Tippetts elbow?

[GVGjr]

Can anyone really defend the decision that Kurt Tippett gets just one week for his elbow against Richmond's Dylan Grimes?

I don't get how the AFL can say it only warrants a one week penalty.

[bulldogtragic]

If that was a dogs player, in my heart of hearts, that's two/three weeks. In my heart of hearts, if it were a dogs player then that's what the MRP would've done. I think the elbow remains the biggest act of bastardry in our game, that it goes unpunished is not good for the game.

[bornadog]

But was it careless or deliberate? I think it makes a difference.

[bulldogtragic]

But was it careless or deliberate? I think it makes a difference.

The ball was about 60cm away from where an attempted punch would be. Any guilty person would say it was careless. I would say assessment of where the ball was and what was reasonable would on the balance of probability would lead one to conclude it wasn't a careless act.

[GVGjr]

But was it careless or deliberate? I think it makes a difference.

Lewis and Tippett have gotten off very lightly. Perhaps careless or deliberate aren't the right words. I'd say it was dangerous.

[Ozza]

I thought at the time that Tippett's was worth 1, and Buddy's worth 2.

[Twodogs]

Can anyone really defend the decision that Kurt Tippett gets just one week for his elbow against Richmond's Dylan Grimes?

I don't get how the AFL can say it only warrants a one week penalty.

The only comment I've got to make is once again, well twice again, it's Swans players benefitting from farcically inadequate tribunal penalties.

[mjp]

Both decisions were bad. Franklin clearly lined up Edwards and ran past the ball - it was intentional and should have been rated as such. Tippett's was more careless than anything (read STUPID) but it was high and - based on the Lewis decision, he should have gotten at least 2 weeks.

Death, taxes and mystifying tribunal decisions?

[jeemak]

I think Tippett knew precisely what he was doing and as such should have been handed no less than two weeks.

How someone can run past a contest and be lucky not to cause concussion via a bump and only get one week is beyond me.

[westdog54]

Both decisions were bad. Franklin clearly lined up Edwards and ran past the ball - it was intentional and should have been rated as such. Tippett's was more careless than anything (read STUPID) but it was high and - based on the Lewis decision, he should have gotten at least 2 weeks.

Death, taxes and mystifying tribunal decisions?

Yep, Franklin's definitely deliberate contact.

He's become a lazy thug with his body to body contesting, has pretty much dropped the tackle from his repertoire.

If he actually leans down to take possession of the ball, he hits Edwards fair and square down the middle.

[Twodogs]

Yep, Franklin's definitely deliberate contact.

He's become a lazy thug with his body to body contesting, has pretty much dropped the tackle from his repertoire.

If he actually leans down to take possession of the ball, he hits Edwards fair and square down the middle.

An inevitable consequence of the lax penalties handed down to Sydney players in general for acts that deserved harsher. Buddy can do what he likes.

[Scorlibo]

I'm way more concerned with Franklin's bump than Tippett's elbow. Franklin's was a very heavy hit, utterly intentional and to the head. One week? He intentionally subjected Shane Edwards to the same danger as Brent Staker circa 2008.

I agree that Tippett's penalty is too light but think that, on the basis of clear intention (we can all only speculate on the malice of Tippett in that contest), the severity of offence is less than in the case of Jordan Lewis.

[westdog54]

The other interesting comparison has been with the Bryce Gibbs tackle. FWIW Here's my take:

Gibbs' tackle has been described as a good hard tackle. It wasn't a good tackle at all. It was poor technique and was downright dangerous. He didn't try and bring the player to ground, he picked him up and forcefully threw him, head first, into the turf.

Look at every tackle Tony Liberatore ever made. I don't think you'll ever see anything even closely resembling that.

In both codes of rugby, if you lofty a player beyond the horizontal in a tackle, it is YOUR responsibility to bring him to ground safely. Fall to do so and you're on report as a bare minimum.

At the end of the day it was a head first throw, not a tackle.

[Remi Moses]

If I hear one more Carlton moan on the Gibbs Tackle
I'll Wallace 1996
Buddy should have got 3 weeks and Tippet about two.

[SonofScray]

I'd rather see Gibbs tackle get a softer/no penalty as it is a skill of the game that has been executed poorly than see an elbow strike, not a skill a skill of the game treated as minor because it didn't end up hurting the opponent.

[bornadog]

I'd rather see Gibbs tackle get a softer/no penalty as it is a skill of the game that has been executed poorly than see an elbow strike, not a skill a skill of the game treated as minor because it didn't end up hurting the opponent.

Can't agree at all. Gibbs initial tackle, yes but then the action to drive his head into the turf is just plain dangerous. As for Tippett, it was entirely careless, he was running in to spoil and was late and hit the player with his elbow. That will happen plenty of times in a game due to the nature of the way the game is played. He just has to take more care when going for the spoil.

In regards to Franklin, basically due to his size, he has no hope of bumping a player at all. (unless its Sandilands).

He cannot get on his knees to bump an Edwards for example, he just has to go for the tackle and forget the bump.

[Doc26]

My issue is more with the silly discounting applied to incidents that either cause or have the potential to cause injury such as with Buddy's and Tippet's incidents. Just make a ruling that these or similar type of incidents cannot have a discount applied and leave it at 2 weeks as in these cases. To discourage frivolous appeals, make a ruling that if they wish to contest it, and their defense fails then they risk an additional points loading.

[LostDoggy]

I watched both several times and in slow mo. Not sure what Tippet was doing besides wildly flayling, he wasn't looking at the player.

Franklin took his eye off the ball and lined up a very dangerous hit.

I could live with Tippets one as I have no idea what he the uncoordinated former crow was actually trying to do. Franklin should be made an example of. Can I appeal??

[Sedat]

Any truth to the rumour that Sydney are going to appeal the Tippett decision and try to get a lengthier suspension? Surely it punishes Sydney more to have him back in the side after only 1 week.

[Twodogs]

Any truth to the rumour that Sydney are going to appeal the Tippett decision and try to get a lengthier suspension? Surely it punishes Sydney more to have him back in the side after only 1 week.

Maybe they won't have to pay him the stupid match payments they committed to him when he is suspended? A lengthier suspenstion might help with their TPP :)

[Sedat]

Maybe they won't have to pay him the stupid match payments they committed to him when he is suspended? A lengthier suspenstion might help with their TPP :)
Like your lateral thinking there Twodogs :)

[Twodogs]

Like your lateral thinking there Twodogs :)

I know, right?

And some people don't take me seriously...

[westdog54]

Can't agree at all. Gibbs initial tackle, yes but then the action to drive his head into the turf is just plain dangerous. As for Tippett, it was entirely careless, he was running in to spoil and was late and hit the player with his elbow. That will happen plenty of times in a game due to the nature of the way the game is played. He just has to take more care when going for the spoil.

In regards to Franklin, basically due to his size, he has no hope of bumping a player at all. (unless its Sandilands).

He cannot get on his knees to bump an Edwards for example, he just has to go for the tackle and forget the bump.

The worst thing about Franklin's bump wax that he had an opportunity to take possession of the ball and made a clear decision to bump a considerably smaller player.

That's intentional contact, not careless.

[LostDoggy]

Any other club,player that arn't regarded as A grade and both acts would have been 2 to 3 weeks minimum.
Just another example of the AFL protecting their foreign(interstate) marketing and branding.

[bornadog]

The worst thing about Franklin's bump wax that he had an opportunity to take possession of the ball and made a clear decision to bump a considerably smaller player.

That's intentional contact, not careless.

I agree, never said it was careless. I said due to his size he needs to forget the bump as it is almost impossible to bump with his frame. He must go the tackle.

[westdog54]

I agree, never said it was careless. I said due to his size he needs to forget the bump as it is almost impossible to bump with his frame. He must go the tackle.

I get what you are saying but even the tackle wouldn't have helped him. If he takes the ball he probably still flattens Edwards fair and square. Took the soft option instead.

[Maddog37]

That was a full on brain fart by Buddy. Not sure Tippett has a brain........

[bornadog]

I get what you are saying but even the tackle wouldn't have helped him. If he takes the ball he probably still flattens Edwards fair and square. Took the soft option instead.

I am talking in general, he should never ever bump, he should be going for tackles in the future. He has done what he did to Edwards several times in his career.

[westdog54]

I am talking in general, he should never ever bump, he should be going for tackles in the future. He has done what he did to Edwards several times in his career.

And he hasn't learned his lesson yet.