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

[_Mike_]

I think we can all move on from the circling of arguing the why.

It happened, it will be dealt with by the tribunal. Lets not have any more childish behavior on the matter otherwise thanks.

 

[MightyTiger]

Then why the quote me and mention it?

I was getting a little tired of repeating myself to that Sydney numpty. I thought he might have got it at some stage.

Because wall you've done is argue the smallest point, thinking that nobody knows what you're trying to say, we get it, we know what you're trying to argue. Your argument falls short when it's a football field and not a boxing ring, if I'm in a ring I expect my opponent to punch me at some point, on a football field, punching is not allowed so it is a form of contact that nobody on the football field would be bracing for.

 

[DemonTim]

Because wall you've done is argue the smallest point, thinking that nobody knows what you're trying to say, we get it, we know what you're trying to argue. Your argument falls short when it's a football field and not a boxing ring, if I'm in a ring I expect my opponent to punch me at some point, on a football field, punching is not allowed so it is a form of contact that nobody on the football field would be bracing for.

Mate. As above. Just move on. His point is falling short to some.

 

[ziad]

I think we can all move on from the circling of arguing the why.

It happened, it will be dealt with by the tribunal. Lets not have any more childish behavior on the matter otherwise thanks.

why should we? Many may be just starting to have a close look at the dog

 

[_Mike_]

why should we? Many may be just starting to have a close look at the dog

Discuss without being childish/resorting to insulting others.

 

[ziad]

Discuss without being childish/resorting to insulting others.

Insulting???

What time is the tribunal?

Perhaps a discussion on brain damage rather that the dog that inflicted the potential illegally and cowardly?

 

[_Mike_]

Insulting???

There had been a number of posts between other users digressing to the level of slinging insults at each other. That is not acceptable.

 

[ziad]

There had been a number of posts between other users digressing to the level of slinging insults at each other. That is not acceptable.

perhaps we are over what is effectively criminal assault in the game.

and yes I am old and have seen worse, but we are in a better place now.

I would be happy to see the loser out for a year asa minimum

 

[largebus]

Anything more than 6 would be excessive, but Tom Jonas got 6 (harshly) last year.

My money's on 8

 

[Gavin Excell]

6

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I'll say 9 weeks. The tribunal will want to make a statement after last weeks debacle

 

[liz]

No way will he get nine weeks. Was it more than twice as bad as Houli's action?

I won't be surprised if he gets the same as Houli, though we don't know whether the appeal panel made any allowance for Houli's exemplary onfield record over a substantially longer period than Bugg has been in the game.

Five is my best guess but won't be surprised with either four or six. Anything below or above that seems incongruous with other recent cases.

 

[replicant]

No way will he get nine weeks. Was it more than twice as bad as Houli's action?

I won't be surprised if he gets the same as Houli, though we don't know whether the appeal panel made any allowance for Houli's exemplary onfield record over a substantially longer period than Bugg has been in the game.

Five is my best guess but won't be surprised with either four or six. Anything below or above that seems incongruous with other recent cases.

Barry Hall got 7 in a time when there was less focus on the dangers of concussion and brain damage. Less focus on payer welfare. And he didn't do it the week following a major media incident involving a cleanskin getting let off with a slap on the wrist by the Tribunal until it got appealed.

All this together means i wouldn't be surprised to see him go for 8+.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Interesting - the MRP have called it Intentional, to the head, and high impact.

Exactly the same combination as what Houli got last week. For the sake of consistency you'd argue it should also be weeks, but 6 just seems to feel right.

Maybe the Tribunal will read the Bugg intentional as "more intentional" than Houli's intentional, even though that flies ijn the face of things discussed last week.?

Maybe:
Intentional striking, which results in head contact = 4 weeks
Intentional striking aiming at the head = 6 weeks?

It is hard to argue Bugg is trying to strike the shoulder or arms or chest, or aiming at any other part of the body except the head.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Barry Hall got 7 in a time when there was less focus on the dangers of concussion and brain damage. Less focus on payer welfare. And he didn't do it the week following a major media incident involving a cleanskin getting let off with a slap on the wrist by the Tribunal until it got appealed.

All this together means i wouldn't be surprised to see him go for 8+.

I think 8 would be reserved for severe impact. This has been graded as "only" high. impact.

 

[BG32]

5

 

[bluespooner]

There wasn't much in it. It is the sort of thing that used to happen all the time and substantially worse than that hit.

Mills has just got a soft jaw.

 

[Topkent]

No way will he get nine weeks. Was it more than twice as bad as Houli's action?

I won't be surprised if he gets the same as Houli, though we don't know whether the appeal panel made any allowance for Houli's exemplary onfield record over a substantially longer period than Bugg has been in the game.

Five is my best guess but won't be surprised with either four or six. Anything below or above that seems incongruous with other recent cases.

If you take the image away the action and result deserves 4 going by Houlis, I expect 5. 6 is harsh and any more is just pandering to the over sensitive image of the game.

 

[theyellowsash]

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion but I think it's about time punches like hall, bugg, fahour etc are considered criminal acts and charges laid by the police like any normal person on the street would face.

Dangerous tackles and bumps can be dealt with by the game even though these could also be considered as assault, because they are simply reckless or overly aggressive applications of one of the elements of the game. However punching someone in the face has NEVER been part of the rules of the game, and so that same protection cannot be used. Particularly when you look at the hall and bugg punches, which were 50+ meters away from the ball. In a strangely perverse way, the fahour punch was the one most related to the actual game because it was during a melee rather than a random punch like hall and bugg. The argument that what happens on the field stays on the field is total crap and quite frankly is an invalid argument. Regular people don't get to go around breaking laws on the sporting field, so why should these dogs? And where do you draw the line? Those hits could easily have caused significant brain damage or death. Do the players get away with murder just because it was on the field? If players should get charged for murder then they must be charged for assault too, which could easily cause significant injury or death.

The sentence will obviously vary depending on severity, from the conca hit from behind that didn't do much to the hall hit that floored stalker, but that should be entirely up to the courts to decide, and they should be offered no protection simply because they play sports.

Anyone who disagrees should get their head out of their ass and imagine it was their son that was assaulted on the weekend. If they still don't care, then I suggest the next time they are on the sporting field they invite their opponent to punch them in the face for no reason and see how they feel about it then.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Can see this going well.

 

[Jiggyman]

OP on the money. Happens so rarely that these extreme incidents should be investigated. There's never been a need for these acts and in no way are they justified by the 'heat of the moment'. /thread

 

[Snake_Baker]

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion but I think it's about time punches like hall, bugg, fahour etc are considered criminal acts and charges laid by the police like any normal person on the street would face.

Where would it end?

This is a can of worms best left closed.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

The deciding factor here is that the victim has to press charges and apart from Clayton Oliver (relax Demons fans, it's a joke ), I can't see that ever happening.
Obviously if someone dies you'd be looking at manslaughter charges. The only other way I can see potential for charges is if somebody ends up with a disability as a result of unwarranted and forceful contact.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Ig the incident with Bugg and Mills happened on the street Bugg was actually acting in self defense.

 

[Bokonon_]

The deciding factor here is that the victim has to press charges and apart from Clayton Oliver (relax Demons fans, it's a joke ), I can't see that ever happening.
Obviously if someone dies you'd be looking at manslaughter charges. The only other way I can see potential for charges is if somebody ends up with a disability as a result of unwarranted and forceful contact.

Actually victims of crime dont have to "press" charges. In principle you offend against the community not the victim. Would be entirely possible for Police to charge players with or without a complaint.