We cannot be hypocrites

[THEHIGHFLYINGHAWKER]

Believe that and you might as well believe that the tooth fairy visited Buddy.

Poor Season from the Hawks - little boys running around thinking that they are more talented than they actually are. Meanwhile Coach Grumpy should concentrate on tactics instead of barracking.

Hawthornland isn't as tough as it thinks it is.

**** off to your own board. Have fun getting beaten in the finals and under achieving AGAIN! loser.

 

[Bojangles17]

Sorry but Lloyds seems to have more intent than Buddys to knock out the player. He deserves more.

Lloyds was more reckless/dangerous due to the positioning and then flush contact with his opponent...I'd expect 4 weeks

 

[Zaka11]

Lloyd ran off half forward, saw sewell over the ball and still continued to run in...

Watch the tape again. The ball was in dispute. Sewell got there first and was hit high. Yes Lloyd should get the punishment but dont try and say that Lloyd ran off the square directly at Sewell. It was not intentional to get him high. And take off your glasses and you will see that the hawks opponent did have his hands in Lloyds back, possibly adding to the collision.

 

[Off The Couch]

Prefer my retribution on the field myself.

I don't think the incidents were all that similar but I can see where the OP is coming from and concur.

The only thing that bothers me is a dejavu feeling that it might of been a set play ala Yeates-Brereton, but that's just me probably.

Said exactly the same thing to my partner.


Personally I don't think they were even remotely similar - imo Buddy did all he could to prevent serious damage to Cuz - the same cannot be said for Lloyd.

 

[Hawk Dork]

What LLoyd did has been illegal for a few years.( the rule was bought in to stop Dermie running off the lines to take out either an on baller or Plattens tagger ) what Buddy did was only deemed illegal this week( and even that is disputeable).

 

[bomba4eva]

Sorry guys, but there is no way we can take the high ground here and say that Lloyd should be suspended, have the book thrown at him, or anything like that.

For the last week all we have read on this board is of Buddy's innocence and how hard done by he was by the AFL, and now people are on here baying for the blood of Matthew Lloyd. Sorry, but that is so hypocritical that it makes me embarrassed for you.

If you support hard, physical footy, then you should support Matthew Lloyd walking away from this pending charge. Of course, if you're an unreasonable, one-eyed idiot - the sort that is incapable of taking a step back - then by all means scream for his blood.

After last week, I think the AFL has really painted themselves into a corner, and there is no way that they'll let Lloyd play after a hit like that, but personally, I would've liked to have seen both Lloyd and Franklin free to play after their incidents.

For all the talk about the Hawks fighting the AFL for "the good of the game", there seem to be quite a few willing to abandon that cause this weekend.

And... fire away.

Great post

 

[Changa10]

Watch the tape again. The ball was in dispute. Sewell got there first and was hit high. Yes Lloyd should get the punishment but dont try and say that Lloyd ran off the square directly at Sewell. It was not intentional to get him high. And take off your glasses and you will see that the hawks opponent did have his hands in Lloyds back, possibly adding to the collision.

I'd like you to post evidence of this, as I am yet to see any contact from Shoey to Lloyd at all. In fact from one angle of footage I have seen there is space between the two players.

This incident is clearly different from Buddy's. This particular case is a perfect example of why the rule was brought in, to protect the player with his head over the ball.

Are all of you saying Lloyd should get off saying that he didn't have any other option but to bump/hit Sewell front on in the head?

As I see it it will get graded, High Contact, Severe Impact (Maybe high if he is lucky), Reckless. Whatever that gets him?

Thank goodness Sewelly saw him coming and did lift his head, as who knows what would have happened if he hit him like that with his head down??

 

[thatswhatimtalkinabout]

Great post

So how many weeks suspension are you demanding given your stance over the last week?

 

[Miss_Hawk_Fan]

Lloyds was more reckless/dangerous due to the positioning and then flush contact with his opponent...I'd expect 4 weeks

Agreed..... sewell clearly had his head pver the ball when he was taken high and knocked out cold.

 

[nohairandfair]

**** off idiot
__________________
Only a campaigner would join the HFC.

An anti-social "member".

 

[Miss_Hawk_Fan]

Sorry guys, but there is no way we can take the high ground here and say that Lloyd should be suspended, have the book thrown at him, or anything like that.

For the last week all we have read on this board is of Buddy's innocence and how hard done by he was by the AFL, and now people are on here baying for the blood of Matthew Lloyd. Sorry, but that is so hypocritical that it makes me embarrassed for you.

If you support hard, physical footy, then you should support Matthew Lloyd walking away from this pending charge. Of course, if you're an unreasonable, one-eyed idiot - the sort that is incapable of taking a step back - then by all means scream for his blood.

After last week, I think the AFL has really painted themselves into a corner, and there is no way that they'll let Lloyd play after a hit like that, but personally, I would've liked to have seen both Lloyd and Franklin free to play after their incidents.

For all the talk about the Hawks fighting the AFL for "the good of the game", there seem to be quite a few willing to abandon that cause this weekend.

And... fire away.

Agree that the high moral ground isnt the way to go and i too like good old fashion hip n shoulder with in the rules.


Disagree......

I feel buddys hip n shoulder was with in the rule book and spirit of the game, Cousins did not have his head over the ball. He also appeared to limited his contact on cousins.


Lloyd on the other hand didnt limit his contact on sewell, who had his head over the ball. Had sewell been up right, the hip n shoulder from lloyd would of been fair.

 

[saint leo]

not being hypocritical. Buddy's was a perfect bump which slipped high as a result of Cousins slipping. it was not premeditated.

Lloyd ran off half forward, saw sewell over the ball and still continued to run in...



cant believe noone mentions atkinson. left the ground and collected Birch. Just as dog of an act.




the game is soft because Buddy did everything within the rules (you could argue there was no contact to the head of cousins. what lloyd did always has been judged as a bit of a dog act.

Lloyd ran from half forward to get the ball, mcveigh stuffed up and sewell fumbled. Ground was wet. He will get 2 but neither him or buddy should have got any. Lloyd was front on and sewell slipped made it worse.

Atkinson did nothing, jumper to mark it, saw birch there and pulled out and hardly touched him. If anyone thinks thats dirty they have never played footy in there life!

 

[bungholes_premiers]

I think he should get weeks. I don't think he should be public enemy number one.

He's public enemy number 1 cos all his intention was to take the player out - he succeeded, we are another man down and we lose ...

thats why

and for those saying we are hypocrites - we would not be saying jack if Buddy didnt go - alls we're saying is if buddy gets 2 then so does Lloyd

 

[Gold Member]

I've watched the collision several times in slo-mo and noticed that Sewell contributed to the severity of the contact by quickly raising his head into the shoulder of Lloyd.

Lloyd really could't have anticipated this action and is being unfairly maligned for just a football incident, albeit a regretable one for Sewell.

Same thing happened to Buddy last week.

It's a high speed game, and inevitably nasty collisions are going occur at times. The law-makers/judiciary need to consider intent rather than making blanket rules for head-high contact.

You take posession, look up and assess your options.

I say again.

**** off idiot.

 

[Mervyn Beasley]

Most definitely.

Sewell had his head way down for seconds retrieving the ball.

Buddy...90% of contact to body, 10% to head

Lloyd...100% to head

twice as bad. 4 weeks

This sort of thing would get weeks BEFORE this years rule change, let alone after.

This is correct.
Lloyd came in with intent to hurt the man imo.
Quite possibly pre planned at half time to hurt our clearance specialist.
Lets face it Bombers were crap against a very undermanned hawk team in first half and needed something. They got what they needed. Clearances after half time and plenty of run with hawks 2 men down.

Buddy had a split second to choose b/w bump and tackle and laid what 99% thought was a great bump.
Lloyd was never going to do anything other than what he did.
Weak act.
3-4 weeks.

Browny wants Lloyd to play on next year.
If Lloyd has half a brain (a big if) he wont. Not just to avoid Browny but because he is finished as a footballer. Pathetic today.
Hopefully career over as a suspended player.

 

[FouRFooTGiaNT]

I am just going to start by saying, the hawks seemed to get a bit of a rough deal by Mclaren today and he should be suspended for his poor umpiring today...

Now, onto the Lloyd issue, he was useless today. The 'famous' bump to sewell today turned the game around after that. It put a lot of emotion into the game after that, and the bombers got a bit of a run after it. The bump itself was illegal to the current and previous rule, and Lloyd should be suspended for it. However, he was held early on by shoenmakers, so the pressure to beat him to the contest aswell as sewell was there, but by the time he had got within a metre or so of sewell, shoenmakers had slowed up to crumb up and analyze by the looks of things..

IMHO Lloyd will probably get 2 weeks, and im not sure off the top of my head how many points he is currently carrying over... I am one who thinks buddy was hard done by from a rule that is not entirely consistant, and I think that he set a precident for this issue. Under this rule, yes he should've been suspended, and hawks really had nothing to fight for. What the right thing to do now would be to take it to the AFL as an issue to fix in the off season...

The fact that there was more on the line than just 4 points, there was a finals spot and the fact that buddy was done by a similar incident last week has made a lot of you hawks fans very frustrated and fiesty, and I don't blame you. But, I say try to take each individual incident on its own and don't try to compare.

Also, one last point on this, is I don't think Lloyd targetted Sewell at all, it just happened that he had the ball. If it was any other player, a similar result may have happened. I think you will find that the majority of cases are done either accidental or just wrong place/wrong time situation.

 

[mustardnugget]

I can't believe I'm reading this OP... There's one MASSIVE difference.

Malicious intent!!!!!! It makes ALL the difference.

I've already had this argument with about four scum supporters today...

Did Lloyd suddenly decide he was gonna become a midfield onballer???

 

[Davo23]

Don't get conned by Gary Lyon about Hawthorn supporters being hypocrites.

This is not hypocrisy: Hawk fans are saying: "well, if the AFL stuff our season up by suspending our best player for a doubtful infringement, let's see the AFL doing the same for everyone else".

That's not hypocrisy - it's asking for consistency.

But it won't happen: cry-baby Lloyd will get off, and Brad Sewell will get suspended for diving.




.

 

[Brown Blood]

As someone else mentioned today lloyd is one of the biggest snippers in the game.

And about time scum supporters admitted it.

Should get 4-5 probably will probably be 3 - won't matter though as I think he will choose to retire at the end of the season (this week for him- good).

 

[JoeHawk]

I reckon that both Buddy's and Lloyds are accidental and simply a part of contact sport. Both happened at a frenetic pace (Lloyd more so), but after recent events, Lloyd has to go. Simple as that.

The bump is dead.......soon to be followed by the tackle......then what?

 

[Brown Blood]

I reckon that both Buddy's and Lloyds are accidental

I will be polite - there is no comparison - one was premeditated at half time & designed to take out our best player the other was accidential and as the tribunal stated - reasonable.

The bump is dead.......soon to be followed by the tackle......then what?

If this new rule was designed to take out anything from the game it is what lloyd did today.

 

[Brown Blood]

Lloyd ran from half forward to get the ball, mcveigh stuffed up and sewell fumbled. Ground was wet. He will get 2 but neither him or buddy should have got any. Lloyd was front on and sewell slipped made it worse.

Atkinson did nothing, jumper to mark it, saw birch there and pulled out and hardly touched him. If anyone thinks thats dirty they have never played footy in there life!

Are you happy having a captain who is the biggest snipper in the game!

He used to dive to get a kick - in recent years he likes to go after cheap targets.

If he is smart he will retire and never play again.

 

[Miss_Hawk_Fan]

I will be polite - there is no comparison - one was premeditated at half time & designed to take out our best player the other was accidential and as the tribunal stated - reasonable.
If this new rule was designed to take out anything from the game it is what lloyd did today.

im with you bb

 

[Tiger08]

Hope Sewell is ok. Lloyd will get 3 but I don't think it was as malicious as some of you are making out. IMHO Sewell knew the contact was coming before he took the ball - look at the way he changes direction by planting his right foot and then tries to dodge to his left. Only trouble was he got everything out of the way except his head.

He should have turned his left side in and picked it up with his left hand and taken the blow across the left shoulder. If he'd had control of the ball he probably would have ended up spinning out of it fine. I presume he's a right hander though so that just not what you do...

Anyway, the reality is that the AFL has a concept of a duty of care and Lloyd should have had both arms out trying to tackle in that situation. Sewell head would have hit him in the chest or the guts and not the shoulder and the umpire would have just paid it too high. That's my view anyway. All a bit easier in slow motion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI7z6v93Wo0

 

[m0zza]

Sorry guys, but there is no way we can take the high ground here and say that Lloyd should be suspended, have the book thrown at him, or anything like that.

For the last week all we have read on this board is of Buddy's innocence and how hard done by he was by the AFL, and now people are on here baying for the blood of Matthew Lloyd. Sorry, but that is so hypocritical that it makes me embarrassed for you.

If you support hard, physical footy, then you should support Matthew Lloyd walking away from this pending charge. Of course, if you're an unreasonable, one-eyed idiot - the sort that is incapable of taking a step back - then by all means scream for his blood

And... fire away.

I'll go.

Franklin was guilty of rough conduct in that he made forceful high contact while bumping.

Lloyd made forceful front-on contact to the head of a player with his head over the ball.

The two offences are actually completely distinct in the tribunal rules and carry different penalties.
At all except the lowest level of severity, the Lloyd offence carries a higher penalty.

Last week, I thought Franklin was in trouble. After carefully reading the tribunal rules, I have to conclude that the MRP actually got that one right.
Franklin was defined as negligent by the rules even though I don't think he was negligent.

Lloyd is in more trouble.
His conduct was at least reckless
Impact was at least high.
Contact was undeniably high.
That is a Level 4 offence and earns 550 points.
Four weeks with a guilty plea.

I won't be at all surprised if the MRP try to tweak the penalty lower.

Negligent, High impact Level 3 400 3 weeks with a plea
Reckless with medium impact ditto
Negligent, medium impact Level 2 250 1 week with plea