the 'buddy' franklin report & suspension

[Ripdschitlaz]

Hawks are now considering a Supreme Court Injunction.......According to Hutchy so not sure what to believe

I hope they do. It would be great to see the AFL and match review committee get rolled for trying to f@#k our game up.

[Booney]

What a steaming pile this whole thread is. If this was Garrick Ibbitson in Round 4 would anyone care?

I highly doubt it.

Move on people, the game has been getting sanotised for years and we all know the head is protected and the ball carrier is protected, as well they should be.

If this whole extravaganza is not an over reaction I dont know what is.

[mal]

Hawthorns suggested draft picks for 2010

Adam Ballinger
Aaron Bruce
Erik Burdon [not an aniMAL]
Mathew Campbell [not the NA footballer]
Larry Davidson
David Gruber
Julius Hodge
Daniel Jackson
Darren Ng
Lindsay Tait

[brod]

Hawks not going any further with appeals

HAWTHORN will not take further legal action to try to erase Buddy Franklin's two-match penalty, Jeff Kennett said today. The Hawks' president said the club had carefully considered it's position overnight, after the AFL Appeals Board rejected his appeal over a rough conduct charge, but decided against seeking any further intervention, such as through the law courts.

"We have decided not to take it to the Supreme Court, we have not been successful in two hearings to date and although we feel strongly about Buddy's innocence, to take it to the Supreme Court would be churlish," Kennett said on radio 3AW this morning.

[Hondo]

What a steaming pile this whole thread is. If this was Garrick Ibbitson in Round 4 would anyone care?

I highly doubt it.

Move on people, the game has been getting sanotised for years and we all know the head is protected and the ball carrier is protected, as well they should be.

If this whole extravaganza is not an over reaction I dont know what is.

I tend to agree Booney. Some very melodramatic posts here.

The rule was re-written in the pre-season after the Maxwell incident. 168 games later and we have our first really contentious decision based on that new rule. 1 for the whole season!!! Plenty of hard clashes have either been let go on the field or been let off by the MRP. They aren't really publicised but several recent ones have been applauded by most as sensible decisions that ensure physical clashes stay as part of the game.

As you say, the head is sacrosanct, rightly or wrongly. If the other bloke suffers a injury around his neck or head and the first bloke had a choice to hit or not (even if it's only a split second) then he's goneski, rightly or wrongly.

My view on the incident .... borderline - I can see both sides of the argument. My main point is that plenty of clashes are let go through to the keeper even if this particular decision was tough on Buddy.

[Bum Crack]

He broke the rules and paid the price. Until the actual rule and interpretation is changed, stop whinging. End of story.

[Booney]

What he said.

[Bum Crack]

What he said.

was referring to the whingers.

[mal]

Hawthorns suggested draft picks for 2010

Adam Ballinger
Aaron Bruce
Erik Burdon [not an aniMAL]
Mathew Campbell [not the NA footballer]
Larry Davidson
David Gruber
Julius Hodge
Daniel Jackson
Darren Ng
Lindsay Tait

Then we can call them the ADELAIDE HAWKs

[hawkseye]

Might aswell have got his elbow up and smashed him then.

[dedja]

As the law currently stands Buddy never had a chance (even though that law is an ass) .... but if (and a big if) this furore causes little Adrian Anderson to get a better appreciation of what footy is really about then it's a good thing.

Going to the courts is definitely not a good thing so hopefully the Hawks will resist the temptation ... who remembers the Andrew Dunkley farce before the '96 GF.

The Hawks just need to swallow the medicine now and prepare for their match this weekend

[Booney]

What he said.

was referring to the whingers.

I was agreeing with you.

[JK]

Ah ok, so a forum isn't a place where you can express concerns on where the game - our game - is heading?

Duly noted, only positive discussion from now ... Mr Anderson is doing a fantastic job btw, hopefully the AFL appoints even more lawyers to their positions of power.

[dedja]

Ah ok, so a forum isn't a place where you can express concerns on where the game - our game - is heading?

Duly noted, only positive discussion from now ... Mr Anderson is doing a fantastic job btw, hopefully the AFL appoints even more lawyers to their positions of power.

Right on the money, but if I may, can I qualify the highlighted statement?

hopefully the AFL appoints even more lawyers who have not had any prior involvement or have any appreciation of football to their positions of power

[Bum Crack]

Ah ok, so a forum isn't a place where you can express concerns on where the game - our game - is heading?

Duly noted, only positive discussion from now ... Mr Anderson is doing a fantastic job btw, hopefully the AFL appoints even more lawyers to their positions of power.

The rule is pathetic, but at the end of the day, while it's there, you just have to grin and bear it. No doubt it will be looked at after the season has ended, as it should be.

[JK]

Ah ok, so a forum isn't a place where you can express concerns on where the game - our game - is heading?

Duly noted, only positive discussion from now ... Mr Anderson is doing a fantastic job btw, hopefully the AFL appoints even more lawyers to their positions of power.

The rule is pathetic, but at the end of the day, while it's there, you just have to grin and bear it. No doubt it will be looked at after the season has ended, as it should be.

That's a fair call mate, it just makes the blood boil that it could get to this stage .. Ok I've had my whinge now and feel better

[Booney]

Ah ok, so a forum isn't a place where you can express concerns on where the game - our game - is heading?

Duly noted, only positive discussion from now ... Mr Anderson is doing a fantastic job btw, hopefully the AFL appoints even more lawyers to their positions of power.

Is it just this incident that has aroused* your suspicions as to where the game is headed? Cmon mate, it has been going down this path for years. Dont get me wrong, I love the "bump" but the head has been protected for years now, nothing new about that. Fact is Buddy hit Cousins in the head, no disputing that is there?

So what is the issue here? The "bump" - the head high contact - the fact its Buddy in the week before the Hawks biggest game of the year ....

Sure ,express your opinions as I am doing the same be mine right or wrong.

[dedja]

The AFL are considering sanctioning a new range of 'guernseys' for next season.

Here's a seek preview of what Carlton's might look like ...

[Hondo]

CP, from what I have heard in interviews they are ultra-cautious about head and neck injuries. It's become a no-go zone - even for accidental contact. Same thing happenning in contact sports around the world.

I guess their insurers and risk advisors are partly to blame. There's huge financial implications if someone suffers a serious injury and the AFL is held responsible because their rules of the game aren't adequate. Plus the bad publicity, etc.

It's a contentious one, we just have to hope future admininstrators don't let the spirit of the game disappear in their push to keep it "safe".

All I was trying to say is that there's only been 2 incidents that have given us fans cause for grief over the whole year at the same time as there's been a bunch of incidents let go. So maybe there's still hope.

[JK]

Ah ok, so a forum isn't a place where you can express concerns on where the game - our game - is heading?

Duly noted, only positive discussion from now ... Mr Anderson is doing a fantastic job btw, hopefully the AFL appoints even more lawyers to their positions of power.

Is it just this incident that has aroused* your suspicions as to where the game is headed? Cmon mate, it has been going down this path for years. Dont get me wrong, I love the "bump" but the head has been protected for years now, nothing new about that. Fact is Buddy hit Cousins in the head, no disputing that is there?

So what is the issue here? The "bump" - the head high contact - the fact its Buddy in the week before the Hawks biggest game of the year ....

Sure ,express your opinions as I am doing the same be mine right or wrong.

I think if you take a good look back through this Forum I've expressed my concerns several times, long before this incident.

I have no affiliation with the Hawks nor buddy, this is about the game itself not a team or individual ... Yes he got Cousins in the head, but there surely needs to be some measure of allowance for accidental contact as it clearly was in this case.

There also has to be some measure of protection for the player without the ball (in this instance Buddy) .. With the late change in direction if Buddy goes the tackle he opens himself up to get hurt, if he stops and stands still (if it were even possible by then) he harms his career, if he bumps he get's 2 matches (surely you're not suggesting there was much he could have done to better execute the bump in that space and time?) - So the rules therefore leave a player with 3 options, all resulting in a lose/lose/lose situation.

Funny that the player with the ball get's all the benefit whilst standing yet if he's on the ground with it he get's zero.

Im surprised anyone could be comfortable with rules that are inconsistent and well beyond the spirit of the game.