franklin case

Remove this Banner Ad

Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

magpie_militia said:
I disagree. He definitely braced himself before he hit the ground.

I actually feel sorry for Hawks fans on this one (even though they gave us a lot of stick over the Maxwell bump!!).

The extent of an injury shouldn't determine a suspension IMO. Play on.
Click to expand...

It doesnt determine the suspension result, but it has to be a factor which affects the decision...
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

magpie_militia said:
I disagree. He definitely braced himself before he hit the ground.
.
Click to expand...

I disagree, Benny went down like a boxer does when he gets a right cross to the jaw. I can't see Benny being afraid to fall on the turf and thus decide to brace himself for the collision with the turf. :rolleyes:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

Essendon and Richmond fans: he smashed him in the head, string him up!
Hawthorn fans: he didn't touch him
Reasonable footy fans: the AFL is a joke
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

catters078 said:
It doesnt determine the suspension result, but it has to be a factor which affects the decision...
Click to expand...

It opens up too many possibilities and questions. For example, what if Cuz had taken a hit earlier in the game that caused the concussion (or at least contributed to it)?

These sort of bumps happen a fair bit in games, and if Cuz had got straight back up, there would be no suspension.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

FRUMPY said:
If cousins didnt get concussed then Franklin would not be on report. Same with Maxwell. If his jaw didnt get broken and he got straight back up he would not have gotten reported.

With the new rule after the maxwell case, if a player decides to bump and makes incedental contact to the head and injury occurs, then he gets suspended. Stupid rule and thought so when they introduced it. But cant see how franklin can get off it, under the new rule
Click to expand...

I agree that if Cousin wasn't concussed there wouldn't be such a big deal about this...

... because the reason why Cousin was concussed is that he got hit in the head.

The equations are pretty simple:

No concussion = no high contact = no report.

Concussion = high contact = report = suspension.

Or for Maxwell:

Broken jaw = high contact = report = suspension

I don't see how Hawthorn can expect to get Buddy off this one. The rules have been applied to others and seem pretty clear - you can't bump another player and make contact high, it is dangerous, you will get reported, you will get suspended.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

doodlefeatures said:
Essendon and Richmond fans: he smashed him in the head, string him up!
Hawthorn fans: he didn't touch him
Reasonable footy fans: the AFL is a joke
Click to expand...

Essendon and Richmond fans: Head high bump which resulted in a concussion. Let the tribunal sort it out.
Hawks fans: Waahhhhhhh Wahhhhhhhhh Buddy is the victim Wahhhhhhhhhhhh there is an afl conspiracy against the hawks wahhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Reasonable footy fans: Who cares Im just sick of listening to hawks supporters bleating on the main board about conspiracies.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

Probably not, because it would have meant he either didn't hit him in the head or didn't hit him as hard. Thank Nick Naxwell for it.

Honestly, I don't care about the MRP, I just wanted a free kick for head high contact, instead of two goals being gifted to the hawks.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

doodlefeatures said:
svBUMP.jpg
Click to expand...

:thumbsu: Best hit of the year, Buddy should be applauded for it!! Really hope he gets off....but unlikely. Intent was a solid bump, not to knock him out cold.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

magpie_militia said:
I disagree. He definitely braced himself before he hit the ground.
Click to expand...

So what you're ACTUALLY saying, is that you didn't see the incident.

Because you would have to be blind to think he wasn't already out when Buddy's shoulder hit Cousin's head.

He goes limp almost INSTANTLY.

Valve Bounce said:
Nah!! the rotation of the earth and the resultant Coriolis force caused the turf to rise and smack Cousins so hard he saw the planets and stars re-align. :eek:
Click to expand...

laugh.gif
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

magpie_militia said:
I disagree. He definitely braced himself before he hit the ground.
Click to expand...
According to Doc Larkins a few weeks ago, it's a reflex to cross your arms when you get knocked out so that doesn't really mean anything. That protection also hurts the Hawthorn case in that there is minimal contact between head and turf to cause the concussion. Actually now that I think about it:
Contact shall be classified as high or to the groin where a player's head or groin makes contact with another player or object such as the fence or the ground as a result of the actions
of the offending player.
Click to expand...
was added after the Milburn case last year, so even if it was head on turf that caused the concussion, it's still Franklin's fault.

I wish it wasn't the rule but I can't see how the tribunal can do anything but rub him out for 2 tonight.

If he hadn't been concussed and there is no side on footage that shows the contact, he'd probably get the inconclusive footage way out, if it got to the MRP at all because consistency in cases getting to MRP assessment stage is clearly one of the biggest problems with the current process.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

Mitchell Madness said:
i have watched the replay a lot, and still fail to see where franklin connects with cousins' head like poeple are making out.
Click to expand...
You've been watching the wrong hit.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

Spluff said:
Probably not, because it would have meant he either didn't hit him in the head or didn't hit him as hard. Thank Nick Naxwell for it.
Click to expand...

Well said. It's a stupid thread question. It's basically asking:

"Would the decision be the same if the impact was lesser or not in the head?" :rolleyes:
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

This is the decison that offically makes the AFL a joke to me. The sport as I loved it is dead and some new mutated ugly stepchild is now masquerading as a once great game...

Sad sad day in AFL history and absolutely pathetic.


Because you would have to be blind to think he wasn't already out when Buddy's shoulder hit Cousin's head.

He goes limp almost INSTANTLY.
Click to expand...

You do realise that a concussion is not caused by the impact to the head, it is caused by the brain being shaken inside the skull, now that is most often caused by head high contact but can be caused by an unexpected jolt, the sort you get when a 100kg guy hits you forcefully from the front. I'm not saying that is what happened here, just mentioning it, I see very minimal high, if any contact, clearly the 3 field umpires also saw no high contact.

MRP is bad for football. That is my last comment on this because it really makes me angry/sad what they are doing to the game and I am meant to be working...
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

I just don't understand why he didn't try to lay a friggin' tackle. A much greater percentage play rather than hoping you manage to take down the opponent legally before he gets rid of the ball in a bump...

Just asking for trouble really.
 
Hypotheticly...........

Hypothetically,When buddy goes to contest his 2 match suspension, what if cousins showed up and told the MRP he didnt want buddy to be suspended and it was his fault he got hit??

what would they do? would they just throw the case out?

or would cousins words count for nothing.

because personally If I was cousin's I would just say fair go I got hit and I dont think someone should be suspended for it.
 
Re: Hypotheticly...........

Fear0411 said:
When buddy goes to contest his 2 match suspension, what if cousins showed up and told the MRP he didnt want buddy to be suspended and it was his fault he got hit??

what would they do? would they just throw the case out?

or would cousins words count for nothing.

because personally If I was cousin's I would just say fair go I got hit and I dont think someone should be suspended for it.
Click to expand...

Why would Cousins get involved? "I really wasn't knocked out, I faked it":rolleyes: The footage is there. It's up to the tribunal now!
 
Re: Hypotheticly...........

They would of course ask Benny if he was on drugs.

Seriously though, players have a rep of lying to protect one another. They would ignore his testimony and judge solely on the footage.
 
Re: Hypotheticly...........

Fear0411 said:
When buddy goes to contest his 2 match suspension, what if cousins showed up and told the MRP he didnt want buddy to be suspended and it was his fault he got hit??
Click to expand...

Tribunal matters should be analogous with criminal law to me. It isn't a case of an individual (Cousins) bringing the case against Franklin but the state (the AFL) bringing the charges against him. Much like how a criminal matter doesn't need the consent of the victim to be run, there is no reason why Cousin's opinion/desires should be considered.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

franklin case

Similar threads

M
Laird have a case to answer ?
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
Shadow89
S

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top