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.
