Lance Franklin to face video scrutiny
- Thread starter HawksILove
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #102
Yes I was thinking of the same thing.
I hope he gets off, not like some meatheads come on this board bagging Buddy.
my 2 cents... he should def. not get rubbed you for that, as fair a hit as you could see, had the arm tucked in the entire time... but who knows with the MRP... it was contact to the head... flip of the coin stuff really
It's very similar to the Maxwell incident in the NAB cup - fair bump but accidental and forceful contact to the head.
Remember Maxwell got 4 weeks before getting off on appeal.
The reasons for the appeal decision are below. Point 1 is the key: apparently it is not negligent if "reasonable and permitted under the laws of the game".
God knows what that means as any head high contact should be a free kick and therefore is not "permitted under the laws of the game". The rules in this area are a farce.
1. The contact made by Maxwell was reasonable and permitted under the laws of the game and the guidelines, and was therefore not negligent contact.
2. The head contact was accidentally caused by reason of that contact. The tribunal jury were not required to answer all of the questions that they ought to have in arriving at their decision and, in particular, whether Maxwell’s shepherd was reasonable in the circumstances.
The Appeals Board was then called upon to make the factual findings that were referred to in points one and two.
Peter O’Callaghan, AFL Appeals Board chairman
Remember Maxwell got 4 weeks before getting off on appeal.
The reasons for the appeal decision are below. Point 1 is the key: apparently it is not negligent if "reasonable and permitted under the laws of the game".
God knows what that means as any head high contact should be a free kick and therefore is not "permitted under the laws of the game". The rules in this area are a farce.
1. The contact made by Maxwell was reasonable and permitted under the laws of the game and the guidelines, and was therefore not negligent contact.
2. The head contact was accidentally caused by reason of that contact. The tribunal jury were not required to answer all of the questions that they ought to have in arriving at their decision and, in particular, whether Maxwell’s shepherd was reasonable in the circumstances.
The Appeals Board was then called upon to make the factual findings that were referred to in points one and two.
Peter O’Callaghan, AFL Appeals Board chairman
Thought it was a legit bump, even if I was sitting in M36 (on the other side of the goals to where it happened). Just didn't look illegal from where I was. The fact that the nearest frog in a blender didn't see fit to report it on the spot is also telling for mine.
Was also speaking with a friend who was sitting almost dead in front of where it happened, and he said that Buddy was aware of the situation, tucked his arm in and dropped his shoulder in an attempt to avoid high contact. That might be a little difficult when you're 6'6", and your opponent is on his way down, attempting to duck & weave to avoid you!
Guess we're now at the mercy of those inconsistent twats at the MRP to see what warped version of events is conjured ...
Was also speaking with a friend who was sitting almost dead in front of where it happened, and he said that Buddy was aware of the situation, tucked his arm in and dropped his shoulder in an attempt to avoid high contact. That might be a little difficult when you're 6'6", and your opponent is on his way down, attempting to duck & weave to avoid you!
Guess we're now at the mercy of those inconsistent twats at the MRP to see what warped version of events is conjured ...
Don't compare the franklin bump to Maxwell's taking his eye off the ball bump. Maxwell's action was weak. Franklin's was a reflex action. He will be ok. Maxwell's little w***er of a loophole has been closed.
You think that they would let it go or give him a reprimand. But if he gets weeks for that, AFL will be a joke.
This is the problem with comparing incidents and why (although sometimes annoying) I agree that the MRP/tribunal doesn't allow for precedent. While the accidental nature of the contact is similar to Maxwell, the rest of the incident could hardly be more different.
For 1, Maxwell ran past the ball and Buddy bumped the guy with the ball (in fact, you could argue his elbow touches the ball and knocks it lose).
So I hope this knocking of the ball lose is the biggest thing that saves him. The interesting thing that I can tell from looking at it is that its his shoulder coming in that clips Cousins on the chin rather then the elbow.
I understand and welcome the investigation of this, but I think he will get off either at the MRP or the Tribunal (could be wishful thinking).
- Aug 6, 2009
- 505
- 847
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Buffalo Sabres!Anti-Palace Gun wank
Q:Whats between the d**k and the a**hole?
A:Buddy..
Hope springs eternal.....................Hawks v Scum...Cant freakn wait baby
The point was if Maxwell gets off, surely Buddy does too.
There are differences but the key similarlity is both bumps made forceful head contact - and that kills you these days.
I hope Buddy gets off because otherwise we're no chance against the Bombers but I have a bad feeling.
Super Gusto
Club Legend
- Mar 12, 2009
- 1,635
- 134
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Reprimand at very worst. He'll be right.
I forgot to mention two other things. Firstly, in my understanding of the whole Maxwell things, he got off because of a legal issue with the tribunal case that allowed the appeals board to rule on the incident and they are lawyers not ex-players and umpires, etc.
Secondly, the rule changed after the Maxwell incident so whatever rulings were used for it no longer apply as is.
The big difference with Maxwell is that because the guy he hit didn't have the ball he didn't have an option other than to bump, Franklin could have tackled because Cousins did have the ball.
Also, as stated, they changed the rules after the Maxwell one to ensure no-one would get off in a similar situation again.
My feeling is he'll get a week from the MRP but will have a chance at the tribunal if we contest, as they seem to be a bit more reasonable.
Yep, this is right. I didn't realise they changed the rule since Maxwell.
This is the new rule:
AFL Player Rules - Appendix 1
(1) A player shall be deemed to have committed a Reportable Offence under Law 19.2.2(g)(vii) [Rough Conduct] where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck and instead of bumping, the player had a realistic alternative to:
a) contest the ball; or
b) tackle the opponent
(2) For the purpose of categorising the level of a Reportable Offence under paragraph (1) in accordance with this Appendix 1, unless intentional or reckless, such conduct shall be classified as negligent
(3) Paragraph (1) does not limit in any way the operation of Law 19.2.2(g)(vii)
Buddy clearly could have tackled so unfortunately I think he is in trouble.
How many weeks does he get for negligent, high, forceful contact?
I think the point about "contest the ball" is interesting as he did contest the ball, in fact his elbow knocks the ball out of Cousins hands. I think this version of the law is more about bumps when the player doesn't have the ball (could be wrong).
Could really go either way and although I would be bitterly disappointed if he goes and misses this week, I support the AFL's move to try and protect the head and if this sort of thing has to get a week (as the edge case) its worth it to protect the players heads and necks.
JMTC
By my reading it's 1, 2 or 3 depending on whether impact is low, medium or high.
The only get out I see in it all is for it to be assessed as low and enter an early plea (although you'd think that is a long shot). Or perhaps argue at the tribunal the "the player had a realistic alternative to: b) tackle the opponent" side of things. It wasn't like he lined him up, it all happened pretty quickly and he tucked his arm in, you could try to say that he didn't have time to actually decide to tackle.
If buddy gets rubbed out for this i will hang my boots up!
Geez this should be pretty easily explained.
Cuz was running, he saw Buddy coming towards him and Buddy was coming to tackle. Cuz then tried to dodge past Buddy (to the left as that's where Buddy was coming from). Unfortunately Cuz didn't do it well enough and as Buddy went for the tackle, at the last moment he sensed contact and put his arm down to protect himself (Cousin could have broken his ribs if he went to fend him off). It all happened so quickly that there's nothing he could have done, but Buddy didn't pre-meditate the bump like Maxwell or Dawson did.
I am not worried in the slightest. The MRP will look at the incident then realise the shit-fight they'll start if they give him a week considering how soft it was and how important this week's game is.
Cuz was running, he saw Buddy coming towards him and Buddy was coming to tackle. Cuz then tried to dodge past Buddy (to the left as that's where Buddy was coming from). Unfortunately Cuz didn't do it well enough and as Buddy went for the tackle, at the last moment he sensed contact and put his arm down to protect himself (Cousin could have broken his ribs if he went to fend him off). It all happened so quickly that there's nothing he could have done, but Buddy didn't pre-meditate the bump like Maxwell or Dawson did.
I am not worried in the slightest. The MRP will look at the incident then realise the shit-fight they'll start if they give him a week considering how soft it was and how important this week's game is.
Ordovician
Cancelled
- Sep 4, 2008
- 2,549
- 3,674
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
This thread is pointless!
There was no contact to the head or neck!
This was clearly shown in the slow motion replays shot from different angles and replayed twice on the Sunday Footy Show.
If there was any head high contact the umpire on the spot would have reported Franklin.
There is no charge to answer.
Thompson, Richo and Schwartz are gold plated f**kwits!
If the MRP look at the incident they will see that there was no high contact whatsoever.
There was no contact to the head or neck!
This was clearly shown in the slow motion replays shot from different angles and replayed twice on the Sunday Footy Show.
If there was any head high contact the umpire on the spot would have reported Franklin.
There is no charge to answer.
Thompson, Richo and Schwartz are gold plated f**kwits!
If the MRP look at the incident they will see that there was no high contact whatsoever.
grizzlym
Premium Platinum
That the MRP are even looking at it is a worry. I have absolutely no faith in the MRP panel, the system and the way the laws are interpreted and enforced.
Has there been any indication of whether Rance is getting looked at too?
As it's been said, Buddy had the option to tackle but went for the bump and make head high contact. Personally, I'd hate to see anyone (let alone Buddy) get rubbed out for a hip and shoulder but I think that's how the MRP will see it.
What would be a massive injustice is if Buddy got rubbed out yet Rance got off for his intentional head high contact on Buddy.
Unfortunately Buddy just plays with VFL hardness in an AFL world.
What would be a massive injustice is if Buddy got rubbed out yet Rance got off for his intentional head high contact on Buddy.
Unfortunately Buddy just plays with VFL hardness in an AFL world.
^^^ Or Mcguan's punch to Osbournes guts after the Buddy hip and shoulder.
Just watching the video of that bump again... Do you think it's fair to say that Buddy was under the impression that Cousins was about to dispose of the ball (Cousins tried to sell the dummy) and therefore couldn't tackle him without risking a 50 against him for holding up the player after disposal...?
Just a thought. But that would make sense to me...
Just watching the video of that bump again... Do you think it's fair to say that Buddy was under the impression that Cousins was about to dispose of the ball (Cousins tried to sell the dummy) and therefore couldn't tackle him without risking a 50 against him for holding up the player after disposal...?
Just a thought. But that would make sense to me...
As stated earlier, there is no visible contact made. It could be inferred from Cousins' state of unconsciousness, but you have to see the impact happen to give a bloke a week. If the MRP acted on such speculation, it would simply be taken to court, which would rule insufficient evidence of headhigh contact.
Ultimately Neville Bartos is right - this is far too minor an incident for the AFL to risk such a divisive fight on the Eve of probably the most important home and away game of the season.
I totally agree.
There's no angle that show's head high contact. Obviously you can't get knock out from a tap on the shoulder, but there can be no murder without a murder weapon right...?
Similar threads
