Buckley slams AFL over Johnson ban

[Tiger_Of_Old]

The only straws being clutched at are you thinking that Notting is not regarded as the biggest cheap shot artist in footy. You have never even seen the footage have you? The ball was no where near Caracella when Notting hit him ,therefore Notting's intention was always to hit the man, not the ball.

Might be best if you look before you speak

 

[thepower]

johnson also had points from previous a incident carry over to this penalty yes? that is the difference between the two cases/sanctions (roe + him).

look, we're not calling for johnsons head, or calling him every name under the sun collingwood fans. dont get antsy about it. yes we can all agree that the tribunal system has not helped here, but its the system we must adhere to these days.

 

[doppleganger]

look, we're not calling for johnsons head, or calling him every name under the sun collingwood fans. dont get antsy about it. yes we can all agree that the tribunal system has not helped here, but its the system we must adhere to these days.

I reckon Johno should cop the harshest penalty possible for a head high hit, as it is prob the worst one we have seen this year. But that isn't the point, the point is how the tribunal comes up with its gradings?

How was it not deemed intentional?
Why was impact severe, just because he went off on a stretcher??
Why cant u use other incidents as comparison?

The tribunal system is rubbish, that is the point Buckley was making.......not that Johno should get off! For a hit like that Johno deserves to miss the rest of the season, no issue there, just how they come about the penalty which is mistifying!

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Johnson was always gone - trial by media had him stiched up. Perhaps Friday night games are not all good??

Buckley is right in that the tribunal is incredibly inconsistent, but please pies supporters - don't sprout he is doing it because of some moral crusade - if it was anyone else he would not have said anything - he is doing it as purely self-serving - so don;t proeach he is a saint as some have.

And the problem with Johnson is that he hit him front on - the top of the head and shoulder - Roe was turning and hit him more in the shoulder. Roe at least did look like he was attacking the ball at one stage before the incident - Johnson had turned his body and had eyes only to clean him up.

He is not a thug - but he paid the price for several things.

By the by - will Buckley get a please explain? Me thinks Vlad and co will do so - 5K would be a min.

 

[NEON]

If Roe's opponent was stretchered off he would be more injured hence the contact would be more severe having a look at the tv footage does not really count for assessing the severity of contact.

The resulting injury (or lack thereof) should not be considered.

 

[buggermedumplings]

I would not have mattered what Buckley said, someone would still disagree. He has to tow the complany line and unfortunately it made him sound critical of the process. If he went the other way, he'd be shot down for not being loyal to the club.

Anyway, Johnson got what he deserved...

 

[ShepBoy]

I heard Bucks on SEN and thought he was great. 6 weeks is just over the top and considering if we appeal and lose BJ will get another 2 weeks tapped onto it I think we must appeal.

I'm sure you plebes you jump on BF just to pot the Collingwood supporters prepared to stand behind their Club. Yes thats most of us and certainly theres more than any other Club.

I hope we win just to stick it up the lot of you plebes and fools that are just jealous of the power of the Magpies.

Johnson should be rubbed out and no logical Collingwood supporter thinks otherwise.

Thenr there are the types like you, illogical, bitchy and screeching.

An embarassment to the club you allegedly support

 

[Valve Bounce]

I wonder what Mick has to say about the 6 weeks.

 

[worthy]

Has Buckley (or any else here) even bothered to read the 2007 Tribunal booklet?

Quote:

IMPACT
There are four categories of impact – severe, high, medium and low. Low impact requires more than just negligible impact. Most reportable offences require at least low impact and a collision or incident involving negligible force will not ordinarily result in a charge.
In determining the level of impact, regard will be had to the extent of force and in particular, any injury sustained by the player who was offended against. Regard will also be had to the potential to cause serious injury such as in the following cases:
• any head-high contact with a player who has his head over the ball, particularly when contact is made from an opponent charging from a front-on position;
• forceful round arm swings that make head-high contact to a player in a marking contest, ruck contest or when tackling;
• use of an elbow or raised forearm to strike an opponent;
• spear tackles;
• driving an opponent into the ground when his arms are pinned.
In addition to the effect on the victim player, the body language of the offending player in terms of flexing, turning, raising or positioning the body to either increase or reduce the force of impact, will be taken into account. The absence of injury does not preclude the classification of impact as severe.
Video depictions of incidents ranging in impact from severe through high, to medium and finally low, will be available.

DEFINITION OF INTENTIONAL
A player intentionally commits a reportable offence if the player engages in the conduct constituting the reportable offence with the intention of committing that offence. An intention is a state of mind. Intention may be formed on the spur of the moment. The issue is whether it existed at the time at which the player engaged in the conduct.

DEFINITION OF RECKLESS
A player recklessly commits a reportable offence if he engages in conduct that he realises or that a reasonable player would realise may result in the reportable offence being committed but nevertheless proceeds with that conduct not caring whether or not that conduct will result in the commission of the reportable offence. The reckless commission of a reportable offence does not require any wish that the reportable offence be committed.

DEFINITION OF NEGLIGENT
A player negligently commits a reportable offence if the relevant conduct constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the player to all other players. Each player owes a duty of care to all other players to not engage in conduct which will constitute a reportable offence being committed against that other player. In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances.

I'll assume these are the guidelines the MRP and tribunal use, if so, they got it right IMO.
It sucks for Johnson, but the classifications seem accurate.

 

[Valve Bounce]

He was charged with Negligent and one could argue he was lucky that he escaped Intentional in the charge.

 

[doppleganger]

He was charged with Negligent and one could argue he was lucky that he escaped Intentional in the charge.

He was actually charged with reckless conduct.

That is the point, the actual system is rubbish, why wasn't it intentional?

Two much grey area and inconsistencies within the points system, the exact point Buckley was raising.

 

[Snowplough]

That is the point, the actual system is rubbish, why wasn't it intentional?

For it to be intentional he would have needed to form the intent beforehand that he was going to hit Bell front-on head high. I think Collingwood could have successfully challenged that. Intentional in a sense is premeditated (even if in a split second). I think reckless was the right category, it was certainly more than negligent.

 

[Snowplough]

I wonder what Mick has to say about the 6 weeks.

He should endorse it!

"Caracella agreed with coach Mick Malthouse who said the rugby codes have a better way of dealing with players who make head-high contact. "In rugby league, even if there is line-ball head-high contact, they are automatically put out (suspended) for about six weeks. And that's the way it should be," he said. "If you know the rules, and know you are going to be penalised, you won't do it."" (Herald-Sun, 11/6/2006)

In 2006, Malthouse called for "severe penalties to be automatic for head-high contact ... The tribunal's rules would include a specific section dealing with collisions or bumps to the head*. Whether the offence is accidental, negligent or dangerous, there would be no scope for leniency." (The Australian, 20/9/2006).

Again in June 2007, he said "Front-on bumps would cop an automatic visit to the tribunal with zero tolerance for collision with a player whose head is over the ball. If the AFL adopted this sort of approach, changing the rules and setting out clear parameters of contact, I would back them in." (The Australian, 29/6/2007).

* This was instituted in 2007 with Malthouse one of the main protagonists.

 

[Cyclops]

I think Bucks is speaking up for huis team-mate but he is clutching at straws a bit.

It was a spiteful game, we went the thump to try and put Melbourne away after we established an early lead.

Johnson copped a hit in the 2nd and was looking to repay with interest. I think his intent was to clean up the fella with a hip and shoulder, but when the guy went for the ball with his head down Johnno powered through him. Could legitimately have been given more, although my grasp of the points system isn't great.

On the Caracella thing, I am really sick of it being brought up. The fella was kneed in the head, his neck broke, and not even a free was paid.

In the same game Charman ran at Rocca who tripped and fell onto Charman's forearm. Unbelieveably Charman was reported (fror striking I think) and given weeks for something utterly not his fault. Live it looked rough, definitely a free, but on the replay it was obvious what happened was an accident, one of those things that can almost be a "play-on" call.

I know Charman can be a vigorous player but its one of the dumbest reports I've ever seen. I think he was reported on reputation, and Notting let off in the same way.

This incident is not like either of those: Johnson went too hard, stuffed up, put a bloke at risk and will pay the price.

 

[Androo]

He should endorse it!

"Caracella agreed with coach Mick Malthouse who said the rugby codes have a better way of dealing with players who make head-high contact. "In rugby league, even if there is line-ball head-high contact, they are automatically put out (suspended) for about six weeks. And that's the way it should be," he said. "If you know the rules, and know you are going to be penalised, you won't do it."" (Herald-Sun, 11/6/2006)

In 2006, Malthouse called for "severe penalties to be automatic for head-high contact ... The tribunal's rules would include a specific section dealing with collisions or bumps to the head*. Whether the offence is accidental, negligent or dangerous, there would be no scope for leniency." (The Australian, 20/9/2006).

Again in June 2007, he said "Front-on bumps would cop an automatic visit to the tribunal with zero tolerance for collision with a player whose head is over the ball. If the AFL adopted this sort of approach, changing the rules and setting out clear parameters of contact, I would back them in." (The Australian, 29/6/2007).

* This was instituted in 2007 with Malthouse one of the main protagonists.

well if correct that should just about end all the Collingwood whinging then.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It was a spiteful game, we went the thump to try and put Melbourne away after we established an early lead..

I blame it on Neitz for refusing to shake Maxwell's hand at the start of the game.

 

[ant22]

I am still trying to figure out where Bucks has slammed the penalty. If anything he is supporting it. He said "He deserved a fair whack"
He is slamming the inconnistancy of the tribunal which is something pretty much everyone agrees with.

Bucks is coping alot of flack for saying what everyone else is thinking. Dont get sucked in by a misleading headline. He is not slamming the penalty at all.

 

[MF]

I am still trying to figure out where Bucks has slammed the penalty. If anything he is supporting it. He said "He deserved a fair whack"
He is slamming the inconnistancy of the tribunal which is something pretty much everyone agrees with.

Bucks is coping alot of flack for saying what everyone else is thinking. Dont get sucked in by a misleading headline. He is not slamming the penalty at all.

You have to understand that some people would rather shoot off at the mouth without reading the article first.

I think Buckley probably has a reasonable point as the there didnt seem to be a lot of difference in the level of impact between the two incidents.

Still deserve at least 4-5 weeks for that sort of thing though I think.

 

[Valve Bounce]

He was actually charged with reckless conduct.

That is the point, the actual system is rubbish, why wasn't it intentional?

Two much grey area and inconsistencies within the points system, the exact point Buckley was raising.

Sorry, my bad. Of course I meant Intentional and not Reckless. In this regard, maybe Johnno was lucky to escape the heavier charge.

 

[ant22]

You have to understand that some people would rather shoot off at the mouth without reading the article first.

I think Buckley probably has a reasonable point as the there didnt seem to be a lot of difference in the level of impact between the two incidents.

Still deserve at least 4-5 weeks for that sort of thing though I think.

I totally agree on the penalty and I reckon bucks does to. I suspect the club wont fight it which would be the first time I can remember them not fighting it which would show the club also agrees with the penalty. But they have gone soft on plenty of incidents that while they may not be quite as bad they should have coped more. This needs to be stamped out of the game.

I cant comment on the roe incident because I have not seen it.

 

[Valve Bounce]

For it to be intentional he would have needed to form the intent beforehand that he was going to hit Bell front-on head high. I think Collingwood could have successfully challenged that. Intentional in a sense is premeditated (even if in a split second). I think reckless was the right category, it was certainly more than negligent.

As I had posted much earlier, I watched the tape replay using freeze frame, and according to the game clock, Johnno had followed Bell for nearly three seconds before hitting him.

 

[Valve Bounce]

However, I do believe that it is time that Nathan Buckley as captain of Collingwood should forget about the incident and focus on the next two games and then the finals. I am sure all the Collingwood fans will agree with this.

 

[Cousin Jed]

He should endorse it!

"Caracella agreed with coach Mick Malthouse who said the rugby codes have a better way of dealing with players who make head-high contact. "In rugby league, even if there is line-ball head-high contact, they are automatically put out (suspended) for about six weeks. And that's the way it should be," he said. "If you know the rules, and know you are going to be penalised, you won't do it."" (Herald-Sun, 11/6/2006)

In 2006, Malthouse called for "severe penalties to be automatic for head-high contact ... The tribunal's rules would include a specific section dealing with collisions or bumps to the head*. Whether the offence is accidental, negligent or dangerous, there would be no scope for leniency." (The Australian, 20/9/2006).

Again in June 2007, he said "Front-on bumps would cop an automatic visit to the tribunal with zero tolerance for collision with a player whose head is over the ball. If the AFL adopted this sort of approach, changing the rules and setting out clear parameters of contact, I would back them in." (The Australian, 29/6/2007).

* This was instituted in 2007 with Malthouse one of the main protagonists.

Mick doesn't watch much rugby league then apparently.

 

[Butane]

The only difference i would have made with the Roe one was upgrade medium contact.

 

[ant22]

However, I do believe that it is time that Nathan Buckley as captain of Collingwood should forget about the incident and focus on the next two games and then the finals. I am sure all the Collingwood fans will agree with this.

He was simply commenting on his weekly slot on sen which involves talking about the weekends biggest issues.
I don't think anyone could ever accuse bucks of not focusing enough on his footy. In fact he has often been accused of focusing too much about his footy. So as a collingwood fan I have not concerns about his focus.