Hawks appeal hearing 5:30pm Thursday - APPEAL DISMISSED

[bomba4eva]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Doesn't matter. Both hit the opponents hit and both caused the other to be concussed. It doesn't make sense - we know this shouldn't be reported but the rules state it does.

Terrible rule, AA will be shitting himself on this outcome. Rule MUST be changed if Buddy is cleared.

Both were contesting a loose ball. Cousins had the ball when Franklin callously hit his head. There is a difference and I'm assuming this is the reasoning the head honchos would also give you.

 

[Ledger]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Both were contesting a loose ball. Cousins had the ball when Franklin callously hit his head.

Nope wrong there mate, Cousins defiantly did NOT have full control of the ball. He fumbled and tried to gain clear possession of it back, not in time before Buddy bumped him.

 

[Off The Couch]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Both were contesting a loose ball. Cousins had the ball when Franklin callously hit his head. There is a difference and I'm assuming this is the reasoning the head honchos would also give you.

Callously hit his head - what a load of tripe.


The shoulder clipped his jaw - when two guys with the bodies that these two have come together the impact is going to be massive and that is how Ben came to be knocked out. Nothing callous in it.

While speaking of head clashes why is it do you think that Lovett-Murray wasn't reported for his head high tackle on Drum on the weekend. Drum was left extremely groggy and in fact had to leave the ground - why don't you give us an explanation for that one.

 

[stoner]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

am I right in thinking that, since they changed to this new structure, there has only ever been one successful appeal?

Jesus mate. You've posted in here more in the last couple of days than I have in my whole life.

Me thinks someone is really s***ing themselves that Buddy eventually gets off this moronic charge.

Tell me, will Essendon appeal if he does??????

No matter. Buddy or not, you're headed for one monumental arse-whooping on Saturday. Enjoy.

 

[bomba4eva]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Callously hit his head - what a load of tripe.


The shoulder clipped his jaw - when two guys with the bodies that these two have come together the impact is going to be massive and that is how Ben came to be knocked out. Nothing callous in it.

While speaking of head clashes why is it do you think that Lovett-Murray wasn't reported for his head high tackle on Drum on the weekend. Drum was left extremely groggy and in fact had to leave the ground - why don't you give us an explanation for that one.

Wasn't that yet another case of two players going for the loose ball much like Rance/Selwood

There's your explanation, pal. No doubt the impact would be big but that is beside the point. Buddy could have smashed him without hitting his head and done worse damage and yet get off scottfree.

 

[bomba4eva]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Nope wrong there mate, Cousins defiantly did NOT have full control of the ball. He fumbled and tried to gain clear possession of it back, not in time before Buddy bumped him.

I believe he had full control of the ball after a very brief fumble.

 

[Off The Couch]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Wasn't that yet another case of two players going for the loose ball much like Rance/Selwood

There's your explanation, pal. No doubt the impact would be big but that is beside the point. Buddy could have smashed him without hitting his head and done worse damage and yet get off scottfree.

Irrelevant - read the rule

You are choosing to be obtuse and we all know why

 

[bomba4eva]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Irrelevant - read the rule

You are choosing to be obtuse and we all know why

So they are going to suspend two players are they

 

[Ledger]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

I believe he had full control of the ball after a very brief fumble.

This is arguable, he fumbled and it wasn't exactly brief. Franklin lined up for a perfectly legal bump as this happened. Last second you could say Cousins had control of the ball - but this was too late for Buddy to react with a tackle.

 

[LuvMyHawks]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

I believe he had full control of the ball after a very brief fumble.

You just can't reason with some people!! May I suggest you go back to your own forum..
You have had your say!!

 

[Rioli]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Any team we play, you expect a couple of their supporters to come on the Hawthorn board and give their opinion that week. Essendon fans, however, have seemed to have formed an addiction

Seriously though, you Essendon supporters can't honestly believe the rule is a good rule. I've stated this before but, I believe that the rule should stand as:

a bump shall be deemed legitimate and not reportable when;
- the elbow is not raised
- the arm is tucked in
- the players feet do not leave the ground

I think those are pretty fair rules. I also think every rule should try to protect the players unless it begins to interfere with the spirit of the game. Do you agree?

 

[LuvMyHawks]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

So they are going to suspend two players are they

Yes, they should have BOTH been suspended. They both contributed, so they should have both been reported..Neither of them took duty of care
This is EXACTLY what the AFL should be clamping down on...And remember Rance was not able to play until 3 weeks later..Cousins will play this weekend...
I think we have given you enough leverage in here.. Now run along!!

 

[SodaPop]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

So they are going to suspend two players are they

Just checked it out.
Selwood was always going to get to the ball first. In fact he laid hands on it. Rance had the opportunity to pull up and avoid collision, instead he dives in head first.
Reasonable or unreasonable, Rance caused the head contact.
Under the current law, guilty.

AFL has failed in the interpretation.

 

[mainehawk]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Bomba 4 eva...........please leave this board. Picture this: The collision between Bud & Ben. Actual impact knocks the wind from Ben, falls over & jars his neck/skull causing concussion ? it's a tough game.

 

[Bayer_]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Bomba 4 eva...........please leave this board. Picture this: The collision between Bud & Ben. Actual impact knocks the wind from Ben, falls over & jars his neck/skull causing concussion ? it's a tough game.

Just one of the many attention seeking trolls who come to our board with nothing worth saying. Probs best we don't feed them.

p.s. Free Buddy.

 

[bomba4eva]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Just checked it out.
Selwood was always going to get to the ball first. In fact he laid hands on it. Rance had the opportunity to pull up and avoid collision, instead he dives in head first.
Reasonable or unreasonable, Rance caused the head contact.
Under the current law, guilty.

AFL has failed in the interpretation.

The high contact was with the head though. Obviously he wasn't intending to hurt his opponent with his head. Even if Selwood was going to get the ball first I believe Rance is permitted to dive at the ball as it was still in dispute. He could not have tackled him as he didn't have the ball and he couldn't bump him on the ground. What he did was go 100% for the ball which resulted in accidental head contact. It is a different situation to the Franklin incident, mate.

 

[marklar]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

The rules state that a HEAD HIGH CONTACT IS REPORTABLE!! Doesn't matter whether it was accidental, reasonable, or unreasonable.. Read the rules..

but buddy's tooth knocked out of his head against St. Kilda & his bloody lip from a punch in the face against Richmond say otherwise.

m.

 

[Ledger]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

The high contact was with the head though. Obviously he wasn't intending to hurt his opponent with his head. Even if Selwood was going to get the ball first I believe Rance is permitted to dive at the ball as it was still in dispute. He could not have tackled him as he didn't have the ball and he couldn't bump him on the ground. What he did was go 100% for the ball which resulted in accidental head contact. It is a different situation to the Franklin incident, mate.

You still don't understand it. Go back to your own board, join your own kind and get ready to have a cry when Diver Lloyd retires.

Oh and even without Buddy, we're still gonna beat you sods.

 

[Neville Bartos]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

The high contact was with the head though. Obviously he wasn't intending to hurt his opponent with his head. Even if Selwood was going to get the ball first I believe Rance is permitted to dive at the ball as it was still in dispute. He could not have tackled him as he didn't have the ball and he couldn't bump him on the ground. What he did was go 100% for the ball which resulted in accidental head contact. It is a different situation to the Franklin incident, mate.

Time to f*** off back to that dump they call the Essendon board champ...

 

[IBleedBrownNGold]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Just checked it out.
Selwood was always going to get to the ball first. In fact he laid hands on it. Rance had the opportunity to pull up and avoid collision, instead he dives in head first.
Reasonable or unreasonable, Rance caused the head contact.
Under the current law, guilty.

AFL has failed in the interpretation.

That hasn't happened before, has it?

What seriously s***s me about the AFL is that they hide behind these "interpretations" because they don't have the guts to put their balls on the line. If I were to rock up to my place of employment and start making decisions on the basis of "interpretation", I would be sacked... When are these tools going to be made accountable? <rant over>

 

[SodaPop]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

The high contact was with the head though.

So it's ok to make high contact with your head

Obviously he wasn't intending to hurt his opponent with his head.

Obviously Buddy wasn't either but contact was made on both counts.

Even if Selwood was going to get the ball first I believe Rance is permitted to dive at the ball as it was still in dispute.

The moment Benny fumbled, the ball was in dispute. He only gathered it a split second before contact was made.

He could not have tackled him as he didn't have the ball and he couldn't bump him on the ground. What he did was go 100% for the ball which resulted in accidental head contact. It is a different situation to the Franklin incident, mate.

No mate, Buddy couldn't have tackled while Benny was fumbling, his only option was to bump. Benny grabbed it a split second before the collision, Buddy was already committed and had no hope pulling out.
As for Rance, he had the opportunity to avoid the collision. See Caracella rule.

Cya.

 

[SodaPop]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

That hasn't happened before, has it?

What seriously s***s me about the AFL is that they hide behind these "interpretations" because they don't have the guts to put their balls on the line. If I were to rock up to my place of employment and start making decisions on the basis of "interpretation", I would be sacked... When are these tools going to be made accountable? <rant over>

I want to know, who and how where these 2 clowns voted in to run the AFL.
Would also like to know how they can be removed?

 

[IBleedBrownNGold]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

I want to know, who and how where these 2 clowns voted in to run the AFL.
Would also like to know how they can be removed?

I work in a large organisation (corporate)... these worms tend to move sideways in the structure until they fall into the golden position. They tend to be incompetent and rely heavily on the 'teams' around them to get things done.

Basically, they are ninnies.

 

[Amazing Bombers]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

That rule is soft, hope he gets off.

 

[thommus]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

What will happen with the announcement of the Teams on Thursday arvo? It'd be funny if we had the arrogance to name him