We cannot be hypocrites

[Off The Couch]

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.

You know I could wear that if it was the truth but when your down to 20 fit players it is no longer a level playing field so I don't run with the "beaten by a better team" - we ran out of legs simple as that.

Good luck to the bombers in the finals - you are going to need it.



Footnote: I cannot believe how much leeway this tossbag has been given on our board in the last week - is he related to someone.

 

[The Mongrel Punt]

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.

It is circumstantial (No, not the act performed by a Rabbi). If the ball isn't there, and Sewell isn't there, it doesn't happen.

People seem to think (wishfully) that I am a Matthew Lloyd fan -I most definitely am not, and of all the teams, I have an intense dislike of Essendon over the others. What I am is objective on this, and others are not. Brown and gold glasses.

 

[Davo23]

If the ball isn't there, and Sewell isn't there, it doesn't happen.

.

Very funny stuff !

And if Cousins is not there, Franklin doesn't get suspended ...


.


.

 

[Spange]

Hey guys just wanting to post from an un-biased perspective.
Anyone who compares the Buddy bump to Llyods hit is an idiot. And that means you OP. I have read this whole thread and it is chalk and cheese.
How many times does someone need to say head over the ball.
What I want to know is how you guys think this was intentional and not reckless. Not being at the game and not having good vision of the incident, besides what was telecast, means I can't make that call. Has anyone got footage of Llyod running from HF to hit him?
Obviously Llyod not being an agile midfielder means he wouldn't have been able avoid contact but geez it really looked like he dropped his shoulder into Sewells head.
And no the Hawks player behind him did not push Llyod into Sewell.

I would say 4 weeks. Anything less would be ridiculous.

 

[Miss_Hawk_Fan]

Hey guys just wanting to post from an un-biased perspective.

Not being at the game and not having good vision of the incident, besides what was telecast, means I can't make that call. Has anyone got footage of Llyod running from HF to hit him?

I would say 4 weeks. Anything less would be ridiculous.

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

you have to watch closely, very quick.

 

[Miss_Hawk_Fan]

What does that even mean? If the ball isn't there and Sewell isn't there and we weren't playing a game of football at the MCG then we wouldn't we talking about the football now.

I don't care if you are a Matthew Lloyd fan or not. You may have posted this before you saw enough of the footage of the incident and now refuse to change your mind. But read what other people have written, watch the footage and think about what Lloyd actually did.

Give up Satchmo..... many have tried with mitrandduhh (fred)

treid being nice and challagene to read and think about the post. Might as well go out side now and hit your head against a brick wall.

 

[The Mongrel Punt]

Not being at the game and not having good vision of the incident, besides what was telecast, means I can't make that call.

Yet you choose to call me an idiot to curry favour with the masses.
Talk about pleading ignorance...

What does that even mean? If the ball isn't there and Sewell isn't there and we weren't playing a game of football at the MCG then we wouldn't we talking about the football now.

I am almost embarrassed for you in having to explain it. I'll type slowly. People are saying, in this thread and others, that it was a premeditated attack on Sewell. I call absolute BS on that one. You see, the ball is oval-shaped. Regardless of the most meticulous planning they could not have anticipated Sewell being where he was at that time. Yeah, I will happily concede that Knights may have told Essendon players to toughen up, and hit the body, or match the Hawks physically, but these conspiracy theories of Sewell being targeted are just silly grasping at straws by people desperate to hang a bloke out to dry.

So to put it succinctly for you, if the ball bounces just once differently to start the third quarter, there is no collision. It was all cirumstantial. I know you don't want to believe that.Either that or you are legitimately struggling to comprehend it. I'm sorry but it is far more plausible than the great conspiracy of Round 22

treid being nice and challagene to read

Che?

 

[Lurkalot]

I am almost embarrassed for you in having to explain it. I'll type slowly. People are saying, in this thread and others, that it was a premeditated attack on Sewell. I call absolute BS on that one. You see, the ball is oval-shaped. Regardless of the most meticulous planning they could not have anticipated Sewell being where he was at that time. Yeah, I will happily concede that Knights may have told Essendon players to toughen up, and hit the body, or match the Hawks physically, but these conspiracy theories of Sewell being targeted are just silly grasping at straws by people desperate to hang a bloke out to dry.

So to put it succinctly for you, if the ball bounces just once differently to start the third quarter, there is no collision. It was all cirumstantial. I know you don't want to believe that.Either that or you are legitimately struggling to comprehend it. I'm sorry but it is far more plausible than the great conspiracy of Round 22

A premeditated attack by Lloyd is likely drawing a long bow. Still there's no need to be a condescending twat to other posters.

Particularly, when you're nearly the only one unable to see the difference in the dangers of the two bumps. Alas most of us have even explained it to yourself while typing "slowly".

 

[lethalselbow]

Head over the ball has to be protected. Completely different bump.

 

[The Mongrel Punt]

A premeditated attack by Lloyd is likely drawing a long bow. Still there's no need to be a condescending twat to other posters.

Agreed. Let's hope the door swings both ways on that then, huh?

 

[thommus]

No no no, you're missing the point. The fact is Franklin copped weeks for his efforts, therefore if Lloyd escapes suspension then I will burn down AFL hq.

 

[Gilbert_Hodge]

Cousins did not have his head over the ball like Sewell did.
Lloyd also lined Sewell up from 20m away, he was always going to go for it.

edit: Cousins also didn't end up with a black eye.

Or facial injuries.

 

[Spange]

Yet you choose to call me an idiot to curry favour with the masses.
Talk about pleading ignorance...

If you take my quote out of context like that yeah it won't make sense but if you read it carefully I was referring to not having a great birds-eye vision of the whole centre square. All you see on TV are close ups and a slightly wider angle. A poster previously put a link up on youtube (thanks for that) and I have watched it many times now. The first few seconds give the best view of Llyod chargin in from outside the square... and yep Llyod is screwed.
Sewell has his head over the ball and it appears Lloyd made little to no effort to pull out of the contest or minimise the impact (reckless). He was no where near winning the ball either. A lot of times if a player was in Lloyds position there they would slide under and look to gain control with quick hands out but he just barrelled straight into his head. I shouldnt attack the OP by name calling but surely you can see the difference in bumos here.

 

[FouRFooTGiaNT]

95% of bombers fans were on buddys side last week, the other 5% weren't cause they saw it as advantagous if he didn't play. Now that it has happened to the hawks, they are calling us scum etc. Calm down, sheesh, most of the comments that some of the hawks fans have made about this incident are quoted from what was said by either the media or hawks players or coaching staff. The word 'SNIPE' I have seen a heap of times, which I believe is being said because C.Brown said it when he was huffing and puffing after the game. How about a lot of you hawks fans take a step back one week and have a think about what you were thinking and saying one week ago. It's not the Bombers, it's not Lloyd, it's not even the Bombers fans you should be agro with. It's the AFL's rules and the punishment system they have setup that has suspended a high profile player of yours that could have been the difference in the hawks winning or losing yesterday. Had that been a young bloke that was on his 3rd or 4th game ever that was rubbed out, I doubt the hawks would've appealed it, then re-appealed it again etc, they would've taken it on the chin, and maybe brought it up in the off season with the AFL. Franklin has set an example here, and Lloyd should go for atleast 2 weeks after a 'guilty plea' on that agenda, but try and take a look at each case on its own merits and stop trying to compare the two. It is AFL footy, accidents happen, so be it, it is part of the game.

 

[Bosk]

95% of bombers fans were on buddys side last week, the other 5% weren't cause they saw it as advantagous if he didn't play. Now that it has happened to the hawks, they are calling us scum etc. Calm down, sheesh, most of the comments that some of the hawks fans have made about this incident are quoted from what was said by either the media or hawks players or coaching staff. The word 'SNIPE' I have seen a heap of times, which I believe is being said because C.Brown said it when he was huffing and puffing after the game. How about a lot of you hawks fans take a step back one week and have a think about what you were thinking and saying one week ago. It's not the Bombers, it's not Lloyd, it's not even the Bombers fans you should be agro with. It's the AFL's rules and the punishment system they have setup that has suspended a high profile player of yours that could have been the difference in the hawks winning or losing yesterday. Had that been a young bloke that was on his 3rd or 4th game ever that was rubbed out, I doubt the hawks would've appealed it, then re-appealed it again etc, they would've taken it on the chin, and maybe brought it up in the off season with the AFL. Franklin has set an example here, and Lloyd should go for atleast 2 weeks after a 'guilty plea' on that agenda, but try and take a look at each case on its own merits and stop trying to compare the two. It is AFL footy, accidents happen, so be it, it is part of the game.

Except that Lloyd's attack on Sewell was not an accident. It was a deliberate effort to remove our most dominant midfielder (who had torn Essendon a new one in the 1st half) from the game, by a dirty, cowardly player who is years past his prime and knew full well that this would be his last season one way or another.

It was a dog act by pathetic player. It will also define how this sad excuse for a human being is going to be remembered in years to come, and he has no-one to blame but himself.

The fact that many Essendon supporters have been cheering him on and claiming they are "proud" of his actions speaks volumes about your club.

 

[thebiff]

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.

Haha strange how 95% of people on this board do not agree with you. You don't need a vast knowlege of football rules to see the difference between the buddy and sewell incident and thats why your getting shut down every post. It's common sense and your comments are ridiculous hence why almost no one agrees with your opinion, even bombers supporters.

 

[The Mongrel Punt]

Haha strange how 95% of people on this board do not agree with you.

To me it intimates that 95% of people are hypocrites. Welcome to the club.

You don't need a vast knowlege of football rules to see the difference between the buddy and sewell incident and thats why your getting shut down every post.

I believe you do have to have at least a very good knowledge of the game to differentiate between the two. I think the main difference many see is that one person committing the act was wearing a Hawks jumper, and one was wearing a Bombers jumper. Personally, I would like to see both hits be treated as completely fair.

It's common sense and your comments are ridiculous hence why almost no one agrees with your opinion, even bombers supporters.

Should we count the number of Bombers supporters who believe that Hawthorn people who complained about Buddy being suspended shouldn't be calling for Lloyd's head as well? Methinks you'd lose. Me-also-thinks you're quite used to it.

 

[Del33640]

mate, one was all torso and a bit of head - one was all head.

seriously, engage that brain before you post tosh like this.

 

[The Mongrel Punt]

mate, one was all torso and a bit of head - one was all head.

Was this supposed to be in a PM? Why have you not quoted prices, sweetheart?

Seriously, it doesn't matter if it was only a "bit of head". Like being a little bit pregnant, isn't it?

 

[QuietHawk]

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.

I was at the game that Lloyd took out Thurgood and i am well aware of his sniping tactics over the years but i genuinely beleive that he was going for the ball in this instance, past history does not change that.

If we were good enough we would have won, simple as that. We haven't been good enough all year, the boys fought hard but simply couldn't hang on when it mattered.

I am just sick of ALMOST every post from a hawthorn supporter being a whinge for the last week! Is this what we are? Yes Buddy should have played and Yes we should be in the finals but we got stiffed and it hurts, it hurts bad. But all this sulking and whinging won't change anything and i for one am sick of hearing(reading) it.

 

[Davo23]

... 5% of bombers fans were on buddys side last week, the other 95% weren't cause they saw it as advantagous if he didn't play. .

Fixed those pesky percentages for you !



.

 

[Mullarkey]

I was at the game that Lloyd took out Thurgood and i am well aware of his sniping tactics over the years but i genuinely beleive that he was going for the ball in this instance, past history does not change that.

If we were good enough we would have won, simple as that. We haven't been good enough all year, the boys fought hard but simply couldn't hang on when it mattered.

I am just sick of ALMOST every post from a hawthorn supporter being a whinge for the last week! Is this what we are? Yes Buddy should have played and Yes we should be in the finals but we got stiffed and it hurts, it hurts bad. But all this sulking and whinging won't change anything and i for one am sick of hearing(reading) it.

Oh the ironing....

 

[thebiff]

I believe you do have to have at least a very good knowledge of the game to differentiate between the two. I think the main difference many see is that one person committing the act was wearing a Hawks jumper, and one was wearing a Bombers jumper. Personally, I would like to see both hits be treated as completely fair.

The main difference is one was intentional the other was not. They are not comparable bumps, and you do not need a great knowledge of the game to see this. This is what everyone on here is saying, how can you not see this? It is so clear cut if you watch the replay of both incidents yet your trying to compare the two incidents like they are similar.

 

[The Mongrel Punt]

The main difference is one was intentional the other was not. They are not comparable bumps, and you do not need a great knowledge of the game to see this. This is what everyone on here is saying, how can you not see this? It is so clear cut if you watch the replay of both incidents yet your trying to compare the two incidents like they are similar.

Buddy meant to miss him? Is that what you're saying? He meant to drift past him like the breeze? Unfortunately, he did mean to hit him - perhaps not in the head, but he did mean to make contact. Unfortunately again, he made solid contact with the head.

Now I am not saying that I think that is wrong - as I've said, I love good, hard-at-it footy - but the tribunal does and it won't differentiate too much based on the fact that in their eyes both guys had a chance to tackle, and neglected to do so.

Do I think their interpretation is correct? No, no I don't. But they do, and therefore what I, or you for that matter, think, is irrelevant.

 

[BJsteel]

As a passionate essendon supporter i will try and put aside my bias.

Franklin got 2 weeks for a hit, which i thought was very stiff. Lloyd will most likely get 3 weeks for his hit, which under the current rules is fair. The main difference between the 2 hits was the severity of the contact. Obviously Lloyds was harder as it KO'd Sewell. Although Cousins did have concussion.

Sewell was destroying the bombers at clearances and his absence i believe lost hawks the game.

This is why hawks are upset, because an unfair hit changed the game. I admit it, without that hit the bombers would not be in September.

But to question a mans integrity is below the belt. Watch the vision with more than one eye and you will see Lloyd attempt a normal bump. Sewell was just too low down for it. Yes he could have tackled, but he didnt and he'll get weeks. But by no means was it a 'snipe'. I think the criticism Lloyd has received is unfair.