I don't particular like Franklin but I cannot believe the tribunal has upheld the decision.

Two weeks is outrageous in my view, the only real crime he seemed to commit was to be taller than Cousins.

Any other views?

I don't particular like Franklin but I cannot believe the tribunal has upheld the decision.

Two weeks is outrageous in my view, the only real crime he seemed to commit was to be taller than Cousins.

Any other views?

No your view is the only one..

R.I.P. Football as we know it.

I blame Anderson & K.B. for this.

The Hawks will fight it.

The rules say what he did is illegal and the tribunal did the right thing in upholding the suspension. Franklin elected to bump insead of tackle so as soon as you hit the head with a bump that was intentional, accidental or negligent, with an arm, hip, shoulder, head or whatever then he has committed a reportable offence.

If you don't like the rule then its a different question entirely, but the tribunal made the right decision.

But it's laid out very clearly - if you elect to bump when you could have tackled then you'd better make sure you don't make any contact to the head under any circumstances.

Buddy should have tackled him. Hawks would be wasting their time appealling.

Edited August 25, 200915 yr by Axis of Bob

Why you little, K.B. actually had nothing to do with this rule, this was Anderson, K.B. said on his show that by the letter of the law that anderson bought in after the maxwell incident that he has to go but does not believe franklin should go.

Why you little, K.B. actually had nothing to do with this rule, this was Anderson, K.B. said on his show that by the letter of the law that anderson bought in after the maxwell incident that he has to go but does not believe franklin should go.

Fair enough, but i thought i heard Patrick Smith getting stuck into KB this morning about it (I was Half Asleep tho!)

I stand corrected sorry KB...Still a crap rule change.

The rule is ordinary in the context of what happened in this incident but it's the rule and the decision is correct. The Hawks should be focussing now on a game they need to win to make the finals instead of on tribunal matters.

Both patrick and KB think by the letter of the law he had to get suspended, but by the spirit he shouldnt, [censored] rule by [censored] people (anderson and vlad)

The head should be protected and I think the maxwell one was worse as he lined him up, franklins was a split second and cousins was dodging as well.

They got this wrong.

Surely they would appeal though, what's there to lose?

Perhaps I misdirected my frustration - in my view there's no way this should have been a suspension.

The points system helps to categorise and clarify to an extent, the tribunal should essentially be a common sense committee IMO.

The tribunal is there to judge whether or not the player has broken the laws of the game. The law clearly shows that he has acted illegally and committed a reportable offence.

As I said, if you don't like the law then that's a completely different argument. But the tribunal IMO made the only decision they could make.

The bigger issue (although fortuitous for us) was the non-suspension of Montagna for that shocking trip. That was an atrocious decision.

Evidently I have a problem with the rule then.

Yeah Montagna should have gone for that, Dustin Fletcher has done the same a few times and missed games for it.

I am actually disgusted that the AFL has gone down this path.

This was one of the fairest bumps you'll see. Buddy made sure his elbow etc were out of the way...

Whelan would get 8 weeks for his hit on Hird in this day...

The rules say what he did is illegal and the tribunal did the right thing in upholding the suspension. Franklin elected to bump insead of tackle so as soon as you hit the head with a bump that was intentional, accidental or negligent, with an arm, hip, shoulder, head or whatever then he has committed a reportable offence.

If you don't like the rule then its a different question entirely, but the tribunal made the right decision.

But it's laid out very clearly - if you elect to bump when you could have tackled then you'd better make sure you don't make any contact to the head under any circumstances.

Buddy should have tackled him. Hawks would be wasting their time appealling.

I think its very easy to say he "Should have Tackled" when sitting on a couch watching Video.

Both Players were moving, dodging & Weaving, Franklins biggest Crime was that he was Taller than Cousins.

Who hasn't been run into on a dance floor at a night club?? There was no malice involved.

I don't Blame the Tribunial, they just did there job.

The Rule Makers, well that's a different story.

Sad Day For Australian Rules Football 25-08-09 :angry:

The rules say he should have tackled. I agree that he should have tackled.

It looked spectacular but it was just an ego moment for Buddy. He had an option to tackle. Look at the video - he had his arms open to tackle and then decided that he would prefer to tuck his left side in to bump Cousins. He actually had to stop trying to tackle Cousins in order to bump him. It was harder to bump him than to tackle him!

People bump into each other on a dancefloor because they don't know they are there. They're distracted by other things! Buddy knew where he was, he knew where Cousins was, and his selfish act of testosterone fuelled ego has severely impacted on his teams chances of playing finals this year.

He should have tackled.

The rules say he should have tackled. I agree that he should have tackled.

It looked spectacular but it was just an ego moment for Buddy. He had an option to tackle. Look at the video - he had his arms open to tackle and then decided that he would prefer to tuck his left side in to bump Cousins. He actually had to stop trying to tackle Cousins in order to bump him. It was harder to bump him than to tackle him!

People bump into each other on a dancefloor because they don't know they are there. They're distracted by other things! Buddy knew where he was, he knew where Cousins was, and his selfish act of testosterone fuelled ego has severely impacted on his teams chances of playing finals this year.

He should have tackled.

Cousins like Ablett is a class act & is actually very hard to retard with Tackles. He always gets the Ball away.

Buddy's hip & shoulder was a fair way to dislodge the ball as his arm was tucked in.

Maybe its just that i come from an earlier decade, but i disagree with the Rule Being the way it is when players can be all different hieghts.

If cousins did the same to Fanklin nobody would have said a word.

Because, as the rule says, Cousins would not have hit him in the head. They only would have talked about why Cousins didn't tackle Buddy but rather tried to be a hero by bumping him.

And saying Cousins is hard to tackle is no reason to say why someone shouldn't tackle him. It is a horrible argument. Just appalling. A better way to stop Cousins other than tackling him would be shoot him repeatedly in the testicles with a spear gun and then sever both his legs with a chainsaw, but it doesn't mean that you're allowed to do it!

Because, as the rule says, Cousins would not have hit him in the head. They only would have talked about why Cousins didn't tackle Buddy but rather tried to be a hero by bumping him.

And saying Cousins is hard to tackle is no reason to say why someone shouldn't tackle him. It is a horrible argument. Just appalling. A better way to stop Cousins other than tackling him would be shoot him repeatedly in the testicles with a spear gun and then sever both his legs with a chainsaw, but it doesn't mean that you're allowed to do it!

Tackling is not the only way to dispossess an opponent of the ball, one doesn't have to go to Bunnings Hardware to do it!!

Hip & Shoulders have always been legitimate when executed properly, you are saying because of heights there are 2 sets of rules on the field now.

One rule - don't hit the head!

One rule - don't hit the head!

I know the Rule, it should have the word "intent" in front of it.

That Game earlier this year between Brissy & Richmond when those two kids knocked each other out on the wing, Should they have both been reported & suspended for two weeks as well?

the intent should dictate the suspension. As it is the rule sucks.

They were both contesting the ball. The rule states that if you elect to bump and hit someone in the head then it's reportable if you had an option to either a) tackle the player or, B) contest the football.

Rance and Selwood were both contesting the football therefore their actions were perfectly legal.

I don't have a problem with the rule. It's simple - if you elect to bump then don't hit them in the head.

They were both contesting the ball. The rule states that if you elect to bump and hit someone in the head then it's reportable if you had an option to either a) tackle the player or, B) contest the football.

Rance and Selwood were both contesting the football therefore their actions were perfectly legal.

I don't have a problem with the rule. It's simple - if you elect to bump then don't hit them in the head.

Funny how the Umps didn't even pay a free kick to cousins on saturday night, let alone lay a report!!!

Anderson has everyone so confused, i understand your point of view but i still say the word intent should be used.

Franklin did not intend to hit ben in the head, yes he did it but there should always be circumstances.

When a player has intent, its easy to see-they deserve suspension.

Evidently I have a problem with the rule then.

You're not the only one. As AoB said it's the rule regarding the head. The Maxwell incident in the NAB Cup forced a change. The Hawks will appeal, but they need to concentrate on beating Essendon.

I am actually disgusted that the AFL has gone down this path.

This was one of the fairest bumps you'll see. Buddy made sure his elbow etc were out of the way...

Whelan would get 8 weeks for his hit on Hird in this day...

His elbow was tucked in, as 45h said, he's guilty of being too tall for Cousins.

Shrug. It's interpretation will no doubt change as the rules have been doing for a while now.

Trip? Think about a trip 5 years ago and you got 4 weeks. Shrug.

Didn't you get the memo?!

Edited August 25, 200915 yr by Trident

I hate Hawthorn more than I do Collingwood.

They are thugs at heart - have been since the 1960s and the fact they boast of unsociable football now is testament to their low down dirty ways.

That said, Franklin's bump was fine. The rule that did him is rubbish.

It's a shame that he's been rubbed out for that because it's taking something from the game that's always been there. On this Mike Sheahan is right.

One rule - don't hit the head!

If it was another 6 feet 5 payer that Franklin had hit we wouldn't be having this conversation. I don't want the game purified and homogenised any further. Incidental head clashes are part of football. Where there is intent or recklessness then action should be taken.

When two players clash and they are standing upright and elbows are down then there would be a reasonable asumption that head contact was unlikely to occur in the circumstances.