47 minutes ago, Dee-monic said:

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?

Or indeed their parents, where acts like Franklin's must make low-contact winter offerings such as soccer increasingly appealing. 

If he gets off they should give him open hands to the chest then chin all night for two hours non stop.... well until we give away the first free kick because of course it's illegal. 

Don’t know how they can argue it was an unintentional strike given it came after the first strike. Perhaps it was the aliens?

Anyway, it’s worth arguing before this AFL Tribunal who have a record of coming up with baffling outcomes.

I want him to get off. We don't need the opposition to be missing players. Also Buddy at the G on a Saturday night....easily brings in an extra 5k at least. Swans fans in Melbourne haven't got to see much Buddy over the past 5-6 years. People literally go to see him. It will be electric if he's playing.

15 minutes ago, praha said:

I want him to get off. We don't need the opposition to be missing players. Also Buddy at the G on a Saturday night....easily brings in an extra 5k at least. Swans fans in Melbourne haven't got to see much Buddy over the past 5-6 years. People literally go to see him. It will be electric if he's playing.

AND we have a resounding 7 goal Win!!! 

Get stuffed all who STILL doubt us!

What time does the tribunal start?

Edited May 31, 20223 yr by The heart beats true

4 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

What time does the tribunal start?

Postponed till tomorrow , swans still looking for the deep fake video

 

32 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

What a joke

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

 

AFL speak for...

"Even with such a learned counsel, more time was needed to concoct a better case for Buddy given the evidence at hand"

46 minutes ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

What a joke

and being a day late doesn't seem to be a good strategy to win over the tribunal members

12 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

and being a day late doesn't seem to be a good strategy to win over the tribunal members

Neither does a dollar short.

3 hours ago, Satan said:

Postponed till tomorrow , swans still looking for the deep fake video

Or dinner at the Melbourne Club!

1 hour ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

What a joke

Easier for the AFL to control the backlash when he gets off with the mid-season draft grabbing all the headlines.

3 hours ago, Satan said:

Postponed till tomorrow , swans still looking for the deep fake video

The one we saw live on TV was the deep fake. The real video has Buddy & Cochin singing hymns together in a choir.

2 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

This is what I hate about sport, “Sydney’s legal representative”….It’s a game. I’ll never forget 2004 when Johnathan Brown in a preliminary final grabbed someone in a headlock from behind then swung them to the ground. Was charged with rough play but got off on a technicality because technically play had stopped. 

58 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

AFL speak for...

"Even with such a learned counsel, more time was needed to concoct a better case for Buddy given the evidence at hand"

"The tribunal members said they didn't see how Buddy could get off, so we're exploring the legality of replacing them with the Swans cheer squad."

5 hours ago, 4_Kent_Watts said:

If he gets off they should give him open hands to the chest then chin all night for two hours non stop.... well until we give away the first free kick because of course it's illegal. 

6 hours ago, praha said:

I want him to get off. We don't need the opposition to be missing players. Also Buddy at the G on a Saturday night....easily brings in an extra 5k at least. Swans fans in Melbourne haven't got to see much Buddy over the past 5-6 years. People literally go to see him. It will be electric if he's playing.

Agreed

a win against the swans will mean a lot more with Buddy playing and we’ll get a bigger crowd. 

6 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Don’t know how they can argue it was an unintentional strike given it came after the first strike. Perhaps it was the aliens?

Anyway, it’s worth arguing before this AFL Tribunal who have a record of coming up with baffling outcomes.

I don’t they will argue the strike itself was unintentional but that the strike to the head was unintentional. 
going by the tribunal record this year, I agree to expect a baffling outcome!

I just don't understand how the Swans feel they are a 50-50 chance for him to get off? He struck him to the head! Good on them for playing the system like a fiddle but gee wiz. 

9 hours ago, DubDee said:

I don’t they will argue the strike itself was unintentional but that the strike to the head was unintentional. 
going by the tribunal record this year, I agree to expect a baffling outcome!

I don't expect any consistency from the tribunal, but if they have their usual focus on outcome rather than intent,  if Sydney take that line of argument,  the outcome was he was hit in the head.

15 hours ago, praha said:

I want him to get off. We don't need the opposition to be missing players. Also Buddy at the G on a Saturday night....easily brings in an extra 5k at least. Swans fans in Melbourne haven't got to see much Buddy over the past 5-6 years. People literally go to see him. It will be electric if he's playing.

All very well, but where do you draw the line as to how strong do you want your opponent to be when you are weakened.  Smacks a bit of Monty Python's Black Knight to me.    With May out, I'd be quite happy for Buddy to be out.  A more even contest. 

As for the possiblity of extra income, it's hardly a moral justification for him getting off.  Maybe weigh that loot against the extra reluctance of parents to let their kids play footy if Buddy gets off.

Sorry to be so short-sighted, I just want to win.   

 

This has nothing to do with playing swannies at less than full strength. It has all to do with the integrity of the AFL rules and tribunal and, in some respects, the future of footy.

For him to get off would be a bad look and would severely diminish the reputation of all concerned.

Here's hoping.

3 minutes ago, sue said:

All very well, but where do you draw the line as to how strong do you want your opponent to be when you are weakened.  Smacks a bit of Monty Python's Black Knight to me.   

Yep.  Happy to see him back and jobbing 8 goals on the G ....just not against us!

P.S. nice analogy 👏🏻