One-Eyed Richmond Forum

Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: TigerLand on August 22, 2009, 11:15:02 PM

Title: Franklin / Lloyd / The Bump gone?
Post by: TigerLand on August 22, 2009, 11:15:02 PM
A few things first..

Dear Mr McMahon, if you wish to continue your career as a professional footballer as a backman please learn how to tackle. Who ever taught you to throw your arms around the shoulders is pulling your chain. Just a heads up aim for the hips. Those tackles on Franklin was really hard to watch. Moorabin is South of Melbourne by the way.

Re: Bump on Cousins.
Have heard all of teh discussion and taking out all of the emotion from it I have come to a conclusion.
- 100% free kick. Shocking Umpiring
- Can't be suspended since Maxwell's bump to the West Coast player was 10 times worse
- Future Hip and Shoulders with contact to Head - 100% Automatic suspension. I was aware this was the case but since somehow Maxwell got off Franklin can't get done in my view. As much as we miss the biff I can't agree with anyone that wants to allow KO's fair game. As a player you elect to go for teh bumnp if you can't do it well enough to aim for the sternum down you run the risk of getting suspended it's as simple as that IMO.

Re: Attack on ball
Killed us. We had nothing anything as close to his attack on the ball tonight except for Graham Polak, a recovering trauma victim. Says alot. Yes we tried but no one attacked te ball harder for us than Polak, in all respect to Graham that's just unacceptable.

Re: Last Free Kick of the game.
I hope he lost his tooth. On ya Rancey boy glad someone gave him something to go home with.

Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: cub on August 22, 2009, 11:22:10 PM
Think the bottom line pope is we "HAVE TO" create a culture where we start getting away and rewarded for these actions. It hasn't happened for 25 years and it has to change.
Can think of a million examples over the years and it really pizzes me off.
We get nothing from the umps ever and they are the lowest of the low - What lyes underneath the pond scum at the bottom of the pond - Umpys ! That's what .....
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: TigerLand on August 22, 2009, 11:46:34 PM
I think culture is such a soft excuse.

Each season has its own culture and squad slightly different.

Its all completely mental we need some confidence injected, we're in horrible lack of quality senior player. Apart from Cousins our best player is 22 years old in Deledio. Richo doesn't count as he's been injured but I prob put Richo higher.

With all due respect to Chris Newman, all premiership teams ahve been driven around a disciplined game plan that has been strictly followed by majority of players and lead by some great leadership. New coach to come in and start fresh with Brett to be captain next year. New duo and leadership with a strict regime to follow a game plan suited to the playing list and there is your new culture for the next season.

I'm sick of hearing the word culture. It's bullsh!t cliche. It's just a word for the players not being disciplined enough to work as a team. That is all to do with leadership.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Francois Jackson on August 22, 2009, 11:51:34 PM
one of Buddy's goal was a direct result of Mcmahon laying something which resembled a slight grab which he may call a tackle.

stuff me dead this guy is a complete waste of space, beaten only marginally by that black belt clown zig.

mcmahon and symmonds our version of zig and zag
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Jackstar is back on August 23, 2009, 01:45:35 AM
How does McMahon get a game :banghead
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: mightytiges on August 23, 2009, 05:57:29 AM
Re: Bump on Cousins.
Have heard all of teh discussion and taking out all of the emotion from it I have come to a conclusion.
- 100% free kick. Shocking Umpiring
- Can't be suspended since Maxwell's bump to the West Coast player was 10 times worse
- Future Hip and Shoulders with contact to Head - 100% Automatic suspension. I was aware this was the case but since somehow Maxwell got off Franklin can't get done in my view. As much as we miss the biff I can't agree with anyone that wants to allow KO's fair game. As a player you elect to go for teh bumnp if you can't do it well enough to aim for the sternum down you run the risk of getting suspended it's as simple as that IMO.
I thought the new interpretation was if you decide to bump instead of tackle then you have a duty of care to avoid the head of your opponent  ???.

I was more annoyed and flabberghasted as how that wasn't a free kick  :banghead as the point of Buddy's shoulder collected Cuz in the jaw. Yep Cuz was concussed and seeing stars after the contact due to thin air  ::). Moron muppet screwed up a competitive game of footy and killed it off then and there with the double goal (dumb Lukey dumb btw in front of the ump).

Let's not forget the swan dive by Buddy in the first quarter after swinging his arm as Lukey. Give the guy an Oscar.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: richmondrules on August 23, 2009, 08:22:35 AM
To be honest I didn't think there was a lot in it. I only saw it on the replay a couple of times on the scoreboard so I may have missed something but it looked like a pretty fair hip and shoulder to me. His elbow was down and the reason he collected Cuz's head was because he's so much taller than him. Cuz had the ball so the bump was a reasonable thing to do.

Agree, hate Franklin, but not for that.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Tigermonk on August 23, 2009, 08:34:52 AM
Franklins bump was fair & what l go to the footy to see "HARD FOOTBALL"

What l dont like to see at top league football is weak pathetic footballers who get knocked over like McMahon & Edwards

SURELY THIS IS THE END OF THE LINE FOR McMAHON  :banghead :banghead :banghead

anyone thinking any club will chase him after that performance is deleded cause he has no value, he can't even carry his own weight properly
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: richmondrules on August 23, 2009, 08:44:01 AM
Franklins bump was fair & what l go to the footy to see "HARD FOOTBALL"

Agree TM. You couldn't find a much harder footballer than Cuz i reckon. Doubt he'll be complaining too much about it, just one of those things.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Jackstar is back on August 23, 2009, 08:59:15 AM
Just watched the replay on Foxtel ( dont know why )
Rance should of hit Buddy harder
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Tigermonk on August 23, 2009, 09:00:07 AM
Franklins bump was fair & what l go to the footy to see "HARD FOOTBALL"

Agree TM. You couldn't find a much harder footballer than Cuz i reckon. Doubt he'll be complaining too much about it, just one of those things.

its a wake-up call to Cousins to protect himself better
otherwise he will get knocked out a few more times cause he leaves himself open too often
His taken a beaten this year, its sad l'm seeing some of his team-mates shying away from contests
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Francois Jackson on August 23, 2009, 09:20:19 AM
Franklins bump was fair & what l go to the footy to see "HARD FOOTBALL"

What l dont like to see at top league football is weak pathetic footballers who get knocked over like McMahon & Edwards

SURELY THIS IS THE END OF THE LINE FOR McMAHON  :banghead :banghead :banghead

anyone thinking any club will chase him after that performance is deleded cause he has no value, he can't even carry his own weight properly

i been saying it for ages TM Edwards is not an AFL footballer he is a product of TW> short and skinny who gets bowled over at every opportunity.

Mcmahon first to go but i tell ya we should throw Edwards up for trade over to the Eagles as a small forward.

im sick of carrying these skinny little players that CANNOT hold a tackle.

Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Tigermonk on August 23, 2009, 09:29:40 AM
Franklins bump was fair & what l go to the footy to see "HARD FOOTBALL"

What l dont like to see at top league football is weak pathetic footballers who get knocked over like McMahon & Edwards

SURELY THIS IS THE END OF THE LINE FOR McMAHON  :banghead :banghead :banghead

anyone thinking any club will chase him after that performance is deleded cause he has no value, he can't even carry his own weight properly

i been saying it for ages TM Edwards is not an AFL footballer he is a product of TW> short and skinny who gets bowled over at every opportunity.

Mcmahon first to go but i tell ya we should throw Edwards up for trade over to the Eagles as a small forward.

im sick of carrying these skinny little players that CANNOT hold a tackle.



you know there are alot of skinny players in the AFL but none of them play like Edwards
Look at that carlton runt yesterday now he has skills & showed them & yet does not get bashed around like Edwards does  :rollin
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: one-eyed on August 23, 2009, 07:09:35 PM
FOX SPORTS
Hawthorn star Lance Franklin to face video scrutiny for hit on Cousins
August 23, 2009 .

After being the centre of attention on Saturday night, Hawthorn star Lance Franklin will now face some unwanted scrutiny from the AFL match review panel.

Franklin did everything as the Hawks beat Richmond by 42 points at the MCG, kicking 5.6 and using brute force to brush aside Tigers defenders.

He also concussed Ben Cousins with a solid bump and the panel is certain to look at the incident. Franklin's bump was legitimate, but it collected Cousins' head.

The big Hawks forward also received plenty of physical attention and finished the match with a bloodied tooth. Just before the final siren, he gave away a 50-metre penalty and it is understood he had sworn at the umpires for not noticing some contact to his face.

Apparently the same tooth that was knocked out a fortnight ago in Launceston was loosened in the clash.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25969636-23209,00.html
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: TigerTimeII on August 23, 2009, 07:38:01 PM
this is bs
if it were richo doing the same hip and shoulder on judd we would be saying it aint fair, perfect shephard

i hate buddy, but he is being punished for being taller than cuz

what a load of poo, his elbow was tucked in, and the game is screwed.

Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: big tone on August 23, 2009, 07:42:44 PM
Franklins bump was fair & what l go to the footy to see "HARD FOOTBALL"

Agree TM. You couldn't find a much harder footballer than Cuz i reckon. Doubt he'll be complaining too much about it, just one of those things.
So do you think it was a free kick to Cuz?
And remember when you answer he was bumped to the head- it does not matter what size difference there is between the two going the ball and whether it was accidental contact to the head.
Not only a free kick for mine but will be look at by the 'match review panel'
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: big tone on August 23, 2009, 07:45:01 PM
this is bs
if it were richo doing the same hip and shoulder on judd we would be saying it aint fair, perfect shephard

i hate buddy, but he is being punished for being taller than cuz

what a load of poo, his elbow was tucked in, and the game is screwed.


NFI!!!!!!
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: TigerTimeII on August 23, 2009, 07:48:40 PM
this is bs
if it were richo doing the same hip and shoulder on judd we would be saying it aint fair, perfect shephard

i hate buddy, but he is being punished for being taller than cuz

what a load of poo, his elbow was tucked in, and the game is screwed.


NFI!!!!!!

u have nfi!!!!

it was a great bump. elbow tucked in, just bad luck the cuz face kissed buddys shoulder. he didnt jump off the ground and executed the bump beautifully
ffs, the contact o the head was not intential, so u cannot punish a tall player cos another is a midget
u have no f i

just as the rules committee has no fi , big tone with lil pewee
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Ekto on August 23, 2009, 07:53:38 PM
I don't think Duddy should be reported for the hit on Ben as it is my opinion that it was just part of footy, but the umpire who was in close proximity should be dropped for at least the rest of the season, including finals, for not paying a free kick for the serious head high contact, now matter how much it is a part of the game.

The AFL has been blatantly clear about its attitude and direction to the officials and players about head high contact.

The AFL has been blatantly clear about it attitude and direction to the official and players about contact with an umpire, and the AFL always protects umpires against contact from players.

The umpire saw what happened from close quarters and chose not to pay a free kick. The decision was in clear contravention of the AFL rules.

It was the wrong decision and it was not the only wrong decision that this umpire made throughout the game.

The football supporting public accept that umpires make mistakes, but they do not accept seeing players pole-axed without penalty.

Surely if the umpire doesn't penalise the offending player, then the umpire should be penalised for not upholding one of the safety tenets required by the AFL towards its employees.

Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: TigerTimeII on August 23, 2009, 08:01:20 PM
the head high rule was brought into play to primarily protect the player with his head over the ball, not when a hip and shoulder is executed correctley

so if a short arse hips a taller player and heavy contact is made in the leg region and causes say a hip or knee injury, should the short arse be charged for rough play causing an injury ffs no way

like i saud if this was richo and he got done for the same thing we would be screaming!

except for liltone
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: TigerLand on August 23, 2009, 08:16:47 PM
No incorrect. Anyone who has played footy knows you aim with the tip of your shoulder when you bump, accidental is irrelevant since when you elect to bump youare liable for any contact to the head.

Wasn't a good bump.. Would have been a good bump if he drilled him in his sternum.. Buddys a fat clumsy dope that threw his weight around and was always going to injure someone. If he dud it within the rules fine by me, you can't make contact with the head under any circumstances. It's written in black and white.

Times have changed you can't have clumsy flogs running around through blokes temples..
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: big tone on August 23, 2009, 08:25:15 PM
the head high rule was brought into play to primarily protect the player with his head over the ball, not when a hip and shoulder is executed correctley

so if a short behind hips a taller player and heavy contact is made in the leg region and causes say a hip or knee injury, should the short behind be charged for rough play causing an injury ffs no way

like i saud if this was richo and he got done for the same thing we would be screaming!

except for liltone
Once again you are showing just how stupid you really are!
"so if a short behind hips"..... bla bla bla! NFI
Learn the rules you massive flog!!!
You are an arm chair fool that has probably never played football in your life.
And you are a f#@king d1ckhead!  :thumbsup
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Infamy on August 23, 2009, 08:37:59 PM
Head high contact is head high contact
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Francois Jackson on August 23, 2009, 08:43:24 PM
Head high contact is head high contact

so says Mick Sheehan.

thanks for those powerful words of wisdom you moron. :thumbsup

Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: WilliamPowell on August 23, 2009, 09:25:14 PM
Should have been a free kick because of the contact to the head but I don't think it is a reportable

However the problem I had was Franklin's knees into the lower part of Cuz' cranium after the bump - that was weak
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: TigerLand on August 23, 2009, 10:54:16 PM
Should have been a free kick because of the contact to the head but I don't think it is a reportable

However the problem I had was Franklin's knees into the lower part of Cuz' cranium after the bump - that was weak

Yep agree 100% WP.

Although the rule as far as I know it is, if you elect to hip and shoulder, bump, charge what ever you want to call it you must have duty of care not to make contact with the opposition players head. Regardless if they had the ball, standing still, 150cms or 2 meters tall. The rule is in black and white.

Maxwell was originally giving 3 weeks by the match review panel. How was this any different

Intentional
In Play
High Contact
High Impact (Broken Jaw/Knocked out Concussion), maybe argue Medium Impact.

Thats more than 100 points.

Gawnski. Cant imagine he has a good record.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Go Richo 12 on August 24, 2009, 01:56:36 AM
the head high rule was brought into play to primarily protect the player with his head over the ball, not when a hip and shoulder is executed correctley

so if a short behind hips a taller player and heavy contact is made in the leg region and causes say a hip or knee injury, should the short behind be charged for rough play causing an injury ffs no way

like i saud if this was richo and he got done for the same thing we would be screaming!

except for liltone
You are wrong, the head high rule was bought in to curb the large amounts of concussion injuries! We had head high rules for those with their head over the ball bought in and then we had another bought in to try stop the shirt fronts later!I think it is termed unduly rough play in that forceful front on contact? Pickett was the instigator for that rule coming in i believe.

We must move on from the seventies! The game is faster and the players are getting bigger! We need to protect the players or we risk having parents not allowing their kids to play or someone suffering from a brain injury!
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Tigermonk on August 24, 2009, 07:21:12 AM
it was a fair bump & ruled correctly by the umpire.
both players were on thier feet, its just unfortunate one was taller than the other.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: TigerTimeII on August 24, 2009, 08:46:00 AM
Should have been a free kick because of the contact to the head but I don't think it is a reportable

However the problem I had was Franklin's knees into the lower part of Cuz' cranium after the bump - that was weak

be careful, BIGTONE WILL EAT YOU!!!!
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Chuck17 on August 24, 2009, 09:03:32 AM
Without concentrating too much on the rules of the game, umps interpretation and all that I thought it was a good hit.  Elbow was tucked in, Cuz was going the dodge and got nailed big time.  As a player I would have been happy to give away a free kick if I nailed someone like that.

As the first quote in this thread mentioned McMahons tackling I have to add that the one on Sewell was another in a long list of pathetic tackling efforts by the McMuppet.  What an embarrassment.
Title: Franklin cops a week
Post by: one-eyed on August 24, 2009, 04:11:42 PM
Franklin's been given a week by the MRP even after the early plea
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Muscles on August 24, 2009, 04:18:35 PM
Only one?  Like WP said, it seemed like it was Intentional, High Contact, High Impact - lots of activation points in that!  Only mitigating factor was that it was in play.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: TigerLand on August 24, 2009, 04:19:09 PM
Does no-one understand the rules of our game?

You can not make contact with a blokes head under any circumstances.... (Unless the player ducks the head)

Absolutly none, zilch, zero.

Are you all actual AFL umpires? Lack of knowledge of the rules suggest so. lol

This is the easiest rule in football, contact to head = free kick.

Think the only other black or white rule in our game is No tripping rule.

The funniest thing I've ever read on this forum = Franklin is taller he's allowed to bump little guys in the head.

Stupidest thing I've ever heard. Ever.


Ever.....



ever.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Beren on August 24, 2009, 04:19:46 PM
There IS a God then! ;D
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: TigerLand on August 24, 2009, 04:21:45 PM
I would have thought Maxwell's was worse (Pre Season vs Eagles) but somehow he got off?

I think Franklin has a case to object but the rules state that it's an illegal bump.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: wayne on August 24, 2009, 04:35:13 PM
I thought it was funny today that on SEN they were saying that Cousins ran into Buddy!!??!!

Cousins had the ball, Franklin was chasing him and decided on a bump rather than a tackle.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Muscles on August 24, 2009, 04:46:53 PM
Just read the MRP report - they called it negligent contact, not deliberate and medium contact!

Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Chuck17 on August 24, 2009, 04:55:57 PM
Does no-one understand the rules of our game?

You can not make contact with a blokes head under any circumstances.... (Unless the player ducks the head)

Absolutly none, zilch, zero.

Are you all actual AFL umpires? Lack of knowledge of the rules suggest so. lol

A hit like that is a tone setter for the game and a statement of intention.

As a player I wouldn't have given a shiczenhausen about the rules to nail someone like that.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: one-eyed on August 24, 2009, 05:04:48 PM
Here's the MRP report....

Lance Franklin, Hawthorn, has been charged with a Level Two engaging in rough conduct offence against Ben Cousins, Richmond, during the third quarter of the Round 21 match between Hawthorn and Richmond, played at the MCG on Saturday August 22, 2009.

In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.
 
The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points resulting in the classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record.

An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 168.75 points and a one-match sanction.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/83378/default.aspx
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Fishfinger on August 24, 2009, 05:22:37 PM
Important game this week for the Hawks. They need to beat Essendon to make the finals.
If they challenge the one week suspension and lose they'll be without Franklin in the first week of the finals, if they were to win this week.

Tough decision. I hope they suffer in their yellow with a brown stripe jocks.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: cub on August 24, 2009, 06:27:18 PM
I'll be going for the Bombres
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Jackstar is back on August 24, 2009, 07:14:23 PM
Right decision.
Cant hit a player in the head
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Francois Jackson on August 24, 2009, 07:32:21 PM
franklin=10k more in crowd numbers this week against the Bombers.

id be suprised if they dont let him off.

weak as pee those pricks and if that thug Maxwell got off for his hit on McGinnity then i expect Buddy will be cleared.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: TigerLand on August 24, 2009, 07:35:12 PM
Agree Daniel

Its what happens when Monkey's are given power..

Franklin and Maxwells bumps both weeks worthy. Yet Maxwell somehow gets off. Well so should Buddy. But whats the point of having the rule if its not enforced....  :lol :lol :lol

dear o dear.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Francois Jackson on August 24, 2009, 07:40:07 PM
well shock horror Quarters first 5 mins on 1HD spent on Buddy's bump.

so biased that guy its not funny.

showed the hit Rance layed on Buddy, which drew blood.

well done Rance well done.  :clapping  Pity you didn't knock the pricks tooth out again.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: DallasCrane on August 24, 2009, 09:38:53 PM
Lance Franklin is not a Collingwood player, and therefore will have to serve his 1 week penalty.

I don't think it's that funny, the concept of Franklin getting away with this because he is tall, if a little shrimp did the same thing, and actually had to lift the shoulder to make the head high contact, then it looks worse, and I think would get more weeks.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Francois Jackson on August 24, 2009, 09:41:18 PM
Lance Franklin is not a Collingwood player, and therefore will have to serve his 1 week penalty.

I don't think it's that funny, the concept of Franklin getting away with this because he is tall, if a little shrimp did the same thing, and actually had to lift the shoulder to make the head high contact, then it looks worse, and I think would get more weeks.

time will tell.

whilst Franklin is not a Collingwood player he would bring an extra 10k worth of fans in that Bombers game and we know what the tribunal are like to players who have big games ahead of them(Barry hall)

Title: Franklin guilty and out for 2 weeks
Post by: one-eyed on August 25, 2009, 07:25:13 PM
Tribunal says Buddy is guilty. So cops the full 2 weeks.
Title: Re: Franklin guilty and out for 2 weeks
Post by: WilliamPowell on August 25, 2009, 07:29:57 PM
Tribunal says Buddy is guilty. So cops the full 2 weeks.

Cannot believe the argument was to apportion part of the blame to Cuz because he slightly fumbled the ball  ::)

Disappointing in a way but the correct decision based on what the rules now say

Is the rule correct? I don't think it is but as they "thems the rules"

Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: mightytiges on August 25, 2009, 08:13:35 PM
Buddy had no chance. Everyone knows the rule whether you agree with it or not. If you're going to bump then the onus is on the player to not make head high contact. Laughable of Hawthorn to contest based on blaming Cuz  ::). What a pathetic defence  :stupid.

Still it doesn't help us get back a blind freddy free kick, double goal, and our best player that wrecked a competitive game :banghead. Thank you umpires!  :banghead
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: RollsRoyce on August 25, 2009, 09:02:13 PM
Great result! Now I hope the Bombers wipe the Gee with that brown and yellow stain...
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Hellenic Tiger on August 25, 2009, 09:13:06 PM
According to the rules it is correct.
Is it correct for footy as a whole. Of course not.
Hypocritical. Of course it is remember Nick Maxwell in Feb.

One point I'll make according to the law should Rance and Selwood have been suspended earlier in the year since the contact was

a) Forceful
b) To the Head.
Rance missed games because of this.

Adrian Anderson has alot to answer for. The genocide of football as we knew it.
The Adolph Hitler of Football Operations. The Bump has been Aushwitzed.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: julzqld on August 25, 2009, 10:16:12 PM
Ha! My heart bleeds for Buddy - not!!! :lol
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Go Richo 12 on August 25, 2009, 11:26:09 PM
How does McMahon get a game :banghead
Correct me if im wrong but this is a Buddy Frankling thread,  is it not?
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: TigerTimeII on August 26, 2009, 09:40:27 AM
so the head cannot be touched hey, even if its incidental

the next time fev goes for a huge mark and uses his kne in the back of someones head lets see if he gets reported for that
but no, it was because he was going for a mark that rules change

buddy did nothing wrong and if it were richo we would have the pitch forks out

this game is stuffed
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: cub on August 26, 2009, 10:31:15 AM
Buddy could have got out of that one! He knew well and good what he was doing.
That said it takes away from the essence of the game (The suspension) and don't agree with decision  - but anyway, suck poo poo Buddy and Dawkers - Have a big cry ....

Hope the bombers hand you one Saturday - May even pop in ....
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Stripes on August 26, 2009, 10:45:29 AM
He could have tackled but instead he chose to bump Cousins. The result was serious damage to Cousins which meant he could take no further part of the game. Even if he had of just braced himself to protect himself he probably would have avoided suspension but he lifted he followed through with the motion to effectively strike Cousins.

Whether you think it is soft or not I'm happy with the decision and would have been disappointed if Buddy had got away with it just because he is a media favourite. If it had of been Richo bumping Judd the media would have been calling for blood. Just hypocritical.

Go Dons!

Stripes
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: mightytiges on August 26, 2009, 05:26:13 PM
Buddy should stop wasting his and the tribunal's time if he's appealing based on a "flaw in law".
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: mightytiges on August 27, 2009, 05:13:43 PM
SEN interviewing Hawk supporters protesting outside AFL House for Buddy :nopity :rollin
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: TigerLand on August 27, 2009, 05:17:50 PM
so the head cannot be touched hey, even if its incidental

the next time fev goes for a huge mark and uses his kne in the back of someones head lets see if he gets reported for that
but no, it was because he was going for a mark that rules change

buddy did nothing wrong and if it were richo we would have the pitch forks out

this game is stuffed

Marking contest is different

Bumping to the head is illegal.

Its the rule. You can kick someone in the face if it's in the action of marking.

If you elect to bump you must hit them lower then the neck. Its the same as tackling, but its reportable.

Plain as black and white.

Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: mightytiges on August 27, 2009, 05:27:01 PM
The Hawks have named Buddy in their 22 for this week. Wishful thinking lol.
Title: Franklin appeal fails
Post by: one-eyed on August 27, 2009, 07:59:35 PM
Appeal dismissed.

Two week penalty stands.
Title: Re: Franklin appeal fails
Post by: mightytiges on August 27, 2009, 08:58:29 PM
Appeal dismissed.

Two week penalty stands.
No surprise. Hawks' appealling saying it was a flaw of law was always clutching at straws. The new rule mightn't be in the "spirit of the game" but it's the rule. There's other rules we don't like (hello guesswork on hands in the back) but they're the rules. We can thank the whinging of Nick "head over the ball" Maxwell  ::) when he broke that young Eagles' jaw for this one.

And Finey on SEN - the point of Buddy's shoulder collected Cuz in the jaw. Cuz wasn't knocked out due to whiplash and the collision wasn't Cuz's fault either ::)  :wallywink.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Jackstar is back on August 27, 2009, 09:07:14 PM
Hawthorn were dreaming, Rule is in black and white, thanks to Nick Maxwell, LOL
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Francois Jackson on August 27, 2009, 09:22:45 PM
lets hope he misses the start of next season so they start 2010 the same way this year has gone for them.

Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Hellenic Tiger on August 27, 2009, 10:18:17 PM
Apparently from The Footy Show Hawks considering a court injuction to the Afl ruling to get him to play...... It will be Greg Williams all over again. :whistle
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: one-eyed on August 27, 2009, 10:29:16 PM
Hutchy just said Hawthorn will have a meeting tomorrow about whether to go to the Supreme Court over this and take the AFL head on.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Moi on August 27, 2009, 10:30:26 PM
Just a joke
Accept the penalty like everyone else has to
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Hellenic Tiger on August 27, 2009, 10:32:39 PM
I actually want him to get away with it. For him to be suspended for what happened is a slur on our game. The game is being changed forever.

Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Moi on August 27, 2009, 10:36:24 PM
I actually want him to get away with it. For him to be suspended for what happened is a slur on our game. The game is being changed forever.


Plenty of others have gone for less
I agree with you about the game, but you do for one you do for all
It's only because he' a champion otherwise no-one would say a word.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Hellenic Tiger on August 27, 2009, 10:47:41 PM
I actually want him to get away with it. For him to be suspended for what happened is a slur on our game. The game is being changed forever.


Plenty of others have gone for less
I agree with you about the game, but you do for one you do for all
It's only because he' a champion otherwise no-one would say a word.

I agree with you Froars that if it was a lesser type of player the decision would have been accepted and life would have moved on. However the AFL and in particular Andy D and Adrian A have treated the game and rules with such utter contempt in order to appease a minority. Under the letter of the law he should be gone but when the spirit of the game is compromised then Hawthorn or any other club has every right to fight for what they believe in. I think he should play.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Jackstar is back on August 27, 2009, 10:57:42 PM
I actually want him to get away with it. For him to be suspended for what happened is a slur on our game. The game is being changed forever.



The rule is black and white I am afraid.
All Players were given DVD at the start of the year.
He couldnt possibly have got off, poor  effort by Hawthorn I reckon.,
::rule states you cannot make contact to the head when there is an option to tackle,. Buddy=GUILTY.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: tigersalive on August 27, 2009, 11:12:49 PM
I actually want him to get away with it. For him to be suspended for what happened is a slur on our game. The game is being changed forever.



The rule is black and white I am afraid.
All Players were given DVD at the start of the year.
He couldnt possibly have got off, poor  effort by Hawthorn I reckon.,
::rule states you cannot make contact to the head when there is an option to tackle,. Buddy=GUILTY.

Agree the rule is clear and I'm amazed how many people just don't get it.  I also laugh at people who say the game is now like netball and ruined.

Just take a look at the Thursty and Shiels contact or the Rance and Selwood contact for proof the game isn't netball.  And there are hundreds of other examples.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Hellenic Tiger on August 27, 2009, 11:21:21 PM
I actually want him to get away with it. For him to be suspended for what happened is a slur on our game. The game is being changed forever.



The rule is black and white I am afraid.
All Players were given DVD at the start of the year.
He couldnt possibly have got off, poor  effort by Hawthorn I reckon.,
::rule states you cannot make contact to the head when there is an option to tackle,. Buddy=GUILTY.



Just take a look at the Thursty and Shiels contact or the Rance and Selwood contact for proof the game isn't netball.  And there are hundreds of other examples.

According to the laws then shouldn't Selwood and Rance get two weeks? Both made contact with the head whether it was incidental or intentional. Buddy did not intend to get Cuz in the head either. Buddy was tried by the media from Sunday before the match review panel made their decision to issue him with a suspension yet the Rance Selwood incident is seen as an act of bravery which indeed it was yet under the laws of the game contact to the head is sacrasanct and an offence worthy of a suspension.

You cannot have a rule for one and call it negligent and then have a rule for the other and call it bravery and tough which it is but it's still contact to the head and that under the law is an offence.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: mightytiges on August 27, 2009, 11:23:12 PM
The AFL will probably modify the law in time for next year when all this has died down.

In all this huffing and puffing, the media have forgotten that a free kick wasn't paid when it should've been. That's the main injustice here. We gain nothing from Buddy being suspended or not.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: Jackstar is back on August 27, 2009, 11:25:28 PM
Would think Rance deserved a week.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: mightytiges on August 27, 2009, 11:31:13 PM
According to the laws then shouldn't Selwood and Rance get two weeks? Both made contact with the head whether it was incidental or intentional. Buddy did not intend to get Cuz in the head either. Buddy was tried by the media from Sunday before the match review panel made their decision to issue him with a suspension yet the Rance Selwood incident is seen as an act of bravery which indeed it was yet under the laws of the game contact to the head is sacrasanct and an offence worthy of a suspension.

You cannot have a rule for one and call it negligent and then have a rule for the other and call it bravery and tough which it is but it's still contact to the head and that under the law is an offence.
Rance and Selwood were both going for the ball. Buddy wasn't. No shirtfront is. It's purely designed to flatten the opponent to take him out and spill the ball loose. I don't necessarily agree with the new rule but what Buddy did is different to what happened with Rance and Selwood. Rance was more lucky to get off his "lovetap" to Buddy's mouth.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: tigersalive on August 27, 2009, 11:38:10 PM
I actually want him to get away with it. For him to be suspended for what happened is a slur on our game. The game is being changed forever.



The rule is black and white I am afraid.
All Players were given DVD at the start of the year.
He couldnt possibly have got off, poor  effort by Hawthorn I reckon.,
::rule states you cannot make contact to the head when there is an option to tackle,. Buddy=GUILTY.



Just take a look at the Thursty and Shiels contact or the Rance and Selwood contact for proof the game isn't netball.  And there are hundreds of other examples.

According to the laws then shouldn't Selwood and Rance get two weeks? Both made contact with the head whether it was incidental or intentional. Buddy did not intend to get Cuz in the head either. Buddy was tried by the media from Sunday before the match review panel made their decision to issue him with a suspension yet the Rance Selwood incident is seen as an act of bravery which indeed it was yet under the laws of the game contact to the head is sacrasanct and an offence worthy of a suspension.

You cannot have a rule for one and call it negligent and then have a rule for the other and call it bravery and tough which it is but it's still contact to the head and that under the law is an offence.

No.  

Buddy laid a bump on a ball handler and was negligent in executing it by hitting him in the head.  A bump cannot have contact to the head.

Rance and Selwood both attacked the footy on the ground and accidentally clashed heads.  Neither tried to bump.

There is a clear difference that can be perfectly explained by the AFL's "spirit of the laws" guide:  "The player whose sole objective is to contest the ball shall be permitted to do so.”  Both Rance and Selwood's sole objective was the football, Buddy's objective was to bump Cousins, and he didn't execute it under the laws.  


I'm surprised Rance didn't get cited for the punch on Buddy as well Jack, which would have ended in a reprimand after a 25% reduction I'd say.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: julzqld on August 28, 2009, 08:19:00 AM
You never see anyone get knocked out by a bump to the head in netball.
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: julzqld on August 28, 2009, 08:30:42 AM
Tell you a funny story about netball.  A couple of weeks ago Mini-me was playing and her opponent kept pushing against her.  After a while Mini-me had enough so the next time her opponent pushed against her, Mini-me stepped aside and the opponent fell over and hurt herself and started crying.  We hadn't seen what happened and jokingly asked Mini-me what had she done and what a big bully Mini-me was.  I think it was the same girl who kicked Mini-me on the ankle as well. 
Title: Re: Franklin.
Post by: WilliamPowell on August 28, 2009, 08:35:38 AM
Tell you a funny story about netball.  A couple of weeks ago Mini-me was playing and her opponent kept pushing against her.  After a while Mini-me had enough so the next time her opponent pushed against her, Mini-me stepped aside and the opponent fell over and hurt herself and started crying.  We hadn't seen what happened and jokingly asked Mini-me what had she done and what a big bully Mini-me was.  I think it was the same girl who kicked Mini-me on the ankle as well. 

 :thumbsup :clapping :clapping

Onya Mini - cunning! I like that  :rollin
Title: The bump part II (Lloyd on Sewell)
Post by: mightytiges on August 29, 2009, 04:56:50 PM
What comes around goes around  :yep. I wonder how many Hawk fans will be crying discrimation and calling for court action to overturn the rule this week after seeing Sewell carried off on a stretcher after Lloyd did the exact same thing as Buddy did on Cuz.
Title: Re: The bump part II (Lloyd on Sewell)
Post by: 1965 on August 29, 2009, 05:30:50 PM
What comes around goes around  :yep. I wonder how many Hawk fans will be crying discrimation and calling for court action to overturn the rule this week after seeing Sewell carried off on a stretcher after Lloyd did the exact same thing as Buddy did on Cuz.

God I hope Lloyd gets off.

I'm wearing my wife's Essendon scarf to work on Monday.

God I hate Hawthorn and their supporters.

 :thumbsup
Title: Re: The bump part II (Lloyd on Sewell)
Post by: mightytiges on August 29, 2009, 06:53:59 PM
God I hope Lloyd gets off.
Why? I hope it puts diving boy into retirement.

Pretty funny Campbell Brown calling Lloyd a sniper after the game. Would he call dad a sniper as well lol.
Title: Re: The bump part II (Lloyd on Sewell)
Post by: 1965 on August 29, 2009, 10:23:26 PM
God I hope Lloyd gets off.
Why? I hope it puts diving boy into retirement.

Pretty funny Campbell Brown calling Lloyd a sniper after the game. Would he call dad a sniper as well lol.

It would p1ss the Hawthorn supporters off for decades.

 :lol
Title: Re: Franklin / Lloyd / The Bump gone?
Post by: one-eyed on August 31, 2009, 04:18:10 PM
Lloyd has copped 4 weeks from the MRP

Ryder got 1 week for his jab to Hodge. It must be okay to tap Buddy in the gob but not others lol.
Title: Re: Franklin / Lloyd / The Bump gone?
Post by: Infamy on August 31, 2009, 06:15:02 PM
Ryder got 1 week for his jab to Hodge. It must be okay to tap Buddy in the gob but not others lol.
The AFL must be trying to improve its reputation amongst the fans. I'm sure supporters from 15 clubs would like the AFL over that sort of ruling.