How did Burton get off

[mightytiges]

What's this about the ball bouncing on its end so he couldn't pull up in time ??? Watching it live about 20 metres in front of us it looked like he just forgot about the footy, ran past it and went for Hyde with the shirtfront. Maybe if he had his eyes on the ball instead of on Hyde he might have got the footy  .   

[DallasCrane]

It was crude and should've been 2 for Burton.

[letsgetiton!]

in the laws of the game there was nothing really wrong with waht burton did, it was withing 5 metres of the ball, his arm and elbow were tucked in and the only reason his shoulder connected was high was because he is much taller than hyde, not his fault!!! i wish our players could lay a shirt front like that

[the_boy_jake]

in the laws of the game there was nothing really wrong with waht burton did, it was withing 5 metres of the ball, his arm and elbow were tucked in and the only reason his shoulder connected was high was because he is much taller than hyde, not his fault!!! i wish our players could lay a shirt front like that

Was a pretty weak shirtfront given Hyde was a sitting duck, I thought. A better one would have put him in lala land.

[letsgetiton!]

in the laws of the game there was nothing really wrong with waht burton did, it was withing 5 metres of the ball, his arm and elbow were tucked in and the only reason his shoulder connected was high was because he is much taller than hyde, not his fault!!! i wish our players could lay a shirt front like that

Was a pretty weak shirtfront given Hyde was a sitting duck, I thought. A better one would have put him in lala land.

it may have been weak, but he executed within th erules and never jumped off the ground, his elbow was tucked in at the point of contact and it was a good old fashioned shirt front. we must remember that this is football and as long as the shirt front is withing 5m of the ball , in the play and executed properly it should not be a reportable offence. who cares how weak it was, hyde should have been more aware and not let himself be open for such a hit. afl is getting to politically correct and soft, bloody hell if it were cogs doing the same thing of ricciuto we would be praising him

[WilliamPowell]

The result was exactly what I was expecting 

I said to some people on Sunday at Coburg that I expected Burton to get pinged by the match review panel and that Adelaide would subsequently contest it and he would get away no suspension.

I think this "new" system is becoming as farcical as the tribunal in 2004. They really need to clear up these definitions of "reckless" and "negligent".

[mightytiges]

in the laws of the game there was nothing really wrong with waht burton did, it was withing 5 metres of the ball, his arm and elbow were tucked in and the only reason his shoulder connected was high was because he is much taller than hyde, not his fault!!! i wish our players could lay a shirt front like that

The shirtfront itself was fine and yes contact was within 5m of the ball but Burton had no intention in getting the ball. His eyes were on Hyde even though he was first to the footy. It was a similar tactic to what Pickett does. Bypass the loose footy and go the man. A cheap shot IMO.

[Fishfinger]

The match review panel are doing the right thing but the tribunal panel don't seem to be on the same wave-length. I thought the new system was meant to stop cases going to the tribunal. That won't happen if they keep giving more lenient penalties than what the match review panel has suggested.
With the reduction in points for accepting a set penalty, does anyone know if Burton still got the reduction even though he challenged? If he did then the system is a joke.

[mightytiges]

With the reduction in points for accepting a set penalty, does anyone know if Burton still got the reduction even though he challenged? If he did then the system is a joke.

I don't believe so FF. The initial charge of reckless was worth 2 weeks (1 week if you include the 25% discount for accepting the decision and Burton's good record). Once the Crows got the charge reduced down to negligent the penalty for that was 1 week and with his good record added in that reduced the points below the 100 points needed to cop a suspension. So he got off.

[Fishfinger]

Thanks MT.  Still amazed he got off.
There must be some players who've had an enforced holiday pretty bemused about how contact is now being rated compared to earlier in the season.

[mightytiges]

Thanks MT.  Still amazed he got off.
There must be some players who've had an enforced holiday pretty bemused about how contact is now being rated compared to earlier in the season.

You would be peeved if you were Gehrig. A light jumper punch on one of the Clokes lol is worth a week yet a cheap high shot results in no suspension. 

They showed the incident again on the news. Bulldust the contact was caused by the ball bouncing on it's end. The ball was lying on the ground and he made a beeline pass the ball straight for Hyde. Negligent my foot  .

[Fishfinger]

Patrick Smith has explained where the new system sucks. Lucky I read it because after his recent ignorant article about Richo I'd almost decided not to bother. 

From Paddy:
"Burton was charged with rough play after he bumped Chris Hyde in Adelaide's win over Richmond last Saturday. He was initially offered a two-match suspension which could be reduced to one if he pleaded guilty.

His bump was assessed as reckless contact, of low impact, in play and of high contact. He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of negligent contact and asked that the tribunal downgrade the match review panel's initial assessment.

The tribunal agreed with Adelaide's position and Burton's two-match suspension ended up a reprimand.

He is not the first player to use this rule - plead guilty and fight some other part of the charge - and he will not be the last. It is a rule that circumvents the main plank of the new tribunal system.

Central to this new protocol were mechanisms that discouraged players from fronting the tribunal.

A match review panel would assess an incident and decide on a penalty. The player concerned could take an early plea and have the penalty reduced. Or he could fight the charge and lose any potential for a discount.

Surely a player who pleads guilty must plead guilty to every part of the charge - conduct, impact, location and contact. If he contests any of the four categories as judged by the match panel then surely he is pleading not guilty."

There it is! Thanks Patrick. 
Burton should not have still got a reduction if he was pleading guilty to a different charge than what was offered. Even with the tribunal agreeing to the lesser charge it should have been one week.

Here's Fatpr...... I mean Patrick's article: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15698587%255E12270,00.html