The tale of 3 clubs-Hawks,Tigers and Dons

[Andronicus]

In fact the complete opposite is true, you know it, everyone knows it.

Point:1
One player was suspended by a bump that, 21 rounds ago, he would not have been.
The other came in off the line with the sole purpose of taking someone out, sure he didn't mean to fracture his cheekbone and eye socket, but that was the risk he took when he went for the man with his head down over the ball.
This bump has been suspendable for years, and is exactly why the rule is in place.
Completely different scenarios

Point:2
You won't hear much from Bomber fans (the honest ones) for two reasons:
1 - He's guilty, the only way he will get off is for the Bombers to go the miss-trial route, can't get a fair trial with everything that has been said. Already angleing towards this.

2 - The Bombers look a better team without him, the only thing he did in that game, (mind you it was a match winning snipe) was take out Sewell.
The Bombers don't face the embarrasment of having to drop him and Hurley is a better option.

Now, I made no comment on the Franklin case last week as I thought he might go after making contact to the head, so forget the typical Hawthorn supporter angle.

BTW, Hurley looks a ripper.

ummm.....did you read my post?

i agreed with what you said. franklin shouldnt have gone. i'm not talking about the reportable incidents, rather the reactions made.

 

[hawker11]

Was Cousin's head over the ball?

Did Franklin target Cousins off the line immediately after the half time break?

Was the initial contact to Sewell lower than head high?

It is a tale of two scenarios. One was very unlucky to result in a suspension.

 

[_RT_]

Interesting quote from Al Clarkson today:

“The actual Matthew Lloyd hip-and-shoulder was a fair hip-and-shoulder,” Clarkson told Melbourne radio station SEN on Monday morning. “[It was the] same incident as what happened with 'Buddy' last week; it’s just hit a guy in the head, and the consequences of that are usually pretty severe as we saw with 'Buddy' last week.

“I suppose my only issue with the whole situation was perhaps the intent.

 

[worthy]

ummm.....did you read my post?

i agreed with what you said. franklin shouldnt have gone. i'm not talking about the reportable incidents, rather the reactions made.

I certainly did read your post, the point i'm making is that the reactions are completely different because the circumstances are completely different.

 

[hawker5]

Interesting quote from Al Clarkson today:

And that to me is the real issue - for a player coming from outside of the square after the centre bounce at that pace is deliberate - he intended to come in hard therefore he did not consider what would happen as a result.

Sucks that today in AFL we cant have players attacking the ball in such a way as if it goes wrong then will suffer with a major suspension

 

[ShirtFronter]

Hawtorn FC - Worst premier of the last 10 years.

I dont think we did too bad this year considering we had 9 - 10 of our 1st team out for most of the year. You wouldn't be saying this if we had've had maybe only 3 or 4 out like Geelong have been whinging about, coz i'm sure we would've been in the top 4.
St Kilda dropped 8 of their first team just to replicate our situation, and there was only 24pts in it.
Lets take 8 out of your team and see if you can win a game.

As for the OP, just face it, the bump has died! AFL as how it should be played has died! RIP AFL, welcome to the new world of Pansy football, and our new breed of pansy supporters.

 

[Alpha Male]

And that to me is the real issue - for a player coming from outside of the square after the centre bounce at that pace is deliberate - he intended to come in hard therefore he did not consider what would happen as a result.

Sucks that today in AFL we cant have players attacking the ball in such a way as if it goes wrong then will suffer with a major suspension

Hawker I love where you are coming from mate but I honestly dont think Lloyd's intent was to line any one up. To me it was a case of two blokes going for the ball and one getting there first. Lloyd had no time to react and simply braced himself for the contact.

He will get suspended and It's a shame. Just like it was for Buddy last week. It's not a case of the AFL trying to change the game. The game has to change with society.

When parents are able to sue schools because their kids get hurt in the playground, and they WIN, things are going the wrong way. I'm only 21, 22 in Dec. I've hardly got any life lessons to teach but if a player was to end up in a wheelchair I would not be shocked to see his manager start a lawsuit.

Buddy was suspended because he had a choice of laying a tackle or a bump and he didn't execute the bump well. This is what the AFL want to avoid. Players CHOOSING to hit each other rather than tackle. If he made no head contact he would've been fine. Lloyd's was more accidental and what should be left in the game. Two players going hard for the ball and one was just not good enough to get there in time.

The bump is alive and well. There will be plenty of great little hits and shepards during the finals but a man's safety must come first regardless of the spirit of the game.

 

[incubi]

Here we go:

• Buddy Deserved to get weeks under the current rule. Fair decision.
• Lloyd will get about 3-4 weeks. He is not a sniper. (But still was a bad decision on his part).
• Brown and Clarkson acted like little children after the game.
• Hawthorn and Essendon have both had a average year.
• Essendon will be beaten by Adelaide (as would of Hawthorn)

Can we all just move along now. Its first week of finals lets just concentrate on the fantastic footy we are going to see in the next month.

All very true.
The issue in the story isn't the bumps really, its just how teams handled the bump. hawthorn were in many ways right last week, but destroyed all that this week.
Clarkson and Brown should look at Sewel and Lloyd handled it, arms around eachother talking after the game.

 

[hawker5]

Hawker I love where you are coming from mate but I honestly dont think Lloyd's intent was to line any one up. To me it was a case of two blokes going for the ball and one getting there first. Lloyd had no time to react and simply braced himself for the contact.

He will get suspended and It's a shame. Just like it was for Buddy last week. It's not a case of the AFL trying to change the game. The game has to change with society.

When parents are able to sue schools because their kids get hurt in the playground, and they WIN, things are going the wrong way. I'm only 21, 22 in Dec. I've hardly got any life lessons to teach but if a player was to end up in a wheelchair I would not be shocked to see his manager start a lawsuit.

Buddy was suspended because he had a choice of laying a tackle or a bump and he didn't execute the bump well. This is what the AFL want to avoid. Players CHOOSING to hit each other rather than tackle. If he made no head contact he would've been fine. Lloyd's was more accidental and what should be left in the game. Two players going hard for the ball and one was just not good enough to get there in time.

The bump is alive and well. There will be plenty of great little hits and shepards during the finals but a man's safety must come first regardless of the spirit of the game.

And I agree with what you are saying however the real issue here is the action that was taken by Matthew Loyd - he intended to attack the ball by coming of the line fast and trying to get to the ball - the problem is that he did not care about the results of his attack and it resulted in what happened.

As you can see from my earlier post I have no objection with this however given the current rules the AFL cant rule it as negligent or reckless. Buddy never intended to hurt Ben last week - he just forgot he was 10 inches taller and didnt adjust or make the correct play therefore it was declared as reckless. Loyd forgot that you can not attack the ball in such a manner - at 100mph and not expect to hurt someone. The real problem is you can not declare it as negligent or reckless - it was intentional - Oh how I hate modern football. He intended to come of the line in this manner - he intended to get to the contest at all cost - he simply forgot that in todays game if a players hurt with this type of play you are gone with the your intentions used against you.

 

[Alpha Male]

And I agree with what you are saying however the real issue here is the action that was taken by Matthew Loyd - he intended to attack the ball by coming of the line fast and trying to get to the ball - the problem is that he did not care about the results of his attack and it resulted in what happened.

As you can see from my earlier post I have no objection with this however given the current rules the AFL cant rule it as negligent or reckless. Buddy never intended to hurt Ben last week - he just forgot he was 10 inches taller and didnt adjust or make the correct play therefore it was declared as reckless. Loyd forgot that you can not attack the ball in such a manner - at 100mph and not expect to hurt someone. The real problem is you can not declare it as negligent or reckless - it was intentional - Oh how I hate modern football. He intended to come of the line in this manner - he intended to get to the contest at all cost - he simply forgot that in todays game if a players hurt with this type of play you are gone with the your intentions used against you.

On the same page with you mate. I love it when blokes like Hayes, Sewell, Hodge, Kosi etc just go for the ball with no fear for their own safety. They are prepared to take whatever punishment is required to get the ball and will go through anyone that tries to stop them.

Hopefully it is only these severe moments that the AFL will deal with. I'd hate it if Lloyd and Buddy did those same things, with no injury to Cousins and Sewell, and were they were still looked at.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Also, after 25 years of failure Tiger supporters and the club are a fairly insipid lot where as Hawthorn obviously has a different culture (ie. successful)

You should be aware that Hawthorn is attempting to replicate Richmond's "the world's against us" mindset of the seventies.

 

[Hens Hall]

You should be aware that Hawthorn is attempting to replicate Richmond's "the world's against us" mindset of the seventies.

Really, news to me.

Collingwood have had that for years and has done them no good.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Really, news to me.

Collingwood have had that for years and has done them no good.

Not doing Hawthorn much good either ATM.

 

[hawker5]

On the same page with you mate. I love it when blokes like Hayes, Sewell, Hodge, Kosi etc just go for the ball with no fear for their own safety. They are prepared to take whatever punishment is required to get the ball and will go through anyone that tries to stop them.

Hopefully it is only these severe moments that the AFL will deal with. I'd hate it if Lloyd and Buddy did those same things, with no injury to Cousins and Sewell, and were they were still looked at.

You know the answer to that - of course because the 2 fat soft puppets in charge of the AFL quiver in fear when they see these hits remembering how embarressed that they cried like babies. Lets be real - AFL is now soft

 

[theyellowsash]

I flt genuinely sick seeing a player ylaying there

you mean like cousins?

oh wait i forgot, he aint a hawk.

 

[ShirtFronter]

you mean like cousins?

oh wait i forgot, he aint a hawk.

Oh wait, you've obviously never played football.

Cousins was hit shoulder high, your chin is the same height as your shoulder, and Buddy hit him in the side of the chin after the shoulder contact, which can knock anyone out. I don't see any fractured face bones there

Lloyds hit was pure malice, to a guy who had his head over the ball.

But then again, i suppose Buddy had time to tackle. Just another comment from people who've never played the game.

 

[incubi]

Lloyds hit was pure malice, to a guy who had his head over the ball.

But then again, i suppose Buddy had time to tackle. Just another comment from people who've never played the game.

Lloyds intention was the ball, should still go and was worse than Buddys.

You do realsie the people who chose Buddys fate played AFL right? including a 300 gamer, i think they know what they are talking about, far better than you i would suggest.

 

[Two Eyes]

Yes because finishing 2nd on the ladder then flogging the teams that finished 3rd and 4th by 10 goals.

Then beating the team that everyone thought was unbeatable despite the umpires trying to keep Geelong in it, make the Hawks a bad Premier...

FFS get a clue you Muppet.

Every other premiership team this decade had sustained success.

Essendon 2000. Topped the H/A 3 years straigh. Backed up the next year by making the GF.

Brisbane 2001-2003. Enough said.

Port 2004. Topped H/A 3 years straight. Backed up flag by at least making the 8.

Sydney 2005. Back to Back GFs this year the first time in 7 they haven't made the 8.

WC 2006. Back to Back GFs. Cruelled by injuries in '07 but still played 2 finals.

Geelong 2007. Back to back GFs, still on track for a 3rd.

Hawthorn 2008. Flag to 9th. 9 wins, 13 losses. Only made the finals once before flag. Oh Dear.

 

[ShirtFronter]

You do realsie the people who chose Buddys fate played AFL right? including a 300 gamer, i think they know what they are talking about, far better than you i would suggest.

Discrimination.

Hawthorn 2008. Flag to 9th. 9 wins, 13 losses. Only made the finals once before flag. Oh Dear.

Take 8 of your first team players out for the year and see where you would finish.
Oh dear we might just take the flag next year. 1st to 9th to 1st. Better than 1st, 2nd, 2nd.

 

[On the Boyle]

I think the Tigers did handle themselves quite well.
But the the OP is looking at the two incidents as discrete events.

If the 'Buddy bump' occurred in week 1, and Lloyd in week 22, then one could be justified if Big Footy Hawks supporters jumped in as they have in the last two weeks.

If they happened in reverse order, even more reason for recrimination.

Part of the problem with this analysis, however, is that the embers of the furore over Buddy's bump are still emanating. As late as 36 hours before the clash with Essendon, the appeals process was still ongoing (Hawthorn didn't make the decision to stop until Friday morning).

It was an emotion filled week for the Hawks and their supporters, with many still angry and upset about the result.

Lloyd's bump is not the same, if only for the fact that Sewell's head was over the ball. I'm going to be angry every day of the week when one of our boys goes down, but that doesn't mean a week later I can't see the contest as fair. I don't think it was malicious, but the fact that it then turned the tide of the game and ultimately cost us our LAST chance at finals is what causes the anger you see on this board.

From a philosophical viewpoint, I don't want this sort of thing to leave our game, I think that Lloyd was 'reckless' as the term in the AFL describes, but two years ago I would have been horrified if one of ours was rubbed out for this action, so it is more with the changing of the rules and the times, rather than the action itself. I would like Lloyd's style of bump to stay in the game, but it's not my head he (or others) would be risking.

As for 'Do I want Lloyd to go?' I'm actually ambivalent. I would, but for the resulting minefield it would create, like Lloyd to be cleared. It would make the AFL an absolute mess and maybe, the teams may make a decision to remove the current board and start again.

But, back to my initial point. You can't view these two incidents as discrete - they are connected incidents. Hell, even had they been separated by two weeks (one is not enough because Buddy would still have been suspended), you'd be more justified in your statements.

As for Browny - just love it. Regardless of the message sent, you have to admit that someone from football not coming out with "We just take it one week at a time" to every question is great. Finally, a bit of passion back in the game!

 

[alexhawk]

Firstly, yes I am a Hawthorn supporter and therefore unavoidably biased. That said, I concede that Brown is hypocritical to come out and sledge Lloyd in public, has no grounds to be jumping on the moral high horse. And Clarkson was clearly out of line after the game.

That said, Essendon supporters claiming Lloyd is a pure and innocent ball player are either stupid or deliberately blind. At least Brown will put himself in situations where he could be hurt, Lloyd has never shown that sort of courage (despite being a prolific and talented full forward) and will only impose himself physically when he is no danger of being hurt himself, and where the player is unaware of the contact coming his way! That bump was different in so many ways to the Buddy contact on Cousins. The contact was motivated by frustration at his own terrible form, possibly a rev-up by the coach at half time, and Lloyd's own stupidity. I don't believe he is a sniper, he simply doesn't do enough of this stuff to be labelled that, but he is certainly one of the softest Bombers players out there.

 

[Two Eyes]

Take 8 of your first team players out for the year and see where you would finish.
Oh dear we might just take the flag next year. 1st to 9th to 1st. Better than 1st, 2nd, 2nd.

Riiiight. Because no other Premier ever had injuries. Suck it up princess, your team were pathetic and your supporters a bunch of sooks.

I'd concentrate on hoping your team make the 8 next year. Its not the certainty you think.

 

[ShirtFronter]

Enjoy your straight sets exit two eyes.
Even with our injuries we beat you guys by 10 goals.
If I recall, your injury list is 2, and they wouldnt even be in your first team.

 

[FoxC]

Did you actually think before you wrote that?

Either you're 3yo or you're totally ignorant.

Brown has a history of cheap snipes against unsuspecting players or threatening violence against innocent members of the public - remember this incident?

My point is I hope one day he demonstrates his toughness against a baseball bat. I'd be the first to congratulate him if he comes out intact.

Joel Selwood = toughness. Campbell Brown = thuggery.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Riiiight. Because no other Premier ever had injuries. Suck it up princess, your team were pathetic and your supporters a bunch of sooks.

I'd concentrate on hoping your team make the 8 next year. Its not the certainty you think.

Well the last premiership to have injuries this bad was probably.......Bomber 1994.

How do you concentrate on hoping?