We cannot be hypocrites

[thebiff]

I don’t see any similarity between the Buddy on Cousins and Lloyd on Sewell.

First i do not believe Buddy should have been rubbed out, yes he should have laid a tackle rather than going for the bump but he went the bump from front on and there was no raised elbow and Cousins could clearly see Buddy coming.

The Lloyd bump on Sewell was worst for Sewell actually had his head down and i am not sure he saw Lloyd coming, i unfortunately missed it happen (some chick after sitting down thought out half time decided she would go for a walk) from the video it looks like Lloyd had made a decision to run at Sewell.

If we didn’t see the Buddy suspension then i would have expected two weeks for Lloyd, and while that is a disappointing result the thing is Lloyd is no longer the lynch pin for the Essendon football club.

good post, good to see there is still people with informed opinions on here.

 

[yaco55]

I am interested in the different reactions from Hawks supporters and Bomber supporters in the last 2 weeks.

Hawthorn supporters bleated all week about the injustice of Franklin being suspended, but if you read the reactions of Essendon supporters on BF and on Bomber Blitz they accept that Lloyd will be suspended.

They were both incidents where contact was made to the head of the opposing player.

It is an interesting thought.

 

[Miss_Hawk_Fan]

1. I thought he was off due to the blood rule, and came back on after he was cleaned up and the blood had stopped leaking out etc...

2. opposite

3. not if mclaren is umpiring, he is a dead-set goose. I, as an essendon supporter could see that he was terrible...

just thought i'd make comment on your dot points

1. Yes he was off at first due to the blood rule, after being patched up brown sat on the bench.

2. Like i said wasn't sure

3. Reply on the hawk board when it is constuctive and well thought out is fine. Dot form is fine FFG

 

[The Mongrel Punt]

Original poster is a ****head, absolutely disgraceful post
Lloyd's bump was intentional high contact and he lined him up from 20 meters away. If you can’t tell the difference between that and buddy’s incident then you are a true ****ing idiot. You can’t have people intentionally knocking players out, you know nothing about footy **** off don’t need your bullshit opinion

You're right, of course. I bow to your vast knowledge of football, the rules, of high contact, of the players' intent, of their thought process, of the "targeting" of Sewell, and of your scary swearing and insults.

Don't need my opinion? It's because of people like me that there are people like you. You need intelligent people in order to realize just how stupid others are sometimes.

**** ****ing **** ****sucker

That last bit is just so you feel as though you're at home with your parents.

 

[Miss_Hawk_Fan]

Certainly not my last, either. I refuse to be blinded by faith. Others, I cannot speak for.

Your the only one that is blinded, you've gone so far one way towards essendon in a effort to be fair, your opinion is more bias more so than their own supporters, it makes me wonder who you go for?

Yes both incident have head high contact, no essendon, tiger or hawk supporter has disputed this fact.

That is where the diffrence ends.... Lloyd was intent on the player with his head over the ball and was delibrate and done to take the player out.

Fine disagree if you wish, reply if you want, but do me a favour at least consider what a majourity of posters are saying on this board.

"Sewell had his head over the ball, lloyds action displayed intent and was to take him out the player with his head over the ball..."

 

[The Mongrel Punt]

"Sewell had his head over the ball, lloyds action displayed intent and was to take him out the player with his head over the ball..."

That is all well and good, and I accept that. I just don't think that it is so far removed from Buddy's actions a week removed that people can justify one, and jump up and down about another.

As for me looking as though I don't follow Hawthorn... ludicrous.Unlike many other fly-by-nighters who speak of their passion and love for the club, I put my money where my mouth is every year, and have done for the last twenty years. And not just your little "I'm a member - I have a card" type money either. What it is, my dear, is wisdom and perspective. You'll get 'em too, someday.

 

[Satchmo]

You're right, of course. I bow to your vast knowledge of football, the rules, of high contact, of the players' intent, of their thought process, of the "targeting" of Sewell, and of your scary swearing and insults.

Don't need my opinion? It's because of people like me that there are people like you. You need intelligent people in order to realize just how stupid others are sometimes.

**** ****ing **** ****sucker

That last bit is just so you feel as though you're at home with your parents.

Interesting. Surely you know self praise is no recommendation? I wouldn't call turning your back on what happened to Sewell just to give yourself some consistency when wanting to get Buddy off the charge last week "intelligent." I cannot believe you started a thread with this ridiculous sentiment on the ESSENDON board to get some support.

If you actually believe Lloyd knocked out a player in the middle of the ground within the first 15 seconds of the second half by accident I must say that I seriously doubt you have any claim to intelligence.

Sure some people have over reacted in your opinion, but if that causes you to jump ship and join in with the Essendon glee you might what to think about changing which team you support.

 

[Valve Bounce]

To back up my statement , Lloyd is not 100 % fit (limited finals impact
), career could be over and took one for the team against our most dominating player of the game at that stage.

What can you say about that sort of commitment??

Ask Dermi and Lethal. End of story!!

 

[Miss_Hawk_Fan]

That is all well and good, and I accept that. I just don't think that it is so far removed from Buddy's actions a week removed that people can justify one, and jump up and down about another.

As for me looking as though I don't follow Hawthorn... ludicrous.Unlike many other fly-by-nighters who speak of their passion and love for the club, I put my money where my mouth is every year, and have done for the last twenty years. And not just your little "I'm a member - I have a card" type money either. What it is, my dear, is wisdom and perspective. You'll get 'em too, someday.

You sir infer that i have no wisdom or perspective, but sir i have treated you with respect and have considered others opinion. I have simply tried to discuse this with you in a constructive manner and you come up this put down. You old wise one should feel ashamed of your behaviour.


Ive been a Hawk for years and have bracked for them since 1985 (6 Years old) and really become passionate and developed an understanding of the game in 1992.

Until 2008 i had never personally enjoyed premiership glory and have stuck by the hawks regardless of sucess. I become a paid up member as soon as i was old enough to work.

Quite simply Lloyds attack on sewell was worse than Buddys hip n shoulder on Cousins. For years regardless of the club, the player with his head over the ball is protected.

I am yet to see any footage that changes my mind, Lloyd had a long run up and was going at full pace and did not appear to have his eyes on the ball.

Had sewell been up right and lloyd had eyes on the ball, then in my view this would have been a fair bump on sewell.

Speaking of Sewell he is a very fair and clean player. Theres not much that keeps that man down, so when he stays down you know there is a need to be worried abour his health! Proud of sewelly!

 

[Satchmo]

Ask Dermi and Lethal. End of story!!

Different era. But even so, I don't think those two guys would spend the rest of the match picking grass in the forward line.

 

[worthy]

You're right, of course. I bow to your vast knowledge of football, the rules, of high contact, of the players' intent, of their thought process, of the "targeting" of Sewell, and of your scary swearing and insults.

Don't need my opinion? It's because of people like me that there are people like you. You need intelligent people in order to realize just how stupid others are sometimes.

**** ****ing **** ****sucker

That last bit is just so you feel as though you're at home with your parents.

The only similarity between the incidents is that the head was hit, intent, force and result are completely different, you need to recognise this fact, it's okay to have your little crusade about wanting to see tough, hard footy, this game was a great example of tough hard footy, from both sides, Lloyds act was not.
The opinions on here are many and varied, yours is just another, and IMO just as incorrect as many on the opposite pole.

As I stated earlier
Franklins bump 21 weeks ago = 0 weeks
Lloyds bump 21 weeks ago = 4 weeks

Lloyds hit was more similar to Longs hit on that Melb Ruckman from years ago.

 

[worthy]

Ask Dermi and Lethal. End of story!!

Never saw them dive, but they did pay for their indiscretions. End of story.

 

[QuietHawk]

Agree wholeheartedly with the OP Suck it up boys and reign in the tears for the good of the game! We weren't good enough and Buddy should have played we are all hurting. We are all feeling hard done by, and rightly so. But it is time to grow a pair and stop dragging every Hawthorn supporters name through the mud with your hypocritical posturing.

 

[Davo23]

Hmmm, let's see. Head high contact - check. Use of the shoulder on the head/neck - check. One player knocked unconscious - check. Incidents that changed the game - check. One player to be cited by the MRP - check. And a suspension - check (pending). Pretty frigging similar in my eyes.

I know you want to rant and rave about how Buddy's hit was fair - I believe it was, but I also remember a time when Lloyd's hit would be deemed fair... and bugger me if I don;t like football played that way. So if I had my way, Lloyd would get off, and Buddy wouldn't have had a case to answer either.



So Buddy just wanted to gently dislodge the football and go about his business? Don't be such a one-eyed, naive idiot, please! I love the physical stuff and, as I said above, it would be my preference that neither player were suspended for what I would like to be considered as legal contact, but if we're gonna go down this track, we have no right to claim Lloyd should be hung out to dry if we were claiming that Buddy was innocent.



Yeah, because Browny really showed them who was boss in almost the entire second half he had to even-up. Unfortunately I just think it was bravado speaking. I don't expect any of it to be backed up, or it would've happened today.

You might want to quit while you're behind, mate.


Or reveal your Essendon membership - it is pretty obvious.



.

 

[On the Boyle]

IMO, there was only one good thing to come out of yesterday's game, and that is the ensuing controversy for the AFL:
Lloyd goes, the AFL are further decried for ruining our game and taking the hardness out of it.
Lloyd doesn't go - AFL are decried for inconsistency and picking on Buddy.

I want Lloyd to go, only because if our players are going to be done, then so should everyone else - I want consistency in the approach.

But, by the same token, I think both were pretty fair bumps and unfortunate. I think Lloyd should be looked at more, simply because Sewell had his head over the ball, but that's the only mitigating factor in my opinion.

 

[Satchmo]

Agree wholeheartedly with the OP Suck it up boys and reign in the tears for the good of the game! We weren't good enough and Buddy should have played we are all hurting. We are all feeling hard done by, and rightly so. But it is time to grow a pair and stop dragging every Hawthorn supporters name through the mud with your hypocritical posturing.

This is probably because you are a closeted Scum supporter. Enjoy watching the finals wearing red and black. You may have some hope for the first five minutes. To actually take offense at Hawthorn's defense of Sewell and ignore all the trolling being done by the Bombers is seriously pathetic.

 

[Symons]

I thought the verdict for Buddy was out of order, but we appealed and we lost. Buddy had to cop the punishment and our team had to play with a significant disadvantage by not having him in the squad.

The result is that now there's a precedent.

I know I'm a Hawks fan but I think for reasons already outlined (such as intention, head over ball etc) Lloyd's challenge was worse than Buddy's was...but with what I'm saying, it's all a moot point.

The point now is that Buddy went, so Lloydy must go too. You can't have one rule one week, and one rule the next.

 

[JoeHawk]

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.

I take back my earlier thoughts.

After watching the replay and all the camera angles in slow motion, this was clearly an arrange hit on Sewell.

Buddy's was purely accidental, and this was purely intentional.

There is no hypocrasy here.

And the Bombers Football Manager, Paul Hamilton can go and get stuffed after his comments against Brown and the Hawks. The Bombers are no angels either.

 

[Off The Couch]

Agree wholeheartedly with the OP Suck it up boys and reign in the tears for the good of the game! We weren't good enough and Buddy should have played we are all hurting. We are all feeling hard done by, and rightly so. But it is time to grow a pair and stop dragging every Hawthorn supporters name through the mud with your hypocritical posturing.

We weren't good enough - We were in control of that game until it came down to having only two fit players on the bench from VERY EARLY on in the third quarter because of a "bump" on Sewell.

To even begin to compare the two is ludicrous - Buddy did everything in his power to minimise the contact with Cousins to say that Lloyd did the same thing is laughable. Do you honestly think the tribunal will say that Lloyds contact was "reasonable" but the head needs to be protected and offer him a week - the two incidents are completely different.

We as hawk supporters can only be labelled as hyprocrites if the two incidents are the same. These are clearly not, so why don't you climb down off your high horse and stop having a go at hawk supporters who saw their best midfielder taken out in a disgusting manner by a guy who has made a habit of it. Don't forget for one minute what he did to Josh Thurgood and why Brownie sat out for four weeks.

 

[thatswhatimtalkinabout]

We weren't good enough - We were in control of that game until it came down to having only two fit players on the bench from VERY EARLY on in the third quarter because of a "bump" on Sewell.

To even begin to compare the two is ludicrous - Buddy did everything in his power to minimise the contact with Cousins to say that Lloyd did the same thing is laughable. Do you honestly think the tribunal will say that Lloyds contact was "reasonable" but the head needs to be protected and offer him a week - the two incidents are completely different.

We as hawk supporters can only be labelled as hyprocrites if the two incidents are the same. These are clearly not, so why don't you climb down off your high horse and stop having a go at hawk supporters who saw their best midfielder taken out in a disgusting manner by a guy who has made a habit of it. Don't forget for one minute what he did to Josh Thurgood and why Brownie sat out for four weeks.

Yep CP, having had some time to sleep on it and re-examine things in the cold light of day I agree with your summation 100%.

The real shame, and I mean this sincerely, is that with media commentators now muddying the waters, including our own Crawf, by claiming the incidents are the same when the clearly were not - Cousins was upright, Sewell was bent over for a start - the AFL will use it as an excuse not to review their kneejerk ammendment to the rule.

Lloyd, in his desperate attempt at relevance and self preservation, has ensured that the bump is dead and there will be no ressurection.

And that is sad.

 

[burner1]

Lloyds sole intention was to take sewell out - he lined him up from 30m away and ran at him in a straight line.

Buddy was a split second decision as cousins changed direction and almost ran into buddy. Cousins would have ran into buddy regardless of buddy slightly turned his body and bit a bump on.

Not at all comparable - yet lloyd will probably only get 1 weeks more - just a stupid system.

 

[CAPTAINCRAWF]

Franklin & Lloyd = Apples & Oranges. Lloyds gone for 3-4 or you might aswell throw the rule book out. Last year he still would have went for 3-4 before the new Maxwell rule. Lloyds in trouble and he would know it. Isn't the Hit on Sewell, Browns passion exactly what we love about football. I love Hawks v Bombers for these reasons. It was a great game of football from both sides and yes Essendon deserved to win.

Llyoyd - 4 wks
Bateman - 2 wks
Ryder - 1 wk

Ryders was low contact and doesn't deserve to go but under the pathetic rules he will get 1.

 

[mustardnugget]

After watching that video again, I'm absolutely furious.

There's no shame in going down honorably to a team that is willing to play outside the scope of the rules to secure victory. Anyone telling me that Lloyds hit was unintentional is simply full of it.

You can clearly see Lloyd realise at the last minute he's going to miss and changes direction. You then see him step of his left foot and into Sewell's head.

There's one problem for Essendon though... it's not a sustainable game plan to have one player snipe an opposition player and spend weeks on the sideline for every game that you don't have the football ability to win.

It might get you a finals berth but it sure as hell won't win you a premiership.

Can't wait till the next time you play a fit & firing Hawthorn you scum, they're gonna be waiting with baited breath.

 

[worthy]

Franklin & Lloyd = Apples & Oranges. Lloyds gone for 3-4 or you might aswell throw the rule book out. Last year he still would have went for 3-4 before the new Maxwell rule. Lloyds in trouble and he would know it. Isn't the Hit on Sewell, Browns passion exactly what we love about football. I love Hawks v Bombers for these reasons. It was a great game of football from both sides and yes Essendon deserved to win.

Llyoyd - 4 wks
Bateman - 2 wks
Ryder - 1 wk

Ryders was low contact and doesn't deserve to go but under the pathetic rules he will get 1.

Ryder will not get a week, there was not enough force to constitute a strike.

 

[bomba4eva]

After watching that video again, I'm absolutely furious.

There's no shame in going down honorably to a team that is willing to play outside the scope of the rules to secure victory. Anyone telling me that Lloyds hit was unintentional is simply full of it.

Hang on. Your team has been playing outside of the rules for the last few years. How many players have been suspended?

The only shame is the premiers missing out on the finals. You were beaten by a better team yesterday so there is no shame in that.