Buddy & Tippett

[Wardy]

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.

[lwjoyner]

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.

[i'm-uninformed2]

I can cop where the MRP arrived at with Buddy

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

[jono2707]

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.

[Steve]

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.

[chalbilto]

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.

[Hotpotato]

Healey was funny saying Ireland nearly dislocated his shoulder putting it up to say yup , we will accept one week for each .

I enjoy watching the Odd Couple (Gerard and Robbo) in the man cave , because I can't stand the music on Masterchef .

[liz]

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.

[Meg]

I agree with Steve and Liz, particularly in relation to the Buddy incident. What a lot of people commenting on this seem to be overlooking is that a bump, if executed correctly, is a legitimate footy act (unlike, for example, the use of an elbow or tripping a player). A bump only draws a rough conduct charge if it leads to high contact. So the fact that a bump is in itself intentional should not lead to an intentional grading in a rough contact charge from a head-high bump. It would only be appropriate to use the intentional grading if the MRP were of the opinion that Buddy set out to hit Edwards in the head. Only someone with a very perverse way of looking at the incident could come to that conclusion.

[Bloody Hell]

Thought Buddy 2 and Tippo -0 - so in terms of the Swans is a good result. Tippo's no doing much up forward (*but good in the ruck) and Buddy is carrying the forward line, so it gives Horse a chance, no questions asked, to see what's happening up there.

Step up Rohan, Reid aND ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO PUT THEIR HAND UP.

[Wardy]

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.

I agree regarding Goodes - but on Friday night he, Parkin & Leon Cameron were almost rejoicing and surmising as to how long they felt he'd be out for and why. I think the fact he also referred to buddy and tippet as the Bondi billionaires disappointed me - whilst it's factually wrong, I didn't think he'd stoop to Mcguires level (even though ever so briefly)

[Plugger46]

He'll never take on Eddie Wardy.

He's got most of them covered because he's an intelligent man but as a result, his views on footy are incredibly overrated by the general public.

[Wardy]

He'll never take on Eddie Wardy.

He's got most of them covered because he's an intelligent man but as a result, his views on footy are incredibly overrated by the general public.

I so hope he doesn't refer to
Them as BB's ever again it sounded so wrong coming from him.

[Mug Punter]

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.

Spot on, sure a one week ban would have been quickly accepted for both players.

Some serious bias on this thread, blatant and forgivable

[cos789]

I agree with Steve and Liz, particularly in relation to the Buddy incident. What a lot of people commenting on this seem to be overlooking is that a bump, if executed correctly, is a legitimate footy act (unlike, for example, the use of an elbow or tripping a player). A bump only draws a rough conduct charge if it leads to high contact. So the fact that a bump is in itself intentional should not lead to an intentional grading in a rough contact charge from a head-high bump. It would only be appropriate to use the intentional grading if the MRP were of the opinion that Buddy set out to hit Edwards in the head. Only someone with a very perverse way of looking at the incident could come to that conclusion.

Buddy is a big fellow charging out on a lead then meets a player charging directly towards him.
A bit lower and would that have been legal?
A bit slower to react and there might have been serious head contact.
Could he have tried to do something different and if so what would be the result?
Nobody was stupid enough to stand in front of Plugger's lead.

On a more general note, there is a trend to lower scoring and it's no wonder if you are not going to protect players whose intent is to mark the ball.