are about right for their actions...they have no place in the game.

Hogan and Lewis should have got an extra week than they did.

Tell me the difference between Bugg and Lewis actions please sir and how Lewis actions do have a place in the game? Both facing there opponent and both throwing a fist to the jaw. Both hard impact, one just got knocked out the other a fractured jaw.....will love to hear it.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I wrote about the other 4 cases that went to the tribunal since the 2015 tribunal changes at the link below including the MRP rulings and stories from the tribunal cases
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...t-with-jed-lamb.1169402/page-76#post-51055700

My summary was as follows - Gleeson = AFL counsel Jeff Glesson QC. He used to like going after players

Silvagani - Intentional + High impact to head - Gleeson wanted 6 down to 5 for guilty plea, Silvangi accepted guilty charge at start of proceedings and tribunal panel gave him 4. Injured player off but played the next week

May - Careless + severe impact to the head - Gleeson wanted at least 5 and to change charge from Careless to Intentional, which could have meant 6 or 7, May pleaded guilty but said Ablett pushing him caused it to be worse, tribunal panel gave him 5. Injured player off but played the next week

Jonas - Intentional + Severe impact to the head - Gleeson wanted 7, Jonas tried to get a downgrade from intentional to careless and supposedly that cost him one week discount for an early guilty plea, tribunal gave him 6. injured play off and also missed the next week

Houli - Intentional + High impact to the head - Woods wanted 4 weeks, Houli tried to get down grade to careless, played the good bloke card and that his 11 year clean record should be taken into account. The tribunal panel gave him 2 weeks. The injured player off and will miss next week. Appeals Board gives him 4 weeks,

AFL counsel Andrew Woods ****** up. If it was Gleeson he probably would have said starting point is at least 5 weeks and because of Houli's 11 year good behaviour record he should get 1 weeks discount, but no early plea as he contested the intentional charge, unlike Silvagni and May. That would have left it for the tribunal to give him 4 weeks like Silvagni. But I wouldn't be surprised if Gleeson would have went for 6 weeks less 1 week for 11 year good behaviour record, just as he started with 6 for Silvagni which was an intentional + high impact charge.

================

The AFL got a new legal counsel for the Bugg case. Someone a bit harder than Andrew Woods. I have moved the AFL website story around so it makes a bit better flow of proceedings

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-07-04/afl-tribunal-hits-demon-bugg-with-huge-ban
AFL legal counsel Nick Pane QC argued for a ban of six matches, within a range of four to seven,with chairman David Jones telling the jury that was appropriate and they would need a "good reason" not to apply a one-match discount for Bugg's guilty plea.

Bugg pleaded guilty at the first opportunity on Tuesday night and chose not to challenge any aspect of the MRP's gradings, with Findlay saying his client "looks upon this quite seriously … he is severely embarrassed he is here tonight".

Findlay asked the jury of Wayne Henwood, Paul Williams and David Pittman to consider the four-match penalty handed to Richmond defender Bachar Houli, given it was graded the same as Bugg's by the MRP. The player advocate argued for a ban of five matches, suggesting a range of four to six would be appropriate when Bugg's remorse, apology and guilty plea were considered.

The jury was presented with two medical reports from Sydney, which stated Mills had been diagnosed with concussion and was recovering well, with his playing status this week to be decided on Thursday.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-07-04/afl-tribunal-hits-demon-bugg-with-huge-ban

Bugg got 6 so it looks like it was 7 as requested by Pane QC and 1 week less for his guilty plea. That makes it 2 more than Silvagni who pleaded guilty and 2 more than Houli who contested his case but did have an 11 year clean record who also were charge with Intentional + High Impact hit to the head .

I reckon Bugg suffered an extra week maybe 2, because of the Houli hooha and the fact it was a few days later, not a few weeks or months later.

 

[Tiger71]

Well when people say "in light of last week he should get ..." i was simply comparing what happened last week at the tribunal to Houli.

Im not trying to make this a club dick measuring argument about who has done the bigger "dog acts". If i was i would simply bring up Conca and Rance's very own "dog act" hits to the back of people's heads, wouldnt i?

To your point above, i agree, it just shows how stupid the system is when you compare the three doesnt it? Its trial by media outrage/agenda, not the action.

Sorry mate, i was not trying to have a pissing contest.

Houli was getting scraged from behind while he was trying to get to a contest and swung his arm and unfortunately struck lamb in the temple knocking him out cold. He should have got 4 weeks from the start, not disputing that.

I brought up Hogan and Lewis only because there actions are all very similar to what Bugg did. Off the ball, facing there opponent and then throwing a punch. I would compare it to houli if he had of stopped turned around and then punched lamb. Again not saying what Houli did was right, just his action is diffrent from the other 3.

 

[telsor]

You don't get the point....

Then perhaps you should make it better.

 

[_Mike_]

6 weeks, seems reasonable for the intention and impact.

 

[Sydney Kicker]

Not quite on the exact point of this thread but there is an interesting discussion to be had about the future risks to contact sport arising from injury and resulting litigation etc. Consider:
- the huge money in pro sport
- ambulance chasing lawyers (especially in the US) looking for business
- athletes are bigger, faster and stronger than ever
- medical research on the impact of concussion etc on future quality of life/longevity etc
- video evidence of foul play
- the win at all costs attitude in pro sports and a reluctance by all stakeholders putting anything ahead of winning (except maybe the administrators and owners with money)
- attitudes of society (per declining tolerance of on field violence, racism in sport etc)

I would not at all be surprised if football (AFL, League, Union, NFL etc) will look very different in 40 years time driven by an increased understanding of the damage foul (and fair) play can have on the human body coupled with further changes in societies norms and cases of (televised) death and permanent disablement arising from on field acts etc.

No idea how this will be dealt with but it will surely be one of the biggest issues in sports moving forward with massive implications for players, administrators and fans. But I would guess that one of the most likely outcomes will be for sports to criminalise on field acts that endanger health and are clearly outside the rules. Would be an obvious reaction and risk mitigation strategy.

 

[roscreasl98]

Then perhaps you should make it better.

No.
The point was perfect.
Your understanding was the problem.