Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 36

Thread: Buddy & Tippett

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    The old Boiler! Wardy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Goulburn NSW
    Posts
    6,676

    Buddy & Tippett

    I'm so pissed off - Gerard Whately is becoming a puppet of Eddie - it's like the MRP should accept his holier than thou crap - we get it that you are on the Tigers bandwagon - I was appalled that as soon as the Buddy hit happened you were banging on about the numerous weeks he'd get, you were buoyant - jubilant even - and disappointment tonight that they both only got 1 week - was there in show.
    I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure..................
    Chickens drink - but they don't pee!
    AGE IS ONLY IMPORTANT FOR TWO THINGS - WINE & CHEESE!

  2. #2
    Regular in the Side
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    melbourne
    Posts
    834
    What happened to high tackle (I think elbow )to head of Kj and I think it was Gordon. It looked as bad as the others but no free kick. Again it shows they are all against us.

  3. #3
    Reefer Madness
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    in a yellow submarine
    Posts
    4,359
    Blog Entries
    1
    I can cop where the MRP arrived at with Buddy

    I can't cop that there was a difference between Tippett and Gordon

  4. #4
    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

  5. #5
    So if it was one our players that got cleaned up in the same circumstances I gather most on here would everybody be happy ??

    I think we are lucky that both tiger players got up and can fully understand why the club did not appeal

  6. #6
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,199
    Quote Originally Posted by DA_Swan View Post
    So if it was one our players that got cleaned up in the same circumstances I gather most on here would everybody be happy ??

    I think we are lucky that both tiger players got up and can fully understand why the club did not appeal
    Look Buddy got 2 weeks for poorly executing a legal act. No damage done luckily to the player.

    I'd be happy with that if it was reversed.

    The debate around the interpretations the MRP operate within and the discounts due to priors is separate.

  7. #7
    Goes up to 11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,326
    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.

  8. #8
    Taking into consideration the anti swans commentary by Eddie & cohorts, the Bondi billionaires tags, thbane typical taking down the tall poppies, I think that the club was happy that the boys only received a 1 week. I hope that an upside to the suspensions is that the coaches look at a different game plan with regards to different avenues to scoring. I would like to see Rohan at FF utilizing his speed and defensive forward pressure with Sam Reid at CHF and hopefully taking heaps of marks. Goodes should play as a decoy to Rohan.

  9. #9
    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??

  10. #10
    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.

  11. #11
    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.

  12. #12
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    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.
    This is pretty much my assessment. It's why deliberate gradings are almost always for off-the-ball incidents. I guess if Buddy had jumped into Edwards they might have had a case for deliberate, but even then it could be arguable (depending on the actual circumstances). As it was, once Buddy decided to bump (and bear in mind it was a split second decision), he appears to have done all he could to minimise high contact by dipping slightly and clearly tucking his arm in. Was he "lucky" that Edwards wasn't hurt, as Jono suggests? I'm not sure he really was.

    I thought Buddy would get two - that they would grade the impact as high, just to get him to two and appease the baying crowds - but I think an assessment of medium is quite reasonable given the actual incident (rather than the much worse "imagined" version that many seem to want to see). I can't see how anyone who understands the grading system can possibly come up with an assessment that has him serving three weeks (unless he were to challenge, or had a bad record to factor in).

    As for Tippett, I think he realised that he'd moved his arm / elbow in a way that was going to get him into a bit of strife, and seemed to do all he could to minimise impact, especially with the elbow. Compared to other incidents, I think a medium grading is on the higher side, but I can see why they went that way. Despite the outcome, the initial arm movement didn't look good.

Page 1 of 3 123 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