This may seem like a weird question and from a pure football point of view I doubt anyone would like to see Buddy Franklin miss any amount of football from injury or suspension. However if Buddy Franklin gets his suspension overturned from his bump on Ben Cousins, it would be a bad decision by the AFL!
The Bump which could end Buddy's and Hawthorns season.
This is one decision that everyone is watching and talking about.
First let me say that from a pure football point of view I would like to see Lance Buddy Franklin get off without any suspension. However from a technical point of view and for consistency, Lance should be suspended as he broke the law of the game by choosing to bump someone and collecting him high.
The law of the game is that if you choose to bump someone (he had the option to tackle) and collect them high (whether they slip or duck) you run the risk of being sighted by the tribunal. It does not matter if Buddy is 17cm taller than Cousins or that Franklin first collected the shoulder and then the bump went to the head.
Earlier on in the year we had a very similar situation which saw Nick Maxwell get suspended and then get off. To me this is a very similar situation. This is a chance for the AFL, tribunal and the appeal board to work together and make sure that they get it right.
We need consistency with the rules and the tribunal and appeal board and this is a perfect opportunity for it to happen and for them to make a stand on head high contact. Yes it will mean one of the biggest draw cards of the game will be missing from a high cut throat elimination final against Essendon and they will get a mouthful from big mouth Kennett. However if the AFL is serious about head high contact it will be worth the stand.
Loading ...
August 25th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Firstly let me sate that I am a hawks fan.
I also support the rule and if Buddy ends up missing two weeks from this, I understand it and support that it is necessary that edge cases like this occur in order for the rule to work.
I hope though, that he gets off. I note in your piece that you mention that the rule states that if he options, like tackling, that he would be in trouble, but you didn’t mention the other option that the rule mentions and that is that he could play the ball. If I was arguing this at the tribunal two parts of my argument would be:
1) Cousins didn’t have clear possession of the ball so Buddy felt if he tackled (with the way the umpires hate him) they would have paid holding the man
2) He played the ball. In fact his elbow hit the ball away from Cousins and it spilled out to his team mates who scored the goal.
As for your reference to the Maxwell case there are a couple of important differences (for the reason of completeness I mention them):
1) Cousins was up right trying to handle the ball, mcGinnity was bending to get the ball
2) Cousins was touching the ball at about the time he hit, McGinnity was a few meters away from the ball
3) Maxwell got off because the Tribunal made an error of law in the tribunal case that gave the Appeals board the chance to give their opinion of the case and they found it wasn’t an offense
4) (and most importantly when considering why the Maxwell case is in no way related to the buddy case) The laws where changed after the Maxwell case meaning that it has no precedence to this case
Hopefully buddy gets off, but even if he does, I think the Bombers are likely to be too quick for us anyway.
GO HAWKS.
Molly
Phillip Molly Malone´s last blog ..AFL Teams – Round 21, 2009 – Nobodies Perfect, Not even a perfect Fool
[Reply to Comment]
August 25th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
@Phillip – Thanks for taking the time to write what you did especially your views on the Maxwell/ McGinnity incident.
You can always let the tackle slip if Cousins lost control of the ball, from what I can see Cousins had enough control of the ball to be tackled. I would say most coaches would have preferred him to tackle, as it would open the opportunity for holding or illegal disposal.
and I cannot agree that he played the ball, if he did, he would have tackled but instead he went for the man (bump). It is the same as Glass’ bump on Westhoff a few weeks back but the difference is that Glass did NOT collect his head.
Agree that the situations between Maxwell and Buddy are slightly different but what is similar is the different views of the bump, high impact contact (broken jaw & concussion) and from a high profile club which will argue the case in the media if needed.
Lastly what exactly is the change in the law??
[Reply to Comment]
August 26th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
By the letter of the law, Franklin should get weeks. Typically of a ‘black and white’ solution that doesn’t brook argument or admit fallibility, this law is an ass!
The Maxwell-McGinnity and Franklin-Cousins incidents are as “slightly different” as spring water and Jack Daniels, Jermayn!
aussierulesblog´s last blog ..Flexibility required in head contact decisions
[Reply to Comment]
August 27th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Yes the bump is different but the circumstance of the incident and the road traveled is very similar.
1) Took incident to tribunal, lost and appealed.
2) Both Maxwell and Buddy had the option to do something different than bump McGinnity & Cousins.
3) Both collected the bumpee high.
This is what I was focusing on that these two incidents will change the rules of the bump for ever.
[Reply to Comment]