Sandilands bump on davis, 1-2 weeks?

[King Elvis]

Eyes on the ball until he realised Davis was going to get the ball, then he turned to the side to avoid a front on collision - which is common sense.

We're literally talking about split second decisions here.

 

[CrimsonRaven]

Should get zilch. No intent to bump, eyes only for the ball. and when your that big it's not like he could have pulled up or even if he should of. He was after the ball and in the end the ball spilled which is exactly what you'd want rather than letting Davis mark it.

 

[stefoid]

A bump is intentional. A collision is accidental. If there is head contact in the first, its reportable, if there is head collision in the second, its play on.

 

[pjcrows]

If Sandilands get any weeks for this then I've had it with this competition.

 

[Cath73]

Has no case to answer, but who knows? Buddy had no case to answer either and see what he got.

 

[Naughton]

Looked pretty fair to me.

But who knows? Unless you've got the David Hille Immunity, you're in dangerous waters smashing into anyone.

 

[Messenger]

He has to go. I'll put my Hawks scarf on and say Buddy has gone twice for the same thing and one of those was a much lower severity (Akermanis).

The MRP/Tribunal have been clear about this - height differential is not an excuse.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Of course it was fair, however the real point is being lost here. The reason the injury to Davis was received is because of the height of Sandilands. When a taller player collides with a shorter one (fair or otherwise), then head high contact is almost inevitable. I wish this point would be taken into account, but it never is.

This is the point I've been trying to make in relation to Buddy Franklin's incidents. As a taller player myself, I was often being free kicked because a good intentioned bump or tackle ended up being high. Just as well I didn't play under the current rules, I'd be out every second week.

 

[BONG RIPS MKII]

he didn't do anything wrong, davis ran into him

so 6 weeks

 

[absfab]

The reason the injury to Davis was received is because of the height of Sandilands. When a taller player collides with a shorter one (fair or otherwise), then head high contact is almost inevitable.

Apart from the fact that this statement is pure fantasy, the AFL will not (can not) ever accept such a defence. First time they do it's open season on smaller player's heads.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

He has to go. I'll put my Hawks scarf on and say Buddy has gone twice for the same thing and one of those was a much lower severity (Akermanis).

The MRP/Tribunal have been clear about this - height differential is not an excuse.

omg...

You haven't read the thread, have you? Yet another Hawthorn SOOK.

School yourself, fool! Learn the rules! I'll say it yet again for your benefit, **** knows why you couldn't just read the thread though.

Poor widdle Buddy had the option to tackle in all of his transgressions! Do you understand that? That's why Kennedy got off earlier in the year. Sandi did not have the option to tackle. The MRP don't want the bump out of the game, they want to encourage the tackle IF THE OPTION IS THERE.

Not only that, but do you understand the very simple concept that this was in a marking contest? Like Hille? It was a collision in a contest, not a bump laid on a player with the ball who had the option to tackle.

Seriously, what is it with Hawks supporters inability to understand these simple concepts?

Time to get the chip off the shoulder about Buddy, guys. It's getting super embarrassing having you all constantly cry about your poor golden boy, when it's YOU who simply don't understand the rules

 

[Dawson]

omg...

You haven't read the thread, have you? Yet another Hawthorn SOOK.

School yourself, fool! Learn the rules! I'll say it yet again for your benefit, **** knows why you couldn't just read the thread though.

Poor widdle Buddy had the option to tackle in all of his transgressions! Do you understand that? That's why Kennedy got off earlier in the year. Sandi did not have the option to tackle. The MRP don't want the bump out of the game, they want to encourage the tackle IF THE OPTION IS THERE.

Not only that, but do you understand the very simple concept that this was in a marking contest? Like Hille? It was a collision in a contest, not a bump laid by a player with the ball.

Seriously, what is it with Hawks supporters inability to understand these simple concepts?

Time to get the chip off the shoulder about Buddy, guys. It's getting super embarrassing having you all constantly cry about your poor golden boy, when it's YOU who simply don't understand the rules

I think its got something to do with being "the family club" and like all families there are those strange cousins that no one wants to talk about

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I didn't see it but looking at the draw .... two weeks.

 

[absfab]

When you constantly hear that the head is sacroscant and must be protected at all times it then becomes difficult to understand how you can interpret what is incidental and what is not - protect the head by all means but don't then pick and choose which is incidental and which is not - .

I'll help out the Hawk fans by clearing up what is NOT incidental.

When a player approaches a contest and his first priority is body contact with the opposition player; then if that contact happens to include the head then there's nothing incidental about it.

 

[jakson68]

I hope he doesn't go for any weeks as my backup ruck man in my dream team isn't playing

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

I hope he doesn't go for any weeks as my backup ruck man in my dream team isn't playing

Oh noes, not your ****ing Dream Team

Seriously, if Sandi gets time for this then the sport has officially caught the ghey.

 

[Suma Magic]

- He didn't do anything wrong, couldn't have done anything differently
- Unfortunately he bumped him in the head (anyone saying different is 'avin a larf)
- He will get suspended
- I hate this rule

 

[Joffaboy]

- He didn't do anything wrong, couldn't have done anything differently
- Unfortunately he bumped him in the head (anyone saying different is 'avin a larf)
- He will get suspended
- I hate this rule

Sums it up.

However there may be precedent. Leon Davis and Sam Fisher were in a disputed ball situation where Davis accidently hit Fisher with a forearm to the head as, I think Fisher just took possession. Totall accidental and incidental.

Davis had no case to answer.

Differences in the case was that it wasn't a markign contest.

Just because you hit someone in the head doesn't automatically mean weeks.

 

[CAS79]

Just because you hit someone in the head doesn't automatically mean weeks.

Sandi was going for the ball and the contact was entirely coincident. I don't like some of the recent suspensions but this case is a little different to the high profile ones of the last few weeks.

It should be about intent rather than result.

 

[WoGiTaLiA]

Love how the Hawks fans come in and try and compare this to Franklin... This was a marking contest which both players were fully committed to, nothing more to it, umpire was spot on, it was a free kick and that is it, at absolute most you could find a 50.

Franklin has chosen to bump in all 3 of his situations, the AFL has been pretty clear that if you choose to bump and you hit the head you are in trouble. The Mattner one was absolutely text book of the rule they brought in. The other two, imo, were very soft but still what the AFL said it would target.

Enright and Waite are going to be the interesting and likely ridiculous ones. Enright went to smother, pulled out and from every angle I could see didn't actually get Selwood high. No signs of concussion or anything like that and all the force obviously went into the shoulder. To me it was accidental, low impact and perhaps high contact but that is based on the actual high contact because obviously the impact was high but it was to the shoulder not head.

Waite had no alternative to me, exactly the same as Sandi only he jumped for the ball. The Sandi, Waite and Enright incidents are all like the Hille one vs the Hawks(I think it was) where he did everything to minimise contact after realising he was late, hopefully the AFL follows that precedent.

 

[PalaceGun]

- He didn't do anything wrong, couldn't have done anything differently
- Unfortunately he bumped him in the head (anyone saying different is 'avin a larf)
- He will get suspended
- I hate this rule

Eyes on the ball the whole time, isn't the rule based on having an alternative? There was no alternative here.

Harbrow bumped Lewis in the head a few weeks ago in a similar contest and didn't get suspended. I expect the same here.

I quit if any suspension is handed out.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Enright and Waite are going to be the interesting and likely ridiculous ones. Enright went to smother, pulled out and from every angle I could see didn't actually get Selwood high. No signs of concussion or anything like that and all the force obviously went into the shoulder. To me it was accidental, low impact and perhaps high contact but that is based on the actual high contact because obviously the impact was high but it was to the shoulder not head.

It was late contact - free paid downfield - and the player was hurt. I know consistency is not the MRP's long suit, but surely Enright's in trouble.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

Re: Phil Davis Cleaned up by Sandilands

I don't know . If Sandilands' name was Lance Franklin it would be weeks!

Can't Hawthorn supporters get over it? Learn the rules, FFS!

Nothing wrong with Sandilands bump though. Perfect hip and shoulder I thought, but if he got Davis high, he could be in trouble.

 

[Suma Magic]

Eyes on the ball the whole time, isn't the rule based on having an alternative? There was no alternative here.

Harbrow bumped Lewis in the head a few weeks ago in a similar contest and didn't get suspended. I expect the same here.

I quit if any suspension is handed out.

If there is something in the rules that specifically states that there must be an alternative I'm happy to stand corrected. I just thought that if you bump someone in the head, incidental or not, you get suspended. Apologies for coming into thread not really knowing all the rules, just basically wanted to say that there was nothing he could do, and that I HATE THE BUMP RULE.

 

[BACCS]

It'll be a disgrace if he goes. We don't want those type of contests to be phased out of footy. And there is no way Enright should go, absolutley nothing in it.