NatRat 3-How many for Buddy?

[Rossoneri]

Nat Rat hit him after the ball had gone, it was a late hit. Buddy's was in play and got him slightly high. Shouldn't get sighted.

Hope he does, but shouldn't.

[jimmyc1985]

You miss the point Ross.

Since the Maxwell incident hitting the head is out under all circumstances. There is no ambuguity.

He should be cited but won't be....he is an AFL Poster boy.

Didn't Maxwell get off on appeal?

I think Franklin will be ok, but won't be surprised if he gets cited. No one really knows what's going to happen given the ambiguity the MRP have created.

[rockhole]

The fact that Cuzzy was knocked into next week makes it fairly obvious he was hit in the scone. If ALL head high tackles are verboten, then the strutting one should get at least 2 if not 3.

If Buddy was playing for Sydney, he would, off course, get off, as it would be construed that the incident actuall happened out in the car park and not in general play.

But given that NatRat went for 3 for admittedly a late hit, Buddy should also go, as no matter what the circumstances, it was a hit to the head.

With their forward line gone, we might be half a chance given our record at the "G".

[andrewb]

There it is... shoulder to the head - very obvious at 2:10. He'll definitely go for that one. Could have tackled and if he's going to bump he has to get lower because he's got a duty of care to protect the head. I'd actually prefer to play them with Buddy and beat them to be honest.

[gringo]

Buddies hitwas not high. It was a perfect bump.

You need to get over this victim syndrome you have going Filthy.

[rockhole]

Obviously Cuzzy must have been hit with a 3 iron to the head just off camera on his way down. How else do you get knocked out????

[andrewb]

Prohibited contact - no contact to the head - is punishable with a free kick:

Prohibited Contact
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he or she:
(a) makes contact with any part of his or her body with an opposition Player;
(i) above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders or bump to the head); or
(ii) below the knees.

It is not actually a reportable offence. The 'head high contact' rule is reportable but only applies 'when that player has his head down over the ball'.

If Franklin is to be reported it will be under the "charging" rule:

Charge or Charging
(a) A Charge means an act of colliding with an opposition Player where the amount of physical force used is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, irrespective of whether the Player is or is not in possession of the football or whether the Player is within 5 metres of the football.
(b) Without limiting the general application of Law 15.4.4 (a), a Charge occurs when a Player unreasonably or unnecessarily collides with an opposition Player:
(i) who is not within 5 metres of the football;
(ii) who, although within 5 metres of the football, is not in the immediate contest for the football and would not reasonably expect such contact;
(iii) who is attempting to Mark the football or who has Marked the football or been awarded a Free Kick;
(iv) after that Player has disposed of the football;
(v) who is Shepherding another Player on his or her Team; or
(vi) before the football is brought into play.

The MRP will be deciding whether the contact to Cousins head was "reasonable" and "necessary" in the circumstances. If he hadn't have hit him squarely in the head with his shoulder he'd be fine but because the opportunity was there to tackle or to execute the bump in a fashion that he didn't take his head off I'd say he's stuffed. The fact that a free kick wasn't awarded might save him but the video evidence is pretty damning - it's not a "perfectly executed bump" because he didn't get low enough to the ground.

[Madden]

He's a 6 foot 6 guy bumping a guy who is 5 9. He is always going to get him high. Even if he bent his legs and tried to bump him low he was always going to get him high.

If he gets suspended for that, when the ball was right there, then a taller guy can NEVER bump a shorter guy everagain. Do any of you want to watch a game where bumping is outlawed? Because that's what we're heading towards.

Filth you are 100% right that he should go under the current rule. But my opinion is that the way the rule is written is wrong and should be changed.

[andrewb]

The new rule only applies 'when that player has his head down over the ball' which implies that the ball carrier has his head down. Not in this case.

[Madden]

I totally agree Stag.

Its a bullshit rule as are most of the rules brought in by Adolf and co (hands in the back...the Clement Rule... etc), but we've lost a bloke for 3 for it so why not Buddy?

Yep, exactly right.

[nathanskinner]

Just saw it now for the first time.. what are people on about on this forum? If it wasn't even a free how on earth would he get suspended? Was absolutely perfect. As a supporter you would probably have wanted him to tackle, but with a hit like that it ended up being more effective obviously.

[Crazyman]

Just bring back the WWE bodyslam

Storm - teacup

Got him high, true, but for mine, it was a) not deliberate and b) Cuz turned/fell into it somewhat. That said, if they decide he has a case to answer it will be because Netball is a more vigorous contact sport than what Vlad and Co have to our great code into (no offence to all the netballers out there cause I have seen how tough that game can be )

[rockhole]

I am not arguing that it was fair or otherwise. As far as I am concerned, both NatRat's hit and Buddy's hit were both fine with me.

I am looking for consistency. I do not recall that Pettifer had his head over the ball. The thing was that there was head high contact and Lovett Murray went for 3.

From what I am reading, there is no "degree" of a high tackle. if there is contact to the head no matter what the circumstances, it is holiday time.

[andrewb]

Cited. 2 weeks, 1 with early plea.

[Windy_Hill]

His Elbow wasnt raised?????

F**k I must be looking at different footage - his elbow was raised!!!

Suspend the c**t

[s'dreams]

Similaries with the Ryder report earlier this year start and stop with the taller player challenging a short player.

Buddy did swing the elbow. You can argue that he did that to protect himself ... But, most importantly, he chose to charge and H&S the ball carrier rather than tackle.

Rules are clear (despite the mutterings of commentaters who played in a different era). GAWN!

That being said - the trib has been weak this year - so suspect he will get off. Not too fussed about that - as someone else said - the team is more likely to take the game more seriously if buddy is in the team. Job for Hooker perhaps?

Cheers - STI

[swoodley]

They're contesting.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 42,00.html

Some of the comments on the Hun site are laughable. MRP are all Essendon supporters. Anyway what they and some here don't understand...you may not hit the head or neck under any circumstances. Whether we agree or not is irrelevant.

Anyway Shite Mike is leading the charge to get him off. There was no such articles when NatRat went. Wonder if a first year nobody would get a similar campaign waged on his behalf?

If the AFL let Buddy off it will mean there are rules for Poster boys and then there are rules for the other 600 odd listed players.

Nothing new in that statement Filth....the tribunal has been like that for years.

[andrewb]

I want him to play. I don't want our boys going into the game thinking that it's won and I don't want their lads going in thinking that they've been put in a corner. In my opinion we're a better chance to win with Buddy playing - they're far more predictable. We play our best football and we will flog them.

[rockhole]

Challenging tonoght with possible 2 if they fail.

Only want him to get one so I don't give a rat's arse if they lose the challenge.

If there is any justice or any consistency, whether you agree with the ruling or otherwise, he should go for a week minimum.