Hawks appeal hearing 5:30pm Thursday - APPEAL DISMISSED

[bomba4eva]

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

I think you'll find that neither Rance nor Selwood had the ball, thus making the situation different. They were both going for it and clashed heads.

Had thought of this one myself though

Yep, agreed. Similar to the Lovett-Murray/Drum incident on the weekend.

 

[Mervyn Beasley]

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

Bomba

I would just like to say that I feel sorry for Eva, whoever she is!!

 

[bomba4eva]

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

Look forward to the appeal tomorrow.

Good luck......

 

[raff23]

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

So, I'm assuming:

(a) this can go no longer than the night in question? (ie. is there a chance that the tribunal has to suspend a decision until more time is arranged...and Buddy is free to play this week?

(b) Buddy will play poorly this week (similar to Big Bad Barry in the GF years ago) because he'll be emotionally drained from the whole week?[/quote]
This sort of thing doesnt affect buddy like it might other players imo. Treats every week the same no matter what has happened during the week. Just the way he is. He would have already in his mind planned for essendon if he does get cleared.

 

[James Buchanan]

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

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?

Too open for abuse for my mind. An arguably simpler rule would be to remove negligent conduct from reportable offenses.

This means that players that either intentionally (very rare these days) or recklessly (acting in such a way that displays lack of care whether they do or do not) contact the other player's head are cited and put out; while players who merely accidentally or incidentally connect with the other player's head are not punished unduly.

I mean, in most cases your rule would be fine. However, there are circumstances where it could still be used dangerously, particularly where a player has their head over the ball. Unless there is intent to put in a separate rule for that specific circumstance.

 

[Grantly114]

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.

I hope he wins the appeal and gets to play but the AFL has turn rules into a joke in letting other players get off nd oter get weeks for nothng


Hayden Ballantyne got two weeks for bs ..it a joke, some get to walk free and others get weeks for a touch or looking at someone the wrong way, They have killed the game with 1000s paper cuts


What a joke,Let him play this weekend

 

[2121]

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

he better get off for the sake of the game. and plus i'd rather watch yous in finals then essendon.

 

[bergerson33]

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

i hope he gets off,

a) it was a damn good bump.
b) fair bumps like these bring excitement to the game.
c) the afl needs to realise that these constant rule changes are destroying the game, the players who are playing now were bought up to do these things which were within the rules, its natural to them. the umpires dont even know how to interperate the rules anymore, how are the players supposed to?

and most of all, d) we won by 5 goals last time with both buddy and roughy in anyway.

 

[Mcchawk]

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

So many opposition fans posting in a Hawk forum. I can smell fear, its getting stronger and stronger

 

[blackhead&boil]

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

the hawks should go for the barry hall grand final defense. for some reason he was allowed to play despite having offended and been found guilty, just because it was a grand final. the hawks should argue that this weeks match will determine whether they will make the finals or not, and that if they do they will go on to make the grand final, so this suspension will cost him a shot at playing in back-to-back premierships.

I know, it's lame. but it worked for barry...

 

[Woodside Hawk]

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

I watched the replay of the incident about 10 times last night, slo-mo'ing the slo-mo replays, if you get what I mean, and I'm absolutely convinced that if Buddy had attempted to tackle it would've been a coathanger.

Watching the front-on angle, when Cousins re-took possession of the ball and changed direction slightly, he was dropping at the knees to try and swerve around Buddy a little. His neck was at shoulder height a step or two before the bump, meaning if Buddy had stuck his arm out Cousins would've run straight into it at neck/jaw height, so Buddy instead tucked his arm in and stepped into the path of Cousins.

So, as has been questioned in another thread - if the only alternative was to apply an illegal tackle, does it still count as a reasonable alternative?

My personal belief is Buddy had three options - 1) - apply a coathanger-style neck/jaw height tackle, 2) - bump Cousins with his shoulder and try and knock the ball free (which he did and it resulted in a goal) or 3) - shirk the contest entirely.

I think he made the only reasonable choice.

Maybe I've got brown and gold glasses on, but that's how it looks to me.

 

[Cynic]

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

I watched the replay of the incident about 10 times last night, slo-mo'ing the slo-mo replays, if you get what I mean, and I'm absolutely convinced that if Buddy had attempted to tackle it would've been a coathanger.

Watching the front-on angle, when Cousins re-took possession of the ball and changed direction slightly, he was dropping at the knees to try and swerve around Buddy a little. His neck was at shoulder height a step or two before the bump, meaning if Buddy had stuck his arm out Cousins would've run straight into it at neck/jaw height, so Buddy instead tucked his arm in and stepped into the path of Cousins.

So, as has been questioned in another thread - if the only alternative was to apply an illegal tackle, does it still count as a reasonable alternative?

My personal belief is Buddy had three options - 1) - apply a coathanger-style neck/jaw height tackle, 2) - bump Cousins with his shoulder and try and knock the ball free (which he did and it resulted in a goal) or 3) - shirk the contest entirely.

I think he made the only reasonable choice.

Maybe I've got brown and gold glasses on, but that's how it looks to me.

Good post .

His other option according to the AFL is magically get smaller.

The preferred option according to the AFL is to shirk of course.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

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

So many opposition fans posting in a Hawk forum. I can smell fear, its getting stronger and stronger

well, it is the hottest topic in footy right now, and we do have one hell of a vested interest! I have to say though, I'm getting rather comfortable here! Nice bar wenches, comfy couches. Pity about the decor though!

I need to clarify my position though.

Even though I would love to see the man who's destroyed us repeatedly out (9 goals...twice! ), I have to admit it's a shit decision, a shit rule, and shit for footy.

I hope you guys get your man off tonight

 

[Blueboys11]

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.

It is not often I agree with an Essendon supporter, and im going to wash my hands as soon as this post is done, but the posts bomba4eva has made make perfect sense. To compare Buddy's incident with 2 players diving on a losse ball is ludicrous.

Argue with the rule as much as you want, but take a step back, watch the incident, apply it to the law and there is no way Buddy will get off.

Whether that is to the detriment of the game or not...thats for another time and discussion.

 

[Blueboys11]

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

I watched the replay of the incident about 10 times last night, slo-mo'ing the slo-mo replays, if you get what I mean, and I'm absolutely convinced that if Buddy had attempted to tackle it would've been a coathanger.

Watching the front-on angle, when Cousins re-took possession of the ball and changed direction slightly, he was dropping at the knees to try and swerve around Buddy a little. His neck was at shoulder height a step or two before the bump, meaning if Buddy had stuck his arm out Cousins would've run straight into it at neck/jaw height, so Buddy instead tucked his arm in and stepped into the path of Cousins.

So, as has been questioned in another thread - if the only alternative was to apply an illegal tackle, does it still count as a reasonable alternative?

My personal belief is Buddy had three options - 1) - apply a coathanger-style neck/jaw height tackle, 2) - bump Cousins with his shoulder and try and knock the ball free (which he did and it resulted in a goal) or 3) - shirk the contest entirely.

I think he made the only reasonable choice.

Maybe I've got brown and gold glasses on, but that's how it looks to me.

The fourth option would of been to notice Cousins losing control of the ball, drop the knees and apply a perfectly legal tackle which considering the prior opportunities he had had to dispose would of most definatly resulted in a holding the ball decision. Even the slightest of tackles would of dispossed the ball and resulted in the free kick.

Call me a troll as much as you want, but some on here need to look at the incident from both sides....

 

[Woodside Hawk]

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

As I said, from watching the replay repeatedly last night I am certain any attempt to tackle would've caught Cousins high.

I know it sounds like a self-serving statement, but the way Cousins changed direction and attempted to move around Buddy made a legal tackle unlikely in the extreme.

Buddy could not have effected a legal tackle in the time he had and the position the two players were in. Its pretty hard to be sure watching the youtube footage etc, but watching it in slo-mo from my Foxtel IQ box, which allowed me to slo-mo the slo-mo replays, this is the only conclusion I could draw.

 

[hfc2008]

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

I watched the replay of the incident about 10 times last night, slo-mo'ing the slo-mo replays, if you get what I mean, and I'm absolutely convinced that if Buddy had attempted to tackle it would've been a coathanger.

Watching the front-on angle, when Cousins re-took possession of the ball and changed direction slightly, he was dropping at the knees to try and swerve around Buddy a little. His neck was at shoulder height a step or two before the bump, meaning if Buddy had stuck his arm out Cousins would've run straight into it at neck/jaw height, so Buddy instead tucked his arm in and stepped into the path of Cousins.

So, as has been questioned in another thread - if the only alternative was to apply an illegal tackle, does it still count as a reasonable alternative?

My personal belief is Buddy had three options - 1) - apply a coathanger-style neck/jaw height tackle, 2) - bump Cousins with his shoulder and try and knock the ball free (which he did and it resulted in a goal) or 3) - shirk the contest entirely.

I think he made the only reasonable choice.

Maybe I've got brown and gold glasses on, but that's how it looks to me.

I've probably got the same glasses on, but I did the same thing this morning, and came up with the same 3 scenerios. Surely, the legal team must make this point.

Furthermore, watching the video, I don't see how the Franklin could have avoided some sort of contact purely based on the direction in which Cousins was travelling. So, was Buddy "bracing" himself for contact (intuitive self-defence), rather than deliberately "bumping".

 

[Gene Simmons]

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

The head high rule is becoming broader and broader..

The idea behind it was to protect the player with his head over the ball and to prevent a player from running into him ie protect the head.

The way it has been interpreted now is a joke - even during legitimate play and a fair bump (no elbows or arms raised) a player can suspended for 2 weeks! Let's not forget; not even a free kick was paid at the time of incident & it didn't happen behind play either!!

For the good of the game, let's hope this ridiculous decision is over-turned tonite! If this is not over-turned, unfortunately, AFL will have set a new precident and the game as we have known it will be a thing of the past. Completely.

 

[thatswhatimtalkinabout]

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

Whether that is to the detriment of the game or not...thats for another time and discussion.

Why?

There is no better time to discuss it than when it's interest is at it's peak is it not?

You know you come over to our board - and no one asked for your opinion anyway - and then make pathetic generalisations like 'you won't look at things objectively because you're biased'.

Well apart from the generalisation, which I reject BTW, there has been much good debate with many Hawthorn supporters conceeding we cannot beat the rules as they are written - what did you expect? Us all to bow down to the all knowing Blueboys11 and thank whatever god we worship for your guidance and enlightenment?

Having read every post and every thread on this board about the matter, the only discention that the rule is not wrong or against the spirit of the game has come from Richmond, Essendon & Carlton supporters.

Funny that - the aggrieved and our two next potential opponents.

Out of that three groups, the majority of Tiger and Essendon supporters (bombers4eva aside who was just making a tool out of himself) have expressed that they believe the rule is wrong and a slur on our great game.

Carlton fanboys have just been carrying on like flogs - no doubt out of fear that Buddy will destroy their feeble hopes in the elimination final.

Well I'm sorry - I can't accept your opinion about anything - you and your Carlscum mates are biased.

Oh, and we will kick your sorry, cheating arses back to Royal Parade regardless.

 

[noosa hawk mad]

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

Great post TWITA I'll say it again champ you crack me up with your Witty & well thought out responses.....

 

[LuvMyHawks]

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

Did anyone hear Anthony Koutifides this morning on 927? He said that Buddy should NOT get suspended for that bump.
He explained it exactly how Buddy should have on Tuesday night.. According to Adam White (reporter at the hearing) Buddy was trying to explain it, but just couldn't get the right words.. I wish that Kouta, or the club would contact him, he put it beautifully..
Adam White stated that Kouta should be an advocate for Buddy, as he did such a good job explaining the bump that occurred..
I hate to say it, but personally I just can't see Buddy getting off. It irks me that there is absolutley no room to move on this rule. There was no intent, or maliciousness on Buddy's part.. I am not expecting him to get off. Mind you, if he had been wearing B&W he would get off!!

 

[Hawk43]

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

Sorry guys been trying to read through all the detail from the tribunal and these threads but because of work it has been difficult, is this correct:

The tribunal have deemed that the bump was 'reasonable'. Therefore all arguments from opposition supporters on here that said about the neck/head-high contact etc become invalid because it has been stated the bump was ok.

So they are suspending him for 2 weeks based on the fact that he had the option to tackle (as the tribunal directed the jury to decide this, not the bump).

Therefore, going forward, any player that 'reasonably' hip and shoulders a player with the ball if they had an option to tackle should be suspended.

Have i missed the point or details here?

Have i missed something here

 

[Blueboys11]

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

Sorry guys been trying to read through all the detail from the tribunal and these threads but because of work it has been difficult, is this correct:

The tribunal have deemed that the bump was 'reasonable'. Therefore all arguments from opposition supporters on here that said about the neck/head-high contact etc become invalid because it has been stated the bump was ok.

So they are suspending him for 2 weeks based on the fact that he had the option to tackle (as the tribunal directed the jury to decide this, not the bump).

Therefore, going forward, any player that 'reasonably' hip and shoulders a player with the ball if they had an option to tackle should be suspended.

Have i missed the point or details here?

Have i missed something here

Only if they get them high. Once you decide to bump it is your responsibility to not get the head. if you bump them, and there is no contact to the head then it is fine.

Its a pretty simple rule, and i think it is quite a good one.

 

[Dinsdale]

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

I'm going to quote myself from another forum:

I would say there is about 99% of the footy world saying that the bump was just part of the game. The other 1% are people who are just shit stirrers who wish Franklin was in their team or who want the physical side of the game taken away. To the 1% I say "if he was a player for your club, would you be of the same opinion"? Hell, you've got other club coaches saying they will have to change their whole training regime to remove the bump just based on this weeks debacle.

Anecdotle evidence show there was but a fraction of a second for Franklin to make a decision on what to do, about 0.4 of a second. Studies show the brain can decide and instruct the muscles on what to do in about < 0.2 of a second. That leaves around 0.2 of a second for the rest of the body to catch up and respond. Change from a bump to a tackle? Not enough time.

Maybe I am biased being a Hawks member of a number of years, but if this was a player from another club I'd like to think I'd feel the same - in that its supposed to be a hard game. Not going for the head, but going in hard for the ball. Going in hard AT the guy with the ball. Not standing around being scared to go for the guy with the ball. I watch every game of every round, most of the time I enjoy the games when my team is not playing more, because i get too involved, too emotional.

The ump was within 5m of the incident. He called play on and you can hear his voice "fair bump". In fact there were 2 umps within 10 meteres if you watch the youtube clip. The MRP seems to be trying to make an example in this case.

Anyhow, after tonight we will know whether or not the bump is in or out. Either way the Hawks need to step up and rise over the news story and play something resembling last years form, or else the 'dons will scrape into the finals.

 

[Hawk43]

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

Only if they get them high. Once you decide to bump it is your responsibility to not get the head. if you bump them, and there is no contact to the head then it is fine.

Its a pretty simple rule, and i think it is quite a good one.

But the tribunal has said that the bump was ok, and for the jury to not deliberate on the bump, but rather the option to tackle, which elimates whether or not the contact was high because it was part of the 'reasonable' bump. right?