Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 36

Thread: Buddy & Tippett

  1. #13
    The old Boiler! Wardy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Goulburn NSW
    Posts
    6,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Plugger46 View Post
    He'll never take on Eddie Wardy.

    He's got most of them covered because he's an intelligent man but as a result, his views on footy are incredibly overrated by the general public.
    I so hope he doesn't refer to
    Them as BB's ever again it sounded so wrong coming from him.

  2. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    For each of those sorts of incidents, it's almost impossible for the MRP to satisfy the requirements of an "intentional" grading. In Buddy's case, they have to be certain the intention was to make high contact, as opposed to intentionally bumping (which may have carried a reasonable possibility of high contact, but hitting the head can't be proven to be the absolute intention).

    In Tippett's case, initial contact was actually made by his wrist/lower forearm whilst his hand was open, so even when contact from the elbow does occur as he (rather recklessly, admittedly) pushes that arm through, they couldn't have deemed it to be a fully intentional elbow to the head.

    And then the severity of actual contact to the head in both cases is IMO absolutely no more than medium. Buddy's was a lot of body contact which also included the head, and Tippett's could hardly be described as a 'flush' hit with the arm/elbow.

    No doubt there should have been a sanction, but even trying to factor in my own bias, I can't see how 2 weeks down to 1 is not considered reasonable.
    Spot on, sure a one week ban would have been quickly accepted for both players.

    Some serious bias on this thread, blatant and forgivable

  3. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    I agree with Steve and Liz, particularly in relation to the Buddy incident. What a lot of people commenting on this seem to be overlooking is that a bump, if executed correctly, is a legitimate footy act (unlike, for example, the use of an elbow or tripping a player). A bump only draws a rough conduct charge if it leads to high contact. So the fact that a bump is in itself intentional should not lead to an intentional grading in a rough contact charge from a head-high bump. It would only be appropriate to use the intentional grading if the MRP were of the opinion that Buddy set out to hit Edwards in the head. Only someone with a very perverse way of looking at the incident could come to that conclusion.
    Buddy is a big fellow charging out on a lead then meets a player charging directly towards him.
    A bit lower and would that have been legal?
    A bit slower to react and there might have been serious head contact.
    Could he have tried to do something different and if so what would be the result?
    Nobody was stupid enough to stand in front of Plugger's lead.

    On a more general note, there is a trend to lower scoring and it's no wonder if you are not going to protect players whose intent is to mark the ball.
    give it to the game

  4. #16
    Regular in the Side crackedactor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by jono2707 View Post
    I can totally see where Whateley was coming from and I too am surprised Buddy didn't cop 2 or 3 weeks. He's just lucky Edwards wasn't hurt I guess.

    Tippett was touch and go as to whether it was going to be a fine or a week, so I reckon he was a bit unlucky.

    And Whately is hardly a puppet of Eddies - he's a bit smarter than that and he's normally a measured and astute commentator who is not anti-Swans. In fact his stance in light of the recent Goodes booing was admirable.
    Agree that buddy was lucky not to get 2-3 weeks, but for the life of me I cannot understand the difference between the Gordon incident and the Tippett incident??

  5. #17
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by crackedactor View Post
    Agree that buddy was lucky not to get 2-3 weeks,
    Buddy did get two weeks, down to one because of early acceptance.

    If you think he was lucky not to get three down to two with early acceptance, then you are saying you think it could have been graded as careless with high impact and high contact -but the impact clearly was NOT high as Edwards was able to resume playing after the concussion test.

    Or you think it was intentional - that Buddy intentionally hit Edwards in the head (high contact) with medium impact. Now if you think that Buddy intentionally hit a player in the head in front of the umpire we really have a problem. That is an act of sabotage for the club.

    I think the MRP got it right.

    And while I understand Buddy had to make a split second decision while running at full pace of what to do when he saw an opposing player on a collision course, I really wish he would abandon the bump. Despite his effort to get down low and tuck his arm in, he is simply too big a man to bump without risk of hitting high.

  6. #18
    Chillin' with the strange Quarks

  7. #19
    On the Rookie List Conor_Dillon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Geelong
    Posts
    1,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Untamed Snark View Post
    Congratulations on post 1000
    Pity it's such a biased article!
    Twitter @cmdil
    Instagram @conordillon

  8. #20
    RWOs Black Sheep AnnieH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    At Goodesy's Place
    Posts
    11,332
    They both deserve to be out for more.
    We're protected... obviously.
    Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
    Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.

  9. #21
    On the Rookie List Conor_Dillon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Geelong
    Posts
    1,224
    Yeh the AFL has really protected us in regards to the academies and the trade ban etc.
    Twitter @cmdil
    Instagram @conordillon

  10. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Conor_Dillon View Post
    Congratulations on post 1000
    Pity it's such a biased article!

    Thanks ,
    Was hoping to go big & spectacular but thought this needed to be posted
    Chillin' with the strange Quarks

  11. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by i'm-uninformed2 View Post
    I can't cop that there was a difference between Tippett and Gordon
    Tippett plays for the Swans

    Gordon used to play for the Swans

    Case closed

  12. #24
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    That is the most ridiculous and biased article I've read on suspensions. When you view Buddy's bump at normal speed, he had only a couple of milliseconds to 'decide' what to do in that situation. He was suspended because he's too big and too fast. It's hard to tell, but it looked more like he got Edwards in the chest and his arm ran up to his head. Okay. That's the rule. You bump and hit someone in the head you get suspended. But let's not go overboard, making it sound like a thuggish act, which was clearly the case in the Lewis and Hodge incidents. Most similar incidents to the Tippett one got off with a fine. The anti-Sydney sentiment grows day by day.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO