Wellingham no case to answer

[Cosmo Kramer]

He hit a guy in the head with a bump, it is deemed reasonable?????????????????????????? What happened to intention/intent meaning nothing, I thought the AFL said the bumper has the duty of care, you choose to bump and you make contact with the head you are gone.

 

[HAWKS HEROES]

yes remember free kick that was from that had a friend said that no report should happen for the ellis one

hodge one is different kettle of fish

 

[Lurkalot]

Isn't that what Cousins did, fumble the ball?

Cousins began to fumble the ball but always retained possession.

[youtube]2O3h_E80vXw[/youtube]

Would have likely ridden the Buddy bump if not for that fumble & would never have been the story that developed.

 

[cam975]

He hit a guy in the head with a bump, it is deemed reasonable?????????????????????????? What happened to intention/intent meaning nothing, I thought the AFL said the bumper has the duty of care, you choose to bump and you make contact with the head you are gone.

^This.

I'm sure none of us want to see anyone get rubbed out for these sorts of incidents, but I want to see some consistency here. He chose to bump, got Hodge in the head, he should have been cited. End of story.

Not happy about this at all.

 

[Scream]

Didnt he come off with a small cut to the head?

 

[Cosmo Kramer]

^This.

I'm sure none of us want to see anyone get rubbed out for these sorts of incidents, but I want to see some consistency here. He chose to bump, got Hodge in the head, he should have been cited. End of story.

Not happy about this at all.

Exactly, the point is not if players should or shouldn't be suspended, the point is Franklin gets done twice, Mooney gets done, Brennan gets done on rubbish decisions, then this week Milburn and Wellingham get off...........................................................

Don't even get me started on Kennedy.

 

[sydney_hawka]

Definitely don't want to see this kind of thing resulting in suspension.

The strange thing is though that this got a free kick, but the hits on Lewis, Akermanis, Cousins etc didn't. Some result in suspensions, some don't. Whilst there may be some deep thought and convoluted explanations offered, the bottom line is players are giving heavy bumps that rattle the opposition in contests where the ball is nearby. Do we want to stamp this out or not?

We want them to be consistent with their rulings LP. That is all!!!

Not too much to ask surely.

 

[mess]

Fair enough, he didn't make contact to the head.

Um, yes he did bro...

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

The officiating of this game is getting worse by the week. It is easy to see why so many of us are frustrated with the run we get because there is just a lack of any credibility in the decisions being made. I now genuinely believe that a players reputation counts when a suspension is being considered. No doubt. I didn't want to believe this would occur, but it does.

I cannot belive that a player who is pulling up gets done one week for soft contact while someone charges at a bloke while the opponent has their head down and walks off with no charge. I'm stuffed in trying to even make an sense of it all.

And yet I don't see anyone in the media highlighting this crap. What gives?

 

[asanque]

Great. So now the AFL allows 'reasonableness'.

They sure as hell didn't allow 'reasonableness' for the Cousins suspension nor the more recent bump on Akermanis.

Milburn also gets off because he's 5 cm shorter than Franklin, and headbutted Cornes instead.

The MRP are a disgrace.

 

[rich_]

How the hell was buddy's unreasonable compared to this?!

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

How the hell was buddy's unreasonable compared to this?!

I don't know. It's got me plucked.

 

[IBleedBrownNGold]

Can't the AFLPA do something about this? I know damn sure that if something wasn't ridgey didge with something at work, I'd go straight to the union. Surely there has to be some modicum of sense about this??

Or maybe I'm expecting too much common sense from these turkeys.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Can't the AFLPA do something about this? I know damn sure that if something wasn't ridgey didge with something at work, I'd go straight to the union. Surely there has to be some modicum of sense about this??

Or maybe I'm expecting too much common sense from these turkeys.

This is a good point, it always seems to be club vs AFL, I wonder if player or AFLPA vs AFL may have a better chance?

 

[rdhopkins2]

Bizarre. Firstly may I note that I don't wish a player to be suspended no matter what side they may play for. What I do wonder is does the AFL MRP play heads or tails with a coin when adjudicating incidents. Players are asked week in, week our for consistency. Gieschen- please explain how your MRP is consistent.

 

[willo_k]

Buddy is to the MRP what Carl Williams is to excercise bikes.

Too soon?

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

This is a good point, it always seems to be club vs AFL, I wonder if player or AFLPA vs AFL may have a better chance?

I just cannot see that happening. The AFLPA is a bit-part speck in the overall scheme of things. They have no clout at all on any issue other than holding out for salary increase ala all unions. Besides, if legal eagles can't make it happen, what hope has the AFLPA.

 

[boric1]

Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Although if it was Franklin..........................

 

[TAITA]

If that was the same bump as Buddy's then he would have been offered a reprimand. It was Buddy's bad record that got him 1 week.

I've seen this view put out in the media a few times now and I believe it to be incorrect.

Buddy's 'bad record' is simply down to bad luck in 'bump-lotto', and the thing is, it's served now and we move on but it could cost him a final down the track - and that's not his fault, that's completely down to a knee jerk reaction from the rules committee and inconsistent application from the MRP.

 

[willo_k]

Buddy's 'bad record' is simply down to bad luck in 'bump-lotto', and the thing is, it's served now and we move on but it could cost him a final down the track - and that's not his fault, that's completely down to a knee jerk reaction from the rules committee and inconsistent application from the MRP.

Agreed, they've set a precedent that a player trying to minimise impact who still makes that impact head high (all be it because of height) will be penalized one game. We'll wait and see how consistent they are if its Riewoldt, Brown or even buddy in a winning prelim...

 

[Frankston Rover]

More bull****.

I'm sick of this bloody game. The AFL have ruined it for me with this type of crap.

Why isn't Jeff asking questions????

Absolute bull****.

 

[Gaborone]

If there is no consistency or desire for transparency in interpreting the rule then one has to ask why? It is only a short step to wonder if the rule is being applied selectively and if it is then who benefits? There is a lot of money bet on football nowadays. Can the AFL afford to maintain this nonsense?

 

[sydney_hawka]

More bull****.

I'm sick of this bloody game. The AFL have ruined it for me with this type of crap.

Why isn't Jeff asking questions????

Absolute bull****.

Perhaps the Club is asking the question, just not going Public with it.

It's gone beyond a joke now. Discretion doesn't seem to be exercised when a Hawk Player is involved, but the same doesn't apply for other Players that have a lesser Profile. I'm sick of it.

 

[m0zza]

Do you think that either Hodge or Buddy would want to see Wellingham cited?

Don't think so.

 

[Hawks1523]

Don't want to see him go for that, just like Mooney and Franklin shouldn't have gone. The fact Mooney and Franklin did go, shows just how big a joke the MRP really is.

None of them should have been looked at for their bumps.