We are challenging the Buddy ban: Buddy's Tribunal bid: Swans challenge Lance Franklin's striking ban
Rnd 12 Pre-Match Thread, vs Melbourne at MCG, 7:25 PM Saturday 4 June
Collapse
X
-
We're challenging that it was an intentional strike. I think there's an argument it was intended to be a shove which carelessly hit Cotchin high.
Sent from my SM-G973F using TapatalkComment
-
We couldnt even get RB off for a clumsy accident , no chance Lance gets off . It was deliberate and it was high . What was he trying to do ? Swat a fly off Cotchin ? Take the week and move on .Comment
-
I agree with you regarding picking players and then playing them out of position but I suppose it may be a case of it’s better to be selected out of position and get a taste of the top level rather than face the multi season wait that players such as Gould have endured.
His time is coming and he will probably get more games before the end of the season.Comment
-
Just on a purely selfish note I hope we succeed as I am heading down for this game and would love to see him strut his stuff on the G.
It’s possibly the only game I will see in person this year so ideally I want us to to be at as close to full strength as possible.
Having said that I don’t like our chances and my initial impression was that he would possibly get 2 weeks.Comment
-
Trent 'Cotch' Cotchin should get a month for the head butt which got Buddy so angry.Comment
-
That's a fair enough argument. It's worth trying but probably not If it means he'll miss 2 matches if unsuccessful (I'm not sure if that's the case or not).Comment
-
Fair point but just answer this then....if Buddy actually knew he had been paid a free kick.....do you think he would have reacted that way?Comment
-
Comment
-
4 or 5 mid's that are ahead of him? You know Horse is quite conservative when it comes to debutantes, not sure why you would think he would throw a kid in the deep end. Maybe he should but that doesn't seem to be his style.
Fair point but ultimately, defeatist. Don't forget, we got BBBH off for swatting a fly off Maguire's stomach in 2005!
Last edited by stevoswan; 30 May 2022, 04:58 PM.Comment
-
Doesn't work that way anymore. If (when) unsuccessful it will just cost the club the tribunal fee ($10k I think; maybe $20k), which comes out of the soft cap.Comment
-
Roberts didn't primarily play as a forward. He started most centre bounces (when on the ground) on the wing. So he was close enough to the midfield to impact in a midfield kind of way. He didn't. The game seemed just too fast for him. That's OK. McInerney, Warner, Dawson, Smith (Nick), Jack etc didn't exactly shine in their debuts either.
Not everyone can be Errol.Comment
-
He didn't give the umpire time to give him the free kick, he retaliated instinctively and immediately.
Papley had been given a free kick just on 50 and would have had a shot on goal if the Cotchin/Franklin incident didn't occur. Effectively Bud acted knowing we were about to have a shot, so yes, he should have reacted the same. To say he wouldn't have done it had he known that HE had a free kick is worse!Comment
-
Thanks liz, I've heard contradicting statements over the past few days and was unclear as to how it works. Definitely worth taking it to the tribunal in this case.Comment

Comment