1 hour ago, Megatron said:

So you’re saying the AFL cares nothing more other than making more $$ when in actual fact it was the AFL that suspended him for 1 match!! Gotcha.

The tribunal is an independent body. If Buddy does get off, the AFL has the ability to appeal as they have done in previous tribunal decisions. 
Is that simple enough for ya?

Hahahaha what world do you live in? the AFL makes no secret about the fact they only care about money. 

there is a huge Tribunal bias towards star players compared to lesser known.. what do you think the difference is if not bums on seats?

3 hours ago, sue said:

BTW I note that the AFL site states that he hit him with an open hand both times.  Has anyone seen any video which shows that or is the AFL up to its usual tricks?  Seemed to me the video was unclear , but that Cotchin's reaction made fist most likely.

edit:add missing words

The footage I saw seemed to be an open hand but regardless, it was intentional and high. 

1 hour ago, Demonstone said:

What Cotchin did is neither here nor there.  

The issue that Sydney is disputing is whether Franklin's action was deliberate.  I can't see how you could possibly argue that it was anything but deliberate.  To me, there are no grounds to uphold the appeal.

I can see lots of grounds to uphold the appeal. Not to be nitpicky about words as we don’t want that sort of stuff on demonland do we, but there is no mention of the word deliberate in the MRP Guidelines.  So if the afl argue deliberate he’ll get off on a technicality.

It’s Intentional or careless.  So Sydney will totally confuse Gleeson by arguing it was both intentional and careless. There is no grading for that! He intentionally decided to whack Cotchin, but intended to whack him in the chest and carelessly got him in the head.  Hence changed from intentional high contact (1 week) to intentional body contact or careless high contact (both are a fine).

I seem to recall Gaff arguing the same thing when he broke Andrew Brayshaws jaw (tried to hit him in the chest). But it didn’t work then so no reason to think it won’t work this time.

Although they essentially have the same meaning,  I incorrectly used the word "deliberate" instead of the appropriate term "intentional" in my take on the matter.

Nevertheless, my opinion is unchanged that Franklin doesn't have a case.

This is not to say that the AFL won't roll over, of course.

4 hours ago, sue said:

BTW I note that the AFL site states that he hit him with an open hand both times.  Has anyone seen any video which shows that or is the AFL up to its usual tricks?  Seemed to me the video was unclear , but that Cotchin's reaction made fist most likely.

edit:add missing words

I think you’re onto something here Sue. Looks like the rhetoric machine has started up.

Was listening to the radio this afternoon and they made a good point that the way the rule is written is that it's irrelevant if it’s an open hand or fist. 
 

1 hour ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

The footage I saw seemed to be an open hand but regardless, it was intentional and high. 

MMA Hall of Famer Bas Rutten was famous for using "Palm Strikes" on opponents.
Just as devastating without the risk of broken hands using a closed fist.
All the open hand talk is irrelevant .... Or should be.
 

 

Edited May 30, 20223 yr by Fork 'em

44 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

I can see lots of grounds to uphold the appeal. Not to be nitpicky about words as we don’t want that sort of stuff on demonland do we, but there is no mention of the word deliberate in the MRP Guidelines.  So if the afl argue deliberate he’ll get off on a technicality.

It’s Intentional or careless.  So Sydney will totally confuse Gleeson by arguing it was both intentional and careless. There is no grading for that! He intentionally decided to whack Cotchin, but intended to whack him in the chest and carelessly got him in the head.  Hence changed from intentional high contact (1 week) to intentional body contact or careless high contact (both are a fine).

I seem to recall Gaff arguing the same thing when he broke Andrew Brayshaws jaw (tried to hit him in the chest). But it didn’t work then so no reason to think it won’t work this time.

Jeff Gleeson QC http://www.barristers.com.au/barristers/jeff-gleeson-qc/

how likely is it that he’ll be confused on this.

 

6 hours ago, Scoop Junior said:

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?

Fantastic summation.

The Guidelines go on to give this not very helpful example: For example, a strike will be regarded as Intentional where a Player delivers a blow to an opponent with the intention of striking him.

To run the intent argument, Franklin has to argue he didn't have the intention of striking Cotchin. This isn't a Hawkins on May 2021 sort of situation. It's a blatantly intentional strike, and as you say, the fact it made high contact rather than to the chest is irrelevant.

If I were Sydney I'd be arguing the force was too low to constitute a reportable offence. Personally, such an argument should go in the bin. If you lash out at someone and you hit them high, you cop your time, like Brown did in the VFL earlier this year.

3 hours ago, Megatron said:

So you’re saying the AFL cares nothing more other than making more $$ when in actual fact it was the AFL that suspended him for 1 match!! Gotcha.

The tribunal is an independent body. If Buddy does get off, the AFL has the ability to appeal as they have done in previous tribunal decisions. 
Is that simple enough for ya?

Lower your eyes a bit

A lot of Swans supporters on the AFL Reddit page are saying Buddy deserved a week, and are annoyed the club is wasting it’s money. 
 

I really can’t see him getting off. Would be a blatant discrediting of the MRO. 

14 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

I really can’t see him getting off. Would be a blatant discrediting of the MRO. 

When's that stopped them before? Not to mention the MRO discredits himself every second week.

His suspension will be set aside. Players such as him and Hawkins, Dangerfield, Lynch are protected species.

Imagine if the player was Nibbler, May or just about any other player on the Melbourne list ...

So annoying.

 

If he gets off….. <finish this sentence>

Now will be heard tomorrow night so Sydney have more time to prepare. The game was last Friday. How long do they need?

13 hours ago, CYB said:

If he gets off….. <finish this sentence>

….Petty will man him up and out system will mean he has a quiet night

Last week Buddy got 4 of his 5 goals against a kid who had played less than 10 games.

Not saying he won't kick a heap vs us but he can be contained.  Play or not we have time to prepare.

39 minutes ago, dees189227 said:

Now will be heard tomorrow night so Sydney have more time to prepare. The game was last Friday. How long do they need?

They need to find a biomechanist who will testify that a closed fist is actually the same thing as an open hand, and that Buddy missed, but the wind from his big paws can cause whiplash. That takes time.

Just now, Mazer Rackham said:

They need to find a biomechanist who will testify that a closed fist is actually the same thing as an open hand, and that Buddy missed, but the wind from his big paws can cause whiplash. That takes time.

Or they need the time to translate the Magna Carta from Latin in a desperate search for the clause:

Stella ludio ludius semper ludere debet tpo ut pecuniam volvens in

(with thanks to google translate).

23 hours ago, Steamin Demon said:

Replace the name Franklin with Chandler and it's a three week sanction.

Substitute “Franklin” for 

Tex Walker

Toby Greene

Liz Cabbage 

Then see the result 

Edited May 31, 20223 yr by radar

Franklin shouldn't get off because the act was exactly the sort of thing that we want to get out of the game, but he will get off because there is a list of precedents a mile long where similar acts were not punished or punished with fines.

I Love Buddy, Love watching him play, but he cant escape this.. not once but twice did he accidentally hit someone in the head.

Edited May 31, 20223 yr by Demon3

18 minutes ago, radar said:

Liz Cabbage 

Leave vegetables out of this.

2 hours ago, dees189227 said:

Now will be heard tomorrow night so Sydney have more time to prepare. The game was last Friday. How long do they need?

a) I haven't read confirmation of this

b) needing more time to prepare the case shouldn't be enough of a reason to extend the hearing. 

If Buddy gets off, the message from the AFL is that it is acceptable to deliberately clip opponents in the face, provided the force used is not excessive, or to claim that the slap or punch was just misdirected. Is this the message the AFL wants to send to the hundreds of thousands of kids playing the game?

Edited May 31, 20223 yr by Dee-monic
correction of punctuation

It’s Buddy, so of course he’ll get off.