Rnd 12 Pre-Match Thread, vs Melbourne at MCG, 7:25 PM Saturday 4 June

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • longmile
    Crumber
    • Apr 2011
    • 3362

    #61
    We are challenging the Buddy ban: Buddy's Tribunal bid: Swans challenge Lance Franklin's striking ban

    Comment

    • MattW
      Veterans List
      • May 2011
      • 4195

      #62
      Originally posted by Goal Sneak
      Given we couldn't get Rowbottom out of his charge, it seems unlikely he'll escape any suspension (Although I don't underestimate the pull of seeing Buddy play at the MCG in what should be a huge game).
      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 Tapatalk

      Comment

      • TheBloods
        Suspended by the MRP
        • Feb 2020
        • 2047

        #63
        Originally posted by MattW
        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 Tapatalk
        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

        • Faunac8
          Senior Player
          • Mar 2014
          • 1548

          #64
          Originally posted by TheBloods
          Then dont select him . Simple. We cant have it both ways and not everyone can be like Mills . You cant like someones form in one position then expect them to pick up a new position on debut !

          What was stopping us from putting him in the mids can i ask ?
          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

          • Faunac8
            Senior Player
            • Mar 2014
            • 1548

            #65
            Originally posted by TheBloods
            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 .
            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

            • barry
              Veterans List
              • Jan 2003
              • 8499

              #66
              Originally posted by TheBloods
              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 .
              Trent 'Cotch' Cotchin should get a month for the head butt which got Buddy so angry.

              Comment

              • Goal Sneak
                Out of Bounds on the Full
                • Jun 2006
                • 653

                #67
                Originally posted by MattW
                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
                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

                • stevoswan
                  Veterans List
                  • Sep 2014
                  • 8545

                  #68
                  Originally posted by Goal Sneak
                  I didn't call Buddy dumb, I said his actions were dumb. BIG difference.

                  Buddy, as a senior player, knows better. If you know better and act in a way that contradicts that knowledge, then you are acting in a dumb manner.
                  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

                  • Ruck'n'Roll
                    Ego alta, ergo ictus
                    • Nov 2003
                    • 3990

                    #69
                    Originally posted by barry
                    Trent 'Cotch' Cotchin should get a month for the head butt which got Buddy so angry.
                    And Brent Staker should have been given 6 weeks for hanging onto Barry Hall and making him angry.

                    Comment

                    • stevoswan
                      Veterans List
                      • Sep 2014
                      • 8545

                      #70
                      Originally posted by TheBloods
                      Then dont select him . Simple. We cant have it both ways and not everyone can be like Mills . You cant like someones form in one position then expect them to pick up a new position on debut !

                      What was stopping us from putting him in the mids can i ask ?
                      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.

                      Originally posted by TheBloods
                      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 .
                      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

                      • Maltopia
                        Senior Player
                        • Apr 2016
                        • 1556

                        #71
                        I will support TB in a way on this. If they keep picking Bell and Roberts to play as a forward in the 1s, then it should be on the back of them playing that same position really well, week in week out in the 2s.

                        Comment

                        • liz
                          Veteran
                          Site Admin
                          • Jan 2003
                          • 16739

                          #72
                          Originally posted by Goal Sneak
                          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).
                          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

                          • liz
                            Veteran
                            Site Admin
                            • Jan 2003
                            • 16739

                            #73
                            Originally posted by Maltopia
                            I will support TB in a way on this. If they keep picking Bell and Roberts to play as a forward in the 1s, then it should be on the back of them playing that same position really well, week in week out in the 2s.
                            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

                            • Goal Sneak
                              Out of Bounds on the Full
                              • Jun 2006
                              • 653

                              #74
                              Originally posted by stevoswan
                              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?
                              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

                              • Goal Sneak
                                Out of Bounds on the Full
                                • Jun 2006
                                • 653

                                #75
                                Originally posted by liz
                                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.
                                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

                                Working...