Sydney Appealing Buddy Ban

[Demonland 73,140]

Of course they are. I’m appealing May’s concussion  

 

[Fat Tony 5,262]

They will have to argue to force was insufficient. I think the odds are 70/30 in our favour.

[sue 9,143]

Slapping someone once in the heat of the moment is bad enough, but a second go at the head (even if it wasn't a punch) is surely beyond the pale. But nothing is beyond the AFL.

[Wodjathefirst 2,653]

Not that I am a Toby Greene fan in anyway whatsoever, I wonder what chance he would have if he appealed a similar incident.

I think Franklin is a real chance to get off because of his ‘status’ and if that is the case it is a real shame.

If you apply the ‘what message these kind of incidents have on little kids’, this is a no brainer- it deserves a week. 

[david_neitz_is_my_dad 4,084]

They are lucky it wasnt 2 weeks

[Longsufferingnomore 1,640]

21 minutes ago, sue said:

Slapping someone once in the heat of the moment is bad enough, but a second go at the head (even if it wasn't a punch) is surely beyond the pale. But nothing is beyond the AFL.

It's Buddy. Would anything surprise us and the conspiracy theorist in me tells me someone higher up would love to keep a Sydney team in the running.

Edited May 30, 2022 by Longsufferingnomore
mispelling

[Wodjathefirst 2,653]

“We are just going to challenge the MRO's view of whether it's an intentional strike," Swans coach John Longmire told reporters on Monday.

Are they serious?  If he sort of missed hitting him the first time he certainly did better the next try!

[chook fowler 19,546]

Buddy to play. Disco Turner to play his first game on him. What could go wrong!

[Ted Lasso 19,549]

Massive chance he gets off. the AFL would want Buddy playing in a blockbuster Sydney vs Melbourne game. he will be playing.

[Lord Travis 10,763]

2 minutes ago, Wodjathefirst said:

“We are just going to challenge the MRO's view of whether it's an intentional strike," Swans coach John Longmire told reporters on Monday.

Are they serious?  If he sort of missed hitting him the first time he certainly did better the next try!

Challenging it was intentional? He went back for seconds! They should extend the ban purely for the stupidity of challenging on those grounds.

[Lucifers Hero 40,362]

A lesser known player won't get off. 

Buddy had deliberately already struck Cotchin on the chest with an open hand.  The one on the chin again was deliberate with a closed fist.

The Tribunal should give due weight to this being behind play and bad for the optics.  Not to mention potential to do harm

Of course being Buddy those things will be conveniently ignored.

[deeTRACted 406]

You cant just hit someone in the head, even if it is Cotchin

[Neil Crompton 5,619]

7 minutes ago, deeTRACted said:

You cant just hit someone in the head, even if it is Cotchin

Haha that will be his defense - it was only Cotchin. He'll get off for sure.

[daisycutter 29,738]

6 minutes ago, deeTRACted said:

You cant just hit someone in the head, even if it is Cotchin

but.....but......cotchin....c'mon

it's not like he hit a real guy....

didn't he get a medal at the end of the game for hitting cotchin?

[Megatron 886]

25 minutes ago, Dwight Schrute said:

Massive chance he gets off. the AFL would want Buddy playing in a blockbuster Sydney vs Melbourne game. he will be playing.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Sir Why You Little 37,128]

“Yes, it was intensional”. 
he should get an extra 2 weeks for wasting everybody’s time

[Fritta and Turner 4,524]

Downgraded to a fine?

[DubDee 26,117]

Sydney will argue his intention was to hit him again in the chest. in addition to the intention, the force was minimal with Cotchin hardly bothered by it

I reckon he will get off

[Ted Lasso 19,549]

6 minutes ago, Megatron said:

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Let me make it simple for you, all the AFL cares about is $$$$$$ and their integrity is 000000 a top of the table clash between Melbourne and Sydney makes them more $$$$$ if as many of the best players possible, are playing. the integrity of the incident and what the punishment should be, do no matter to the AFL. 

[KysaiahMessiah 725]

6 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Sydney will argue his intention was to hit him again in the chest. in addition to the intention, the force was minimal with Cotchin hardly bothered by it

I reckon he will get off

But if your intention when bumping isn't the head, but you get the head, it's still a suspension, too many grey, interpretive areas

[Demon3 2,541]

MRO is a giant basket case but no way he gets off that.

[dl4e 5,851]

Well just wait and watch. The AFL will screw up my happiness for this week by letting Franklin off the hook. He went to hit him in the head twice and the second one connected. And they say in the AFL the head is sacrosanct but it will be alright for buddy to do a Will Smith on Cotchin.

[picket fence 17,502]

He will play on Saturday night. THE AFL WILL SO DECREE IT🤬

[Scoop Junior 3,513]

21 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Sydney will argue his intention was to hit him again in the chest. in addition to the intention, the force was minimal with Cotchin hardly bothered by it

I reckon he will get off

Not sure the "intention to hit the body" defence will work.

I believe the guidelines say as follows:

• A Player intentionally commits a Classifiable Offence if the Player engages in the conduct constituting the Reportable Offence with the intention of committing that offence

The guidelines then define a reportable offence as including striking.  So if that is correct, the relevant intention is the intention to strike, not the intention to strike a particular part of the body.  This also seems consistent with the way the offence is graded.  As one of the gradings is "high or body" contact, it would seem superfluous to have a contact grading of high or body if the relevant reportable offence was striking the head.

If this is all correct, then I can't see how he gets off on grounds of it not being an intentional strike. It was off the ball (not for example in a marking contest) - what else was his intention if not to strike?

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

If they wheel out the tribunal chairman who found Barry Hall was "in play", and who found Dank guilty of administering TB-4 and Essendon players not guilty of taking it, then the writing will be on the wall.