franklin case

Remove this Banner Ad

Re: Wear Black for the death of footy this weekend!

Harden up.


We could all quote unjust suspensions, and i'll name the ridiculous number of weeks Solomon got for the clip on Ling. Was supposed to keep him out 8 weeks, and Ling back in about 2.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Re: the bump is dead...

The bump isn't dead but the bump on the head is and thats great !

If you choose to bump enstead of tackling then you suffer the consequences if contact with the head is made.

Great decision for the game !
 
Re: the bump is dead...

Replied in another thread, but might be worth stating again

As "some types" of bumps are worked out of the game, the ferocity, frequency, and skill of tackling have improved 10 fold. I personally find tackling to be more indicative of "toughness" and guts, and a a lot more exciting and safer than a front on bump.

The game is not softer for players shifting more to tackles than bumps. To Hawthornise this thread to stop mindless capitals... Cyril Rioli is a perfect example of this evolution of physical football. Lining a guy up is nothing when compared to stopping him dead in a tackle
 
Re: the bump is dead...

The bump isn't dead but the bump on the head is and thats great !

If you choose to bump enstead of tackling then you suffer the consequences if contact with the head is made.

Great decision for the game !

Was buddy aiming for the head? i think a can of worms has been open and it will cause further uncertainty on the umpiring of the game.
 
Re: the bump is dead...

Franklin didn't line someone off the ball.

Cousins changed directions, and if he had stuck an arm out Cousins could have gotten around him.

Instead he braced for contact and continued to attack the ball.

Those trying to spin in their favour are just losing touch with the reality of what happened live in the game, where everyone (commentators, umpire (no free kick), and even RIchmond (didn't really run at Franklin as if he did much wrong) thought it was fair.

Everyone is just all over it because its Franklin.

Absolutely ridiculously hypocritical from Collingwood supporters.

To say that Franklin sat there, and thought "should I bump or tackle... i'll just line him up instead" is just showing what the problem with AFL is.

You isolate incidents that should be let go, but play them over and over and over and over again, and analyze the letter of the law, make out the players play in slow motion, and decide, yeah, in fact that is illegal, two weeks.

How that was not a good hit in the context of the game I wont know.

Just shows how much AFL has changed, not just because the AFL has made decisions like that, is that people are now defending it.

Ridiculous reaction, and every single club would be upset to have their player suspended for that. Just that people seem to be really enjoying sticking the knife in to Buddy Franklin.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

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.




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...
Great post, Wog.
 
Re: the bump is dead...

Its got nothing to do with aiming for the head which i'm sure he wasn't doing and i'm also sure there wasn't any intent. The fact is he made contact to the head and you can't do it.....simple.....end of story !
 
Just make headgear mandatory

If the AFL is so hellbent on "protecting the head", then why do they not simply mandate that every player must wear a helmet.

Players have been pulled up for such incredibly ridiculous things like cutting their sleeves off at the elbow, or cutting their socks down at the ankles, so the league has no issue with telling clubs what they can and cant wear now. Why doesn't the league show some balls and simply say "no helmet, no game". That's where it is going. I'm sure there would be doctors lining up to say how much safer the game would be if each player wore one.
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

I have a few different questions:

Would the uproar from Hawks fans be the same if it was Tom Murphy getting suspended for the same incident instead of Franklin? If not, why not?

Would the Hawthorn Board be posting a "Media Release" to protest the demise of our great game (I shit you not, this is happening on the Hawthorn board) if it was Tom Murphy getting suspended for the same incident instead of Franklin? If not, why not?

Would the Hawthorn FC even bother appealing the MRP ruling if it was Tom Murphy getting suspended for the same incident instead of Franklin?
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

I have a few different questions:

Would the uproar from Hawks fans be the same if it was Tom Murphy getting suspended for the same incident instead of Franklin? If not, why not?

Would the Hawthorn Board be posting a "Media Release" to protest the demise of our great game (I shit you not, this is happening on the Hawthorn board) if it was Tom Murphy getting suspended for the same incident instead of Franklin? If not, why not?

Would the Hawthorn FC even bother appealing the MRP ruling if it was Tom Murphy getting suspended for the same incident instead of Franklin?

I'm surprised Murphy hasn't been rubbed as well - and he didn't even play! Whats your point? Tell me you guys dont squeal loader about Ablett than you do about Blake?
 
Re: the bump is dead...

Its got nothing to do with aiming for the head which i'm sure he wasn't doing and i'm also sure there wasn't any intent. The fact is he made contact to the head and you can't do it.....simple.....end of story !
so what about all the other times in a game when heads get hit accidentally when carrying out actions within the laws of the game?

You can't on one hand deem a bump legal, but then at the same time deem any incidental/accidental contact a reportable offence when carrying out something deemed legal.

It's like saying putting your head over the ball is legal, as long as another bloke doesn't have his there first and you don't clash heads and knock him out!

The bump is either legal or not legal, you can't put qualifications on it. By doing so, they've outlawed it indirectly without getting as much negative PR as they deserve.
 
Re: Just make headgear mandatory

Mate.... please give it a break.

What's next.... we have our players looking like gridiron players. ?

Accept the decision, you don't have to agree with it or like it, I certainly don't, I think its BS. :confused: But thats the way its gone.

But I could not see how Maxwell got off either.

But it time to move on .
 
Re: Just make headgear mandatory

Because headgear has been shown to not stop concussion etc? Only thing it protects is cuts
 
Re: Would the decision be the same without Cuz concussion?

I'm surprised Murphy hasn't been rubbed as well - and he didn't even play! Whats your point? Tell me you guys dont squeal loader about Ablett than you do about Blake?

I am shocked - you didn't answer any of the questions.

Replace Tom Murphy with any random Hawthorn spud who did play on the weekend if it is easier for you to comprehend.
 
Re: the bump is dead...

so what about all the other times in a game when heads get hit accidentally when carrying out actions within the laws of the game?

You can't on one hand deem a bump legal, but then at the same time deem any incidental/accidental contact a reportable offence when carrying out something deemed legal.

It's like saying putting your head over the ball is legal, as long as another bloke doesn't have his there first and you don't clash heads and knock him out!

The bump is either legal or not legal, you can't put qualifications on it. By doing so, they've outlawed it indirectly without getting as much negative PR as they deserve.

Please leave, you're making too much sense and only used one exclamation mark, your type is not wanted around here.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

franklin case

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top